PDA

View Full Version : Does JADE need more complex combat?



Tannis
04-18-2008, 09:24 PM
Compared to ADOM that is.

ADOM is a fairly complex game in almost every facet, but I think it could go slightly deeper. In ADOM, you choose a weapon to work with, and you choose a tactical setting. I personally use normal tactics against most things, berserk against easy things or when I'm desperate, and defensive against monsters that I really don't want to hit me. But besides choosing weapon type and tactics, there's not much more to combat in ADOM.

But here's the deal. You attack monsters thousands of times in an average game. So if combat was more complex, requiring multiple steps just to hit one monster it would get very very tedious to play out a large battle. I think I have a nice way to make combat more complex without bogging down the game.

The first thing to add is combat skills. You could learn these skills as you level up, train at guilds, or train with special NPCS. When I say combat skills, think of the class skills for the Fighter from ADOM, like the stun move or the circular blow. You could activate them by hitting control x, and different strokes or moves would add complexity to combat. Some blows would be like the barbarian's skill, hitting harder but slower, some could be like the fighter or monk's skill, targeting multiple opponents, and some could be the inverse of the barbarian skill, striking faster but doing less damage. With this system diversity and depth is added to your combat choices, but it's not something you have to necessarily do everytime you attack.

Another way to add depth to combat is an option to target specific body parts. In ADOM, you attack a monster by walking into it, and it should be like this in JADE. Another option I feel like should be a targeted attack. For example, when standing next to a monster you could hit a command, let's say ctr T, and it would then prompt you which body part: 1 for head, 2 for chest, 3 for lower body. The effectiveness of this could be determined by your weapon and the time of monster you face. An axe against humanoids could do best when aimed at the neck. A dagger against an armored foe could do best when aimed for the lower body, where you try to slip the dagger into a spot not covered by the plate.

Does anyone like these ideas, especially the 2nd one, or is it needless complication?

Sradac
04-18-2008, 09:28 PM
Omega had the targeted combat system, you would choose if you wanted to strike high, middle, or low on the enemy and you aslo chose where you wanted to block high middle or low. It worked out pretty good if you got used to it.

Chaine
04-18-2008, 09:40 PM
I think there could be some deeper system, but you shouldn't have to use it.
I'd love to have "'S'kill moves" (you don't do anything on useful on S, right?) as you said; spinning, stunning, attempting to hit a critical location, fast cutting combos to make oppotents bleed to death. I'd also like some more advanced tactics, just not defensive-agressive but fighting quick/weak or slow/strong - or some different stances or something.
It shouldn't be too complicated though as switching styles for each different monster type you encounter would be a big pain - if you for example encounter a quick pixie, then a slow ogre, then an elf, then another pixie, then something really slow again.

Tannis
04-18-2008, 09:53 PM
I think there could be some deeper system, but you shouldn't have to use it.
I'd love to have "'S'kill moves" (you don't do anything on useful on S, right?) as you said; spinning, stunning, attempting to hit a critical location, fast cutting combos to make oppotents bleed to death. I'd also like some more advanced tactics, just not defensive-agressive but fighting quick/weak or slow/strong - or some different stances or something.
It shouldn't be too complicated though as switching styles for each different monster type you encounter would be a big pain - if you for example encounter a quick pixie, then a slow ogre, then an elf, then another pixie, then something really slow again.

I think we're all in agreement that it should be logical and fluid, and shouldn't bog the game down. You also gave me a good idea. Targeting body parts and combat skills could be combined into one. You hit ctrl x and could see options like stun or whirlwind blow, but could also see target head, target chest. An elegant solution.

Chaine
04-18-2008, 10:49 PM
I think we're all in agreement that it should be logical and fluid, and shouldn't bog the game down. You also gave me a good idea. Targeting body parts and combat skills could be combined into one. You hit ctrl x and could see options like stun or whirlwind blow, but could also see target head, target chest. An elegant solution.

I was just thinking of an "attack critical" (critical, vital or weak location) attack, which when used automatically targets the monsters weak spot if it is known. For example an "attack critical" move versus a human would target the throat or heath, one versus a cyclops would target the eye, one versus a demon would target the head and so on.
You simply choose "attack critical" from a skill list or something and "You aim for the goblin slavemasters throat and perfectly slit it with a smooth move. The goblin slavemaster collapses on the ground", or "You reach as high as you can and stab the cyclops in the eye, it staggers [and takes critical damage]".
Either that or you could choose to target a certain body part yourself, like the eyes, face, chest, tail and such.
I still love the idea of being able to stun enemies with attacks, that would be really fun.

Grey
04-19-2008, 03:26 AM
TB stated in another post that he was hoping to have special effects from higher weapon skills like stunning, causing bleeding etc, and I assume things appropriate to the different types of weapon. Personaly I'd like to see more distinguishment between how the different weapons operate. Like daggers should be fast but low on damage. Axes should be slow and easily dodged, but do high damage with a chance to pierce armour. Would make choosing between weapons more complex than simply which causes the most damage.

Would also be nice to see some relationship between magic and melee. Casting a temporary fire hands intrinsic that causes fire damage with all your attacks for instance. Or imbuing your weapon with holy magic that paralyses undead/demons. Or other stuff like simple temporary speed or strength boosts. These could spice up combat a little bit.

Elone
04-19-2008, 03:35 AM
Grey keeps giving valid points. Not only that weapons' worth was measured by its raw damage (or optionally the penetration suffix), but a warrior cant find enough spells to augment self or own weaponry. An Archer could benefit from Farsight greatly, but I dont see other huge examples now. Every weapon should have a special trait which makes them worth using, and then tweak those traits to equal each other as much as possible. I like the idea: spears pierce thru PV, hammers stun, daggers make bleeding damage.

They could all have a percentage of dealing those effects, in addition to skills or critical attacks that an adventurer would land.

Frozen dagger, flaming dagger, acid-dripping dagger. Or sword, or guisarme. Enchantment can add elemental damage to a melee weapon. That's a small detail, but it will be much more noticeable once someone multiclasses and decides that it's rather useful.

Interesting.

F50
04-19-2008, 06:30 PM
I would prefer the standard ADOM DV bonus to spears rather than PV piercing.

reich
04-19-2008, 09:02 PM
the reason why pole arms give such a big DV bonus while wielded one-handed was always a mystery to me. That should change in AdoM 2 IMO.

Grey
04-19-2008, 10:21 PM
The longer range means you can keep more space around yourself. The enemy can't attack you very easily with a 6 foot pole sticking in his face. Perhaps though the bonus should be severely reduced when surrounded.

reich
04-19-2008, 10:49 PM
yeah, but the spear is kind of long and unwieldy and not to good to block or parry incoming attacks, especially when the enemy has closed in already.

Elone
04-19-2008, 11:50 PM
Actually it's easy to defend with a light and wieldy polearm in melee. In ADOM1, the same bonus applies to DV against missiles. Not okay. But in melee? I tried defending (in a sparring) with a single long staff and it worked wonders. It takes a bit of practice, but then again it also takes practice in ADOM1, doesnt it?

And definitely add Grey's point. Not my intention to troll, but that guy keeps giving valid points outta blue, ones that never crossed my mind earlier. Yes, range matters in offense.

Grey
04-20-2008, 12:08 AM
ADOM's attack interface (inherently realistic I'll admit) implies one attack after another. So each round is a fresh forward charge. Someone with a spear has an obvious advantage here in restricting their enemy's offense. In roguelikes there's no real sense of an interactive melee, in which a spear-user will have a good initial advantage that'll be lost after the enemy gets up close.

F50
04-20-2008, 12:25 AM
In ADOM1, the same bonus applies to DV against missiles. Yeah, that could be changed.
I tried defending (in a sparring) with a single long staff and it worked wonders. It takes a bit of practice, but then again it also takes practice in ADOM1, doesnt it? Staff is an excellent weapon, as is spear. It irks me when people talk about spears as inferior to swords (swords have their advantages, but are not strictly superior to spears), something I was glad to see fixed in ADOM. However, it is improper to all JADE ADOM2 (implied by calling ADOM "ADOM1") as noted by the So Sayeth the Creator thread.

I too like the ADOM attack interface. The main thing that I think could be improved is that the penalty to being attacked on multiple fronts is very low.

EDIT:

Perhaps a front system could be implemented like this:

Define the "front degree" of a situation as the amount of rotation required to defend against all attacking monsters.

The front degree of the following is 5


.d.
.@.
.d.

whereas the front degree of this is 3


.d.
.@d
...

and this degree is 7


.d.
d@d
.d.


As long as the front degree is 2 or less there is no penalty. The total degree of a situation is reduced by one if you have a shield and the amount of degree necessary to incur a penalty is increased by one if you wield a spear.

If the degree is more than the allowed amount there is a penalty. The degree is like a multiplier. For each monster -1 DV multiplied by the degree. Thus a degree 5 situation with 2 monsters is -2*5=-10 DV. So if you are surrounded, then it is 8*8=-64 DV

This is not an unduly large punishment. If you are surrounded you should expect to be hit lots and conversely, if you have all of your enemies coming from one direction, you should expect not to suffer large DV penalties (3 enemies in optimum position is -9DV, 4 is -16).

reich
04-20-2008, 12:57 AM
I tried defending (in a sparring) with a single long staff and it worked wonders. It takes a bit of practice, but then again it also takes practice in ADOM1, doesnt it?
Staff is an excellent weapon, as is spear. It irks me when people talk about spears as inferior to swords, something I was glad to see fixed in ADOM

Well, a staff is something different than a spear, true that it is a good defensive weapon, but I think that's because how you hold it - in both hands, and you can get it sideways to block an attack. And AdoM gives you this the DV bonus for a single-handed spear.

I see a spear as more of a rank-and-file weapon. Paired with a shield, it's great for a group of soldiers who make a tight and spiky defensive formation, like the greek hoplites.

But not really all that great for individual heroics.

Grey
04-20-2008, 02:26 AM
As long as the front degree is 2 or less there is no penalty. The total degree of a situation is reduced by one if you have a shield and the amount of degree necessary to incur a penalty is increased by one if you wield a spear.

If the degree is more than the allowed amount there is a penalty. The degree is like a multiplier. For each monster -1 DV multiplied by the degree. Thus a degree 5 situation with 2 monsters is -2*5=-10 DV. So if you are surrounded, then it is 8*8=-64 DV

I very much like this idea. Makes a lot of sense, and adds real gameplay dynamic. Perhaps with higher speed or skill the DV penalty would be reduced (I'm thinking more for gameplay reasons than realism reasons to be honest). Wizards and such would suffer from this more than fighting classes (as they alrady do in ADOM).

I also feel that when surrounded monsters should have a higher chance of criticals, so they can get around high PV. One thing that's really lacking in ADOM is the idea that a lion can be taken down by a pack of wolves - something which is very true in nature. In ADOM a character with strong defenses will always beat a horde surrounding him/her. With extra criticals when surrounded a tougher character will find monsters around him managing to break through his protection more often and gradually tearing him down. Of course we don't want it too easy to get killed (there's plenty of ways already) but it would discourage reckless play with even more powerful PCs and make the likes of temples more dangerous. In JADE this could be tied in with monster AIs trying to outflank the PC and get him on each side.

F50
04-20-2008, 05:21 AM
But not really all that great for individual heroics.
Part of the problem is what is defined as "spear". Greek hoplites did not wield spears, they wielded *pikes* (at least all but the front row did), which are only useful in formations (though not just against cavalry). A one-person spear is either:

1. moderately heavy. In two hands, this is very much like a staff with a pointy bit on the end. With a shield you'll have slightly less maneuverability, and will probably have a disadvantage against swordsmen but you can be very effective against anything with less than superhuman strength (giants, molochs etc.) if you have something to use instead of a formation (like dungeon walls).

2. moderately light. If this is wielded with two hands, the wielder must outmaneuver his opponent. If this is wielded with a (esp. light) shield, it can be especially dangerous as the shield allows the user to have some time to get away or reposition the spear as to be dangerous at close quarters (arm way back etc.) and is very hard for an unshielded foe to approach.

I would prefer a light spear with shield, otherwise you have to much more skilled to stay alive.

Concerning crits:

At the close range fighting offered by being surrounded, the PC's sword/dagger/desperation makes scoring crits more likely for the PC as well as for the other monsters (Obviously more for the monsters than the PC). I suggest that the increasing criticals factor for the player be increased by 1/3 of the amount of the monsters. In worst case 8*8 scenario given no reductions, at least 75% of monster hits should be crits (25% for the player).

I also noticed my function gives smaller penalties than I would like.

Consider a shielded PC with 7 monsters around him. This guarantees a degree of 7 thus the equation is 6*7=-42DV. This is for being almost completely surrounded. With six (degree 7) its 6*6= -36DV and with five (degree 7) its 6*5=-30DV. This is still a significant penalty, and probably sufficient for a level 32-40 (ADOM-scale) fighter, but not for a level 6 weakling.

Furthermore, what happens if you're double wielding?

reich
04-20-2008, 01:44 PM
This concept of surrounding by monsters is very good, because it is done without having to introduce the front- and backside of PC!!

Grey
04-20-2008, 03:00 PM
Furthermore, what happens if you're double wielding?

I'd say similar to the ADOM system but with greater DV bonuses, especially with lighter weapons. Would possibly reduce enemy criticals since they won't take so many chances with two blades sticking in their faces.

Tannis
04-20-2008, 03:55 PM
Wow, great discussion guys. I really like F50's thoughts on the impact of being surrounded on a weapon's DV value.

For the record, I personally i think the main advantage of a spear should be its reach. Instead of representing this with a high dv value, I think a skilled spearsman should be able to attack targets not just adjacent to them but also one square a way. If anyone's ever played Crawl, kind of like the bonus offered by a spear of reaching. When the monster is one square away you can hit him and he can't touch you. Once the gap is closed, the advantage of the spear is gone.

F50
04-20-2008, 05:25 PM
but that's not how a spear works. If a person manages to stay up really close to you then you have a severe disadvantage. Spear combat is about one person closing the range and the other creating distance.

goblin: jumps past spear, attempts a strike
PC: blocks with shield, steps back while striking at goblin
repeat.

Besides, if it spears hit from a distance, then you start stepping back one square every time a monster gets near you, and that could be overpowered/cheesy. What happens when a monster wields a spear, you didn't think they could attack you from that range? Sorry, remember to always [l]ook at the monster you fight. I think you are confusing spear and pike, as the pike actually does act like this, except you aren't going to be moving very fast with a pike, so it would make sense to graphically represent this on the dungeon square.

The DV of the spear comes from its reach, the spearholder wanting to maintain the distance, and the swordsman, wanting to close in, but having trouble because a spearhead is constantly in his way. Once the gap is closed, its not a game-over situation.


Would possibly reduce enemy criticals since they won't take so many chances with two blades sticking in their faces. I suppose that the result is divided by two before the critical bit is added on then, makes sense, especially as two-handed fighters have less DV to begin with.

A troll with two clubs sounds like the perfect group fighter now.

Grey
04-20-2008, 06:45 PM
I don't like the idea of the spear having an actual greater range. It makes zero sense against the likes of dragons.

Another thing that I think needs to be considered is being hit by lots of arrows from different directions. In ADOM it doesn't matter if you're being peppered by 1 arrow a round or 20 - you have the same chance to Dodge each. More realistic might be that every shot has an increasing chance to hit you, as they contrain you in. A rain of arrows from all sides should be more deadly than 20 shots in a row.

F50
04-20-2008, 08:13 PM
Quite, but by how much? Would -1 DV do or would -5DV be more appropriate? What if you are being shot from one side and attacked from another? Would the DV penalty from the shot carry to the attack? (I think it should)

Elone
04-20-2008, 08:48 PM
I say this.

You get a -1DV per each extra arrow that was shot at you before you can act again. If you take your turn, and 4 archers shoot 4 arrows at you before your next turn is charged, then first arrow will be normal, second will be -1DV, third will be -2DV, fourth will be -3DV. Once you get another turn, this penalty is completely reset.

I also say that we remain at SMALL numbers. Remember that talents in ADOM used to give +2 to +4 to hit or damage, and they were even rated as very good ones! Dodge gives 10DV when maxed, whole skill devoted to gaining only 10DV. The arrow-rain penalty should be there to show enemies' advantage over you, NOT to allow kobolds to instakill you if they all shoot at once (with your -5DV penalty per missile). -2DV at max, and for these numbers I'm using the existing ADOM engine as my guideline, whereas JADE will probably be milder.

Also, since Hero has 360 degree vision, it wont matter where enemy shoots from. Hero cannot be attacked from behind. It will also be a hassle to store directions that arrows came from, into variables. An arrow rain is an arrow rain, wherever it comes from. I say that this penalty is to be universal for any direction that you are shot from.

Have fun finding flaws in this.

Tannis
04-20-2008, 09:02 PM
Speaking of arrows, I have to wonder if there should be a penalty of some sort when firing a bow at a target immediately adjacent to you. It seems that aiming and firing and all that would be significantly more difficult of someone is in your face bashing away. This could simply be represented by a penalty to hit with a ranged weapon when being attacked by an adjacent foe.

I guess you guys are right about increased range with spears/pikes. With sufficient speed, a character could conceivably never get hit, which is too easily exploited.

Another aspect of combat I'd like to see expanded in JADE are shields. In medieval combat, bucklers and smaller shields had an offensive role as well. Instead of using them to block blows, they were sometimes used to smash the enemies face in. I'd like to see the option to use a shield as a bashing attack, with the DV bonus of the shield negated for the turn(s) in which it is used offensively.

Grey
04-20-2008, 09:06 PM
Yeah, I agree, -1DV per shot, building up until the turn counter is reset. With good enough PV it won't make much difference (though every shot still has a chance of critical), but will encourage players to avoid being shot from several angles (which is of course true to a certain extent in ADOM already).

Sradac
04-20-2008, 09:23 PM
Part of the problem is what is defined as "spear". Greek hoplites did not wield spears, they wielded *pikes* (at least all but the front row did), which are only useful in formations (though not just against cavalry). A one-person spear is either:

1. moderately heavy. In two hands, this is very much like a staff with a pointy bit on the end. With a shield you'll have slightly less maneuverability, and will probably have a disadvantage against swordsmen but you can be very effective against anything with less than superhuman strength (giants, molochs etc.) if you have something to use instead of a formation (like dungeon walls).

2. moderately light. If this is wielded with two hands, the wielder must outmaneuver his opponent. If this is wielded with a (esp. light) shield, it can be especially dangerous as the shield allows the user to have some time to get away or reposition the spear as to be dangerous at close quarters (arm way back etc.) and is very hard for an unshielded foe to approach.


you speak of one type of spear, probably those used in 4000 B.C. a stick with a big rock on it before there were any type of real advancements in weapon technology. Ever seen a chinese spear? Thoes things are VERY light and in skilled hands can strike EXTREMELY fast faster than any punch kick or slice of a sword anyone could put out.

Elone
04-21-2008, 12:48 AM
Not gonna google now, but if I recall well, you're talking about yari? It's a combination of a spear and a trident. I will try some ASCII here.


.......................###>
....................###
..................##
#################################>
.................###
.................#..###
.................#.....###>
................#


Ignore the dots, without them imagy gets messed up. No, it's not out of proportion. Well, the side pronges are a bit sizey. At times, the middle pronge would be the same length as its wooden handle. The side pronges were there for various uses: it's harder to sompletely miss your foe since one of those three pronges is likely to hit, they're also there to grab a weapon, and they can be used for cutting if their edges were somehow sharpened. The weapon can be heavy, but it's usually made light; handle is made of bamboo and spikes are made flat, and can even bend. Notice the band - it's not just a decoration. Bands are usually large, and serve to confuse the enemy during the swing, and to stop the pouring tasty blood from reaching the handle, which would make it slippery, and harder to wield and use.

I hope that this is what Sradac was talking about.

Anyway, in a game like ADOM/JADE, it will be a hassle to implement the (and properly use ingame) spear/pike range.

I found the idea of bashing with a shield (but losing DV provided by it) for that turn, to be a much more intriguing one. However, how can we make a shield attack be different from any other? Everything else aside... I say that shield bash should be derived from either shield weight, or shield DV (plus the DV bonuses granted by your shield skill). Hopefully no one will jump at my throat for using DV to attack, but then again, your DV bonus is the actual shield skill, which means more damage with your shield. In other words, you lose DV defense for that turn, but that actual DV is only converted into attack for that turn. The damage doesnt have to be the direct DV that you sacrificed, but it can be any tweaked and balanced damage formula.

Or am I seeing something wrong?

F50
04-21-2008, 03:01 AM
I also say that we remain at SMALL numbers. Remember that talents in ADOM used to give +2 to +4 to hit or damage, and they were even rated as very good ones!+2 to hit isn't great from my point of view, I never get those talents, weapon skill grants it in much larger quantities. +2 to damage is nice though, but we're not talking about PV.
The arrow-rain penalty should be there to show enemies' advantage over you, NOT to allow kobolds to instakill you if they all shoot at once (with your -5DV penalty per missile). I wasn't actually suggesting -5DV (ouch!), just asking for ideas on numbers, although it does imply that.

As for kobolds installing you, "instakill" is the wrong word to use as it implies there being nothing else to check against, like hitpoints. -5DV is obviously overdoing it as it would take no more than 8 (-40 DV) arrows to remove all of a mid-level PC's DV for a round. -4 DV raises the amount of arrows required to about 10, still not enough. -3 starts to get reasonable (not for kobolds though) at ~14. Thinking about it, arrows are quite hard to dodge.

It will also be a hassle to store directions that arrows came from, into variables. Should've made it more clear, but I meant for "Would the DV penalty from the shot carry to the attack? (I think it should)" to follow from "What if you are being shot from one side and attacked from another?", not that it would make a difference based upon direction in and of itself. That said it should impact your DV significantly so that you run out of DV at about 20 arrows (imagine the pincushion you'd become). Thus, -2DV sounds appropriate, perhaps -3DV for a skilled archer (and by the time you encounter them you'd have some more DV to go through).



Ever seen a chinese spear?
yes, on youtube. That said, I wasn't thinking of it when I wrote that.


you speak of one type of spear, probably those used in 4000 B.C. a stick with a big rock on it before there were any type of real advancements in weapon technology. It is obvious in my post that I was talking of two types of spears, one being only slightly larger than the chinese spear. Also, not all that much changed from Alexandrian times to early Medieval times in terms of *western* technology, and "4000 BC" sounds like hyperbole. The East was more advanced than the West until near the industrial revolution.



As for shield-bashing, DV sounds like the wrong attribute to base it on. Consider Brass Bracers, or the unwieldy Crystal Tower Shield. It would likely have to be its own stat (probably only revealed by greater identify). How much damage would you inflict with a shield anyways. You would be more likely to momentarily stun your opponent or push him/her of balance. Perhaps you are sacrificing DV in return for a good chance of the target receiving a large -tohit bonus?

Elone
04-21-2008, 11:44 AM
Indeed those talents were weak, once you become uber at the end of the game; however we dont want uber-critical stuff for our characters at all. For instance, we dont want a neccssity of armies, nor this very DV penalty system, to become main concerns of our game.

Yes, now I see your point there. If you were first attacked by an arrow and lost some DV, and then someone attacks you in melee, do you lose the DV? I'd say yes. ACTUALLY, multiple melee attacks per round are very likely to also take some of your DV away in the exact same manner, dont you think? But for these (at least for melee), I say that the base DV penalty gets modified by things like your level, their level, and such (but not by too many factors).

So all this 'surrounded thingy' system can work like this, you lose some DV per each attack, and the penalty is reset once you get a new turn; avoiding the complicated calculations of angles and flanks.

Also, very important, I suggest shields to use their DV INSTEAD of adding the damage stat to a shield!! If we add the damage, then shields will become a weapon like any other. Shield is a special weapon though. And what makes it so special? The fact that its damage IS calculated differently than from other weapons. I will repeat it again, damage would be derived from its DV (PLUS your shield skill bonus) because frankly, that's your shield Weaponskill.

F50
04-21-2008, 04:38 PM
Indeed those talents were weak, once you become uber at the end of the game; however we dont want uber-critical stuff for our characters at all. For instance, we dont want a neccssity of armies, nor this very DV penalty system, to become main concerns of our game. What's with the royal "we"?

Why are you bringing the other thread into this one? It's a separate thread for a reason.

I said before, and I will say it again, I am *not* talking about armies unless you consider a handful of men (~5) to be an army.


Yes, now I see your point there. If you were first attacked by an arrow and lost some DV, and then someone attacks you in melee, do you lose the DV? I'd say yes. ACTUALLY, multiple melee attacks per round are very likely to also take some of your DV away in the exact same manner, dont you think? It really depends on the timescale of a turn. I believe from using 'ctrl+e' a turn is something like 1/3 of a minute, thus making each turn a series of blows in melee, and enough time to reload a bow. If you think of melee attacks as *a single strike*, it makes sense to use a static penalty per strike, but its not. Because it is a series of blows, one must calculate DV penalties beforehand, and it is more realistic to implement direction while doing this. If you were to take arrows into account, then you must calculate the amount of arrows headed for the player *before* any arrows are loosed, thus making implementing direction difficult.

But for these (at least for melee), I say that the base DV penalty gets modified by things like your level, their level, and such (but not by too many factors).
Adding level as well would be nice, but it really only makes a difference between unskilled, skilled, and very skilled in comparison with the player. The DV penalty is more about numbers, the skilled people are just more likely to strike a hit on their turn.

So all this 'surrounded thingy' system can work like this, you lose some DV per each attack, and the penalty is reset once you get a new turn; avoiding the complicated calculations of angles and flanks. By what do you call this complicated? All you have to do is take the monster adjacent to the PC, calculate the optimum angle, and multiply by the number of monsters. Calculating the optimum angle is easy (if this implementation is inefficient being a brute-force approach), for every monster, find the amount of distance necessary to travel left and visit all the monsters and the amount of distance necessary to travel right and visit all the monsters. Save and return the best result.

Also, very important, I suggest shields to use their DV INSTEAD of adding the damage stat to a shield!! If we add the damage, then shields will become a weapon like any other. Shield is a special weapon though. And what makes it so special? The fact that its damage IS calculated differently than from other weapons. I will repeat it again, damage would be derived from its DV (PLUS your shield skill bonus) because frankly, that's your shield Weaponskill.

DV sounds like the wrong attribute to base it on. Consider Brass Bracers, or the unwieldy Crystal Tower Shield.
you also seem to ignore this:

How much damage would you inflict with a shield anyways. You would be more likely to momentarily stun your opponent or push him/her of balance. Perhaps you should be sacrificing DV in return for a good chance of the target receiving a large -tohit bonus?

reich
04-21-2008, 09:01 PM
How much damage would you inflict with a shield anyways. You would be more likely to momentarily stun your opponent or push him/her of balance. Perhaps you should be sacrificing DV in return for a good chance of the target receiving a large -tohit bonus?

in AdoM you can bash an enemy with *everything* - wand, whistle, large ration etc. Compared to these things, the shield should actually do reasonable damage ;)

Tannis
04-21-2008, 09:17 PM
in AdoM you can bash an enemy with *everything* - wand, whistle, large ration etc. Compared to these things, the shield should actually do reasonable damage ;)

It really depends on the type of shield. A small shield like buckler would hit fast and more accurately, but do less damage and would be better at stunning a target or knocking them off balance. A large shield would be slower and more cumbersome, but come deliver more serious damage. Finally, you could have shields designed for offensive roles. Frankish soldiers used such shields in the 9th century: the center of the shield had a cone of metal that tapered to the point, so the shield could puncture armor and inflict mortal damage.

Grey
04-21-2008, 10:30 PM
Spiked shields would be all out cool. Can't imagine many circumstances where I'd feel the need to use it instead of a normal attack though. Although... here's an idea. TB has said that he plans to have special effects from weapons at high weapon skills, like more bleeding etc. How about at a high shield skill (say level 8) you learn a shield counterattack when blocking with your shield? You deflect the blow and then quickly jab them with your shield, and the damage or effects depends on the shield used. Would be a minor thing against powerful creatures, but against small enemies it would quickly sweep them away.

Tannis
04-21-2008, 10:36 PM
Spiked shields would be all out cool. Can't imagine many circumstances where I'd feel the need to use it instead of a normal attack though. Although... here's an idea. TB has said that he plans to have special effects from weapons at high weapon skills, like more bleeding etc. How about at a high shield skill (say level 8) you learn a shield counterattack when blocking with your shield? You deflect the blow and then quickly jab them with your shield, and the damage or effects depends on the shield used. Would be a minor thing against powerful creatures, but against small enemies it would quickly sweep them away.

If I understand you right, basically: With sufficient skill in shields, a successful block has a chance to inflict damage upon the attacker determined by the type of shield used and proficiency in shield skill. A master with shields could go as far as stunning the opponent. I like it.

Ars
04-21-2008, 11:32 PM
Yes I'd say an angle system is complicated. In the sense that one can't really intuitively figure out how much DV loss you're going to get in a given situation.

I like the DV reduced per attack concept. It's easy to see how many attacks are coming, so you can act on more accurate information.

But I think it should be more than -1DV per attack; -2 or -3 sounds about right. The disadvantage for fighting multiple enemies in ADOM never seemed to matter too much against weak monsters, either those monsters have the muscle to hurt you or they don't.

And for the shieldbash I'd favor something different from just doing a little damage, something helping in attacking with your main weapon would be more appropriate, as the bash would be more like a diversion than a serious attempt to inflict damage with it. Also something along the lines as said about the shield counterattack, except a counterattack with a shield doesn't really make sense. More like blocking the enemys weapon into a bad position, to negate his DV gained from weapon skill for next turn or forfeiting his next attack?

F50
04-22-2008, 12:07 AM
Its not that hard to do the math in your head. Its degree*monsterNum where the number of monsters is obvious and the degree is a simple visual check that shouldn't take more than three seconds. Besides, its easy to get a qualitative sense of what is going on, if you get surrounded you get hurt. The problem with a simple -DV per attack is that if you are surrounded by 8 monsters that is 8*3 which is a mere 24. That is quite simply not a significant penalty for being surrounded. Actually, it is even less if you calculate it as you are struck instead of beforehand. If the penalty is raised to, say, five (still not enough for when one is completely surrounded IMO), then 3*5=-15DV for only 3 monsters.

Counterattack sounds cool (don't have time to argue that point right at this moment).

Elone
04-22-2008, 04:32 PM
F50, face it, it does look complicated the way you described it. It probably makes 100% sense to you. I'd argue about this, but right now I'm tired.

Grey, counterattacks are cool, but they probably wont be the only shield skill that you will have. A shield smite still remains an option. I'd argue about this but right now I'm hungry.

Again, F50, You're doing your hardest to make Heroes weak, you're saying that you dont get enough penalty, huh? Fine, here's some things to think about. A) Penalties are level dependant, lets say that the penalty would be 4DV. You are level 8, and your enemy is level 6. You get penalty of (4DV * 75%) = 3DV, only 75% of penalty because enemy is 75% of your level. Same forumula if enemy is actually stronger than you. B) Penalties are cumulative. First hit gives you penalty of 1DV, second gives 2DV (making a total of 3), third gives you penalty of 3DV, which with previous 3DV makes 6, and the next will give you 4DV penalty, which totals to penalty of 10DV. I'd argue much more about this, but right now I'm uhh... >.> erm, nuttin. Ahem.

F50
04-22-2008, 08:30 PM
I would be glad to help you understand. Just tell me what you don't understand.

Hero's needn't be weak, but they should be human (or elvish, or dwarvish etc.).

If the formula is to be that simple though, it should be n^2. A linear function doesn't make sense since it is intuitive that situation gets worse faster when there are more monsters.

1^2-1=0 for the first monster
2^2-1=3 for the second monster
3^2-1=8 for the third, and so on

8^8=64 (max DV penalty)

Elone
04-22-2008, 09:14 PM
I understand that you want the penalty to rise with the square. These are penalties that come out of all this.

1, 3, 6, 10, 15, 21, 28, 36
1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128

Guess which penalty is whose formula (yours or mine).

Yours is a bit weak if there's a smaller number of enemies, but overwhelming near the end. I mean, 8 kobolds WILL instakill you if they all attack at once because each arrow will hit. Melee, too. You can get surrounded anytime, even at the very beginning of game, when you dont have more than 5-6DV. So yes, yours is overwhelming. Feedback from others, please!

reich
04-22-2008, 10:32 PM
To balance this system, the to-hit penalty for being surrounded could be forfeit.

In ADoM, when you are surrounded by monsters, your chance to hit decreases drastically. That's not entirely logical, since when there's plenty of targets around you then, statistically, your chance to score a hit grows :D

In Jade this system could be inverted. You don't get a penalty from being surrounded - the monsters get a to-hit bonus. This implies an evident tactic against surrounding - charge at one of the attackers at Berserk to bust out of the deathtrap!

F50
04-22-2008, 11:18 PM
I understand that you want the penalty to rise with the square. These are penalties that come out of all this.
1, 3, 6, 10, 15, 21, 28, 36
1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128
Guess which penalty is whose formula (yours or mine).

I didn't make it clear enough, the squares shouldn't sum. so with n^2

1 4 9 16 25 36 49 64

mine already works on n^2. Minimum penalties for set of monsters (first and last are also maximums):

0(1*1=1) 0(2*2=4) 9(3*3) 16(4*4) 25(5*5) 36(6*6) 49(7*7) 64(8*8) which is the same as n^2.

If I were to make it so that it increased per strike it would work (with eight monsters) like:

1*8 for the first monster (1 monster multiplied by degree)
2*8 second monster (2 monsters multiplied by degree)
3*8 third monster and so on up to 8*8. Remember these are total penalties. The penalties are not summed.

The reason I didn't post it this way in the first place is because it is more complicated.


Yours is a bit weak if there's a smaller number of enemies, but overwhelming near the end. I mean, 8 kobolds WILL instakill you if they all attack at once because each arrow will hit. I didn't mean it to work with arrows at that would be inefficient to calculate beforehand. The only way to do arrows rationally is by using a per shot system.


Melee, too. You can get surrounded anytime, even at the very beginning of game, when you dont have more than 5-6DV. So yes, yours is overwhelming. Feedback from others, please! The only place being surrounded may be unavoidable is in the wilderness and in large places like the Big Room (which simply shouldn't exist in dungeons near the beginning of the game if this is implemented).


and yes, the to-hit penalty should be forfeited (possible even make a to-hit bonus). As I understand it, to-hit is the same as DV so just modifying DV is easier.

Ars
04-23-2008, 12:12 AM
Hey, when you're surrounded by enough monsters you do lose DV in ADOM too, or rather the enemies get to-hit bonus which is effectively the same. +2 to hit (PC gets -1) for every enemy after the 1st or 2nd. Of course courage makes that better, but you won't get courage for a character who's still risking to get killed by pesky kobolds.

I'd say that level of negative applier for getting surrounded is the minimum level. The to-hit minus for PC could be removed, as proposed earlier. Still it does make sense to choose a more defensive tactic.

Grey
04-23-2008, 01:29 AM
One thing about the comment on this "making heroes weak", I don't think it necessarily will. I think it's more about making players more tactical. That's what this game's all about after all - being tactical and careful. The actual maths behind it all doesn't matter - ADOM has plenty of crazy calculations going on all the time, and you don't notice half of it. All you see is hit and miss.

And, importantly, TB has said that in JADE monsters are people too. What applies to the PC will also apply to his victi- I mean, enemies. Will make things extremely interesting...