Simple solutions to combat

sigmen4020 · 2019-08-30 13:07:23

Here's some possible solutions to the current combat which highly favors the attacker currently.

Solution 1: Instead of making the one who growls first win a combat engagement how about making the last person that growls win? This would give the defensive player a chance to fight back instead of just waiting to be inevitably shot or stabbed. Problems with this solution though is that two people engaging in combat could result in too many random winners. Though this is already a problem with the current system as well.

Solution 2: "Blocking". This would mean that if two people are engaged in growling at each other, weapon at the ready both attacks will fail. Resulting in both parties surviving removing their growl emote giving both another opportunity to attack this each other. This one might be less ideal though since it could result in endless stalements. Maybe a stun could be added to both players favoring the defense (the one that growled last). A possible advantage to the defense would be that their stun duration is less than the attacker. Which means that the defense would get a change to retaliate while the attack also has a chance to flee during both stuns.

What do you think of these possible solutions? Do you think they would create more problems than they would solve, or would one or both be suitable replacements for the current "attacker always wins" system?

ollj · 2019-08-30 18:08:46

35 years ago with ultima online everyone learned the lesson, that pvp in an MMO only works if you partition areas that have NULL pvp, and usually this means null-pvp-server shards.

Everything else since then is just whiney dumb ignorance.

Saolin · 2019-08-30 18:52:47

Solution 1 I've thought about before, and it does seem like it would make would-be attackers more hesitant, it's really hard to say how that system would feel in game though. It doesn't seem very likely to be a great solution, I think people would adjust their strategy around it by getting close before attacking to minimize reaction time. Even if the defender knows what the attacker is doing it's still going to be tricky; since both players will be hesitant to make the first move, and would likely play in a fairly random way of whether or not the "defender" got their counter click on time, aside from sloppier long-range kill attempts. The defender could run as well to maintain distance either resulting in the attacker dropping pursuit or getting baited into a more easily defended long range attempt. It's an interesting idea, but I'm not sure about.

Solution 2 I haven't really thought about. It could be good for delaying an attackers attempt, allowing others to potentially respond I suppose. Doesn't sound too interesting to have a clicking stand off though, I imagine the timing would be spaced out enough it would easy to have it be a standoff every time, or alternatively if not, repeatedly clicking as fast as you can does not sound good either. The stun idea where the defender recovers first might work.

I like the discussion topic. I posted a similar idea before suggesting a probability based hit chance for weapons to make would-be attackers think twice before attempting an attack. It's probably not perfect either.

I would like to see a change to the combat system to make it more defender's advantage, I think it would reduce the amount of killing.

Last edited by Saolin (2019-08-30 18:55:23)

schmloo · 2019-08-30 19:05:59

sigmen4020 wrote:

Solution 2: "Blocking". This would mean that if two people are engaged in growling at each other, weapon at the ready both attacks will fail. Resulting in both parties surviving removing their growl emote giving both another opportunity to attack this each other. This one might be less ideal though since it could result in endless stalements. Maybe a stun could be added to both players favoring the defense (the one that growled last). A possible advantage to the defense would be that their stun duration is less than the attacker. Which means that the defense would get a change to retaliate while the attack also has a chance to flee during both stuns.

Yes to blocking. The possibility of a stalemate should be present in this situation, as it’d also open up the chance for a no-death resolution... unless of course the two people engage in a 30-year duel. The idea of a stun is also good, maybe it could be equal for both parties to keep the possibility of a drawn-out duel?

Last edited by schmloo (2019-08-30 19:07:39)

Saolin · 2019-08-30 19:45:40

schmloo wrote:

...the two people engage in a 30-year duel.

Lol I can see this happening already. Two guys standing there swinging their weapons, accomplishing nothing.. That nervous looking curly haired blonde guy standing nearby feeds a bite of pie to each of them and then goes back to spectating as the battle continues.

DestinyCall · 2019-08-30 19:53:21

Solution to combat - allow blocking and make swinging a sword count as hungry work.

May the better man win.

CatX · 2019-08-30 19:58:56

Here's a wild idea, but if Jason really intends for skill not to be a factor, how about:

If you attack someone who has killed someone else the past ten minutes, then no change to current system.

However, if you attack someone who has not killed someone else the past ten minutes, then as you wound them, there is a 50% chance that you will get hurt as well.

That way, you would have to consider whether it is really worth it to attack. If you are truly saving your town from a griefer, perhaps you are willing to risk your own life for the cause. On the other hand, if you are the griefer, killing becomes a little pricier.

Also, I'd like a similar effect to apply to bears: If you wake a bear, there's a 50% chance it'll jump out of its cave onto your tile and attack you, even when you're on horseback.

Last edited by CatX (2019-08-30 19:59:52)

Booklat1 · 2019-08-30 20:00:31

There's this field of math called game theory, it studies among other things the relationship between probability and people's choices. Would you play a gamble with 0% chance to win? Well what about 20%? 50%?

The solution here is so obvious for anyone that studies both math and game design that I can't see how Jason has overlooked this for so long, even tarr mentioned this before quitting, but fighting should be a 50/50. The current system gives 0 options for the defender but running away and gives the attacker certainty of victory. I still think the old point and click combat system was much better even with high skill entry level than this one, but it's obvious for anyone that has ever even studied the basic of games that the current system creates no dynamic choices, it's a self solving question of "the attacker always wins".

To me certainty is very bad design here.

Last edited by Booklat1 (2019-08-30 20:01:41)

sigmen4020 · 2019-08-30 20:53:11

I’m seeing some very intriguing ideas here. Adding a risk of injury could potentially add some more interesting dynamics regarding killing other players. Do you kill this guy even if you could potentially get wounded in progress? Doubt Jason would such a system though, but still a very interesting idea.

I’m on two sides on risks on bear caves. On one hand it would clearly discourage bear griefing, and on the other hand it would make legitimate bear hunting for skins next to unviable.

CatX · 2019-08-30 21:25:17

sigmen4020 wrote:

I’m on two sides on risks on bear caves. On one hand it would clearly discourage bear griefing, and on the other hand it would make legitimate bear hunting for skins next to unviable.

Bring a healer. Hunting bears becomes a team effort.

Or just wait for the griefers to contribute with some bear waking.

Booklat1 · 2019-08-30 22:05:51

Yes I too like the idea of bear caves instantly wounding someone on occasion.

A lot of things that griefers spam could get a chance of wounding on use, even if small so normal use of that function would be unlikely to hurt well intended players

pein · 2019-08-31 01:18:47

shit real when you got to find a solution to problems they never existed by updates that supposedly fixed it

jason hopes in a game he made, tries kill someone and says; this takes too long, lets fucking make it instant.

now the problem is and i stated before and after this update several times.
it's not pvp if both sides arent equal. the element of surprise already favors the attacker.
now he wrote the longest update note on the issue, and it made zero sense.
new pvp helps with lag. no it aint. i got shot from 40 tiles away then i seen the animation 5 sec later that someone runs at me with a horse cart, picks up a bow and an arrow is sticking out of me.
it stops griefers dance.
now hold on for a minute. there is no griefers dance. it's a dance. it's not a single player game. just because you are mad it doesn't prove you are right.
you attack, others dodge, you get killed. that was before.
next time you don't mess with anyone, you pick your targets.
now you just kill anyone.
now there are a whole bunch of situations, just cause you kill someone you arent necessarily a griefer. you aint got nothing to fear, but the stupidity of others. if they don't understand what happened and just go stabby, you dodge it and try to explain. no one gonna go and hey, i stabbed this idiot, come and kill me for it.
sometimes people actually got a good reason to kill, you cant just think they don't. and even if they don't, killing them cause they are killers,, it's plain stupid. i liked the fact that when nobody is right then you can prove your skill to decide.

now it's 100% that if you go at someone it dies. it only needs bad intention. they cant even run away effectively. if they turn they die, it even turned knife into area effect where you just gotta go once diagonal and you are dead cause you lost a bit of speed
i was in a pen, i seen a dead body, the last fertile female. comes a guy, picks his weapon, i knew 100% he want to kill me, i had 3 tile advantage and started to run. but i had to go trough a corner so i died. 3 tiles advantage, not like i reacted too slow.
you wont drop your weapon you wont mis the arrow, if they arent paying attention and stay near any type of blocking structure you kill them
they cat even run away

and ofc they come flexing like it needed any sort of skill at all, it doesn't.
it's not fun anymore to fight, it's no duel, it's just who clicks first.
you cant say that, hey, if you fuck around i kill you, no, you either straight up kill them, or later they kill you or someone because they got a weapon and they want it too.
you cant realistically let people threaten you. if they got a weapon and you don't, you are dead. so if they say i will kill you, that's enough reaosn to kill them first even if it's a joke, a threat or roleplay bullshit. you cant fuck around with that anymore.

and all this because he wanted to make another bullshit feature, the fences good.
you make a small farm and a camp, an eve comes in, if you don't have 30x30 fence with all entries closed you are dead.
if nobody attacks you, you still gotta make a goddamn 30x30 fence
now you got the option to play normally or spend 20 min for a fence which is may or may not be needed
but if you make one you end up in an annoying shithole which is blocking you and others to get out.

why didn't i built forsts or walls before? you picked your weapon, i dodged it and 2 sec later you were dead. i didn't needed a fence aroudn me, i just had to pay attention. and there wasn't so many newbee killers and idiots running around.
you always got this little fucker who just picks up a weapon the moment he can and tries to kill someone. i always dodged them and got rid of them, life went on. now what you do? they run around with a horse and the moment you are alone and try to do anything they kill you then they run around some more. it just made shitty backstabbing a thing and normal risk taking a bad decision.

Saolin · 2019-09-04 15:26:02

Had another idea. What if the cooldown after a kill was increased so that the killer would need to be fed after a kill more often or even all the time. Would mean the killer would need to have the support of at least one other person to kill without also dying from starvation. If someone kills for good reason, the village will take care of them, whereas a random stabber is likely to end up starving.

Last edited by Saolin (2019-09-04 15:28:44)

RodneyC86 · 2019-09-04 15:52:30

Saolin wrote:

Had another idea. What if the cooldown after a kill was increased so that the killer would need to be fed after a kill more often or even all the time. Would mean the killer would need to have the support of at least one other person to kill without also dying from starvation. If someone kills for good reason, the village will take care of them, whereas a random stabber is likely to end up starving.

A bit janky IMO but in a way quite real in a way. In real life militaries, you would be surprised how big percentage of them are essentially non-combat roles. Logistics is the true challenge in any military campaign. This is also why wars tend to spur ridiculous amount of technology advancement and refinement - jet engines and combustion comes to mind

DestinyCall · 2019-09-04 16:13:02

If swinging a sword was hungry work, I think a lot fewer people would be interested in waging war.

Anhigen · 2019-09-04 17:25:57

Booklat1 wrote:

[...]
but fighting should be a 50/50. The current system gives 0 options for the defender but running away and gives the attacker certainty of victory.
[...]

I just looked into this Chance To Use mechanic that's used everywhere in the game, from resource regeneration to Bison movement, and I think it totally fits this idea. We already have a Chance To Use on steel tools (their chance to break is governed by a probability that expends one of their Number of Use charges) and I believe providing this same uncertainty to weapons, like you mentioned, adds risk/reward to the combat system. Other games introduce this by adding a "miss" chance and the ability to dodge, either passive or active, but these mechanics could be potentially mirrored and implemented by weapons having a Chance To Use as well.

It would be interesting if you had to risk your life in order to attack.

I'm excited for when armor gets added in too, which I'm sure will be here someday, and it's neat to think about whether it will be introduced as a finite Number of Use item that depletes as you get hit--low level armor good for a few blocks, high level armor good for many blocks--or if it will be probabilistic--5% chance to foul their attack, 15%, 25%. I can't wait.

Until then, wtf?! lol

Last edited by Anhigen (2019-09-04 17:31:41)

One Hour One Life Forums

#1 2019-08-30 13:07:23

Simple solutions to combat

#2 2019-08-30 18:08:46

Re: Simple solutions to combat

#3 2019-08-30 18:52:47

Re: Simple solutions to combat

#4 2019-08-30 19:05:59

Re: Simple solutions to combat

#5 2019-08-30 19:45:40

Re: Simple solutions to combat

#6 2019-08-30 19:53:21

Re: Simple solutions to combat

#7 2019-08-30 19:58:56

Re: Simple solutions to combat

#8 2019-08-30 20:00:31

Re: Simple solutions to combat

#9 2019-08-30 20:53:11

Re: Simple solutions to combat

#10 2019-08-30 21:25:17

Re: Simple solutions to combat

#11 2019-08-30 22:05:51

Re: Simple solutions to combat

#12 2019-08-31 01:18:47

Re: Simple solutions to combat

#13 2019-09-04 15:26:02

Re: Simple solutions to combat

#14 2019-09-04 15:52:30

Re: Simple solutions to combat

#15 2019-09-04 16:13:02

Re: Simple solutions to combat

#16 2019-09-04 17:25:57

Re: Simple solutions to combat

Board footer