Greetings, glorious adventurers! If you're joining in our Alpha One spot testing, please follow the steps here to see all the latest test info on our forums and Discord!
Options
Combat formations and Hit boxes.
ArchivedUser
Guest
I was thinking about what I like best about combat from playing various games over the years.
More specifically how to minimise that to its most simplistic form.
Hit boxes have always been a thing in many games, but too many in an mmo will simply overload everything.
So for me head, body and legs would be the minimal hit box arrangement.
Head for damage multiplier/stun
Body for general damage
Legs for cripple/snare/root
[This would require high/medium/low melee attacks options]
Many of us have discussed formation and such in other threads too.
But also the concept of flanking and sneak attacks.
This gave me another aspect that we wouldn't normally try to combine.
We would have flank attacks, frontal attacks and rear attacks.
So 4x 90 degree quadrant have to exist around ever player too.
This enables the sectors to be treated differently, just like hit boxes.
Now, what if....
a) You could have 'back-back' 2 man formation (0 rear attacks / 2 flank attacks) ?
b) You could have 'side-side' 3 man formation (0 rear attacks / 1 flank attacks) ?
c) You could have 'shoulder-shoulder' 4 man formations (0 rear attacks / 0 flank attacks) ?
Basically allowing you to form up in up to 4 man groups to deny flanking/sneak/rear attack bonuses.
More specifically how to minimise that to its most simplistic form.
Hit boxes have always been a thing in many games, but too many in an mmo will simply overload everything.
So for me head, body and legs would be the minimal hit box arrangement.
Head for damage multiplier/stun
Body for general damage
Legs for cripple/snare/root
[This would require high/medium/low melee attacks options]
Many of us have discussed formation and such in other threads too.
But also the concept of flanking and sneak attacks.
This gave me another aspect that we wouldn't normally try to combine.
We would have flank attacks, frontal attacks and rear attacks.
So 4x 90 degree quadrant have to exist around ever player too.
This enables the sectors to be treated differently, just like hit boxes.
Now, what if....
a) You could have 'back-back' 2 man formation (0 rear attacks / 2 flank attacks) ?
b) You could have 'side-side' 3 man formation (0 rear attacks / 1 flank attacks) ?
c) You could have 'shoulder-shoulder' 4 man formations (0 rear attacks / 0 flank attacks) ?
Basically allowing you to form up in up to 4 man groups to deny flanking/sneak/rear attack bonuses.
0
Comments
- How do you move? Is it "leader" based or is the formation not "locked".
- Do you lock together or just try and do it yourself?
- Would there be special attacks in these formations or are they just for defensive purposes?
<strong>Heres my take on those questions:</strong>
<strong>1)/2) </strong>Depending on the underlying system, you either NEED to lock together or its more of a player choice to just make the formation. Meaning if theres a real "flanking and back"-system and collision, then you only need to gather up a bunch of players and stand in formations. But if theres a "flanking and back"-system, but not much collision, then you need to lock up otherwise it doesnt really matter. Regarding moving: If locked then you need a formation leader, if not its just gonna be some insane discord screaming ;)
<strong>3) </strong>We could have like spin attacks, low swings or combination attacks like: Player 1 hits high and player 2 hits low, basicly a attack thats impossible to defend against.
My thinking is only to allow a mechanism, for groups of upto 4 people, to synchronise their movement/direction and pass under the control of one player.
The players should still retain control of all combat skills, other than movement.
This is slightly different to the shield wall formations and such.
That kind of grouping disables movement and skill.
That is basically allowing one player to control the group movement, under the guise of a group skill (rather than individual skills).
But as you said, it really depends on how AoC do collision.
If we go for the surrender/retrieve movement button created by an instigator like the shield wall,
this gets around the problem, regardless of how collision is done.
The game engine (at the end of the day) needs to coordinate the other players movement/orientation 'relative' to a master player.
So the instigator moves and uses combat skills.
The other only have to worry about combat skills.
Any player, can of course, break formation at any time.
Main problem ? What happens at a cliff edge ?
:rofl:
If one goes, does everyone go ?
3) On your high/middle/low combo attacks.
Yeah, they could be an option for a combined group skill too.
But I was thinking along the lines of 1v1 melee to add depth to the combat.
Does weapon area of effect = 90 degrees in front of the player, 180 degrees, 270 degrees to 360 degrees ?
4 sectors and 3 levels add a lot of options for skills variation.
I guess if you split between group formation 'locked' skill and group formation 'unlocked' skills , it would be easier to isolate and balance the skills.
I mean seperate movement-only formations from movement+combat formations
[quote quote=3080]
Main problem ? What happens at a cliff edge ?
:rofl:
If one goes, does everyone go ?
[/quote]
That brings up another point, even though one player might control the party, shouldn't "lateral" movement be individual? Like you jump to avoid an arrow, or if one falls of a cliff the other just stand there (plz no lemming effect...).
Regarding your comments on 3):
When I said combined skills it was more of an idea on how to utilize the system, player vice. Like you tell you buddy, you hit low I hit high, then you almost always land an attack ;)
Some different ideas for 4 man group formations that came to mind:
* 2 Shield tanks at the front 2 archer/mages in the back.
* 2 Shield / 2 Spearmen (pokey pokey stick) combo.
* 4 Shields roman turtle style (2 front shield 2 top ones).
You suffer the consequences that come with the benefits ?
3) Oh i see what you mean. Manual coordination through teamspeak/discord. Yeah thats the plan for this one.
Your 4 man groups....
Stahp! You're getting me all excited.
rofl
You suffer the consequences that come with the benefits ?
[/quote]
Well yeah, group would probably have worse mobility, but other benefits. But theres no need to have unlogical consequences, like group falling death ;)
Let the hype rise:
2 Fighter/2 Archers 2 Mages project shield infront
4 Archers/mages/other ranged do group spells.
An example would be spammy games where you have 10 mobs all coming at the tank,how could you possibly have any organized formation with 10 mobs all wandering around?
This is why i have always endorsed single target mob combat it is more organized and allows the group to have formations and special attack combos.I am never in favor of having self combos or just combos that are nothing more than normal attacks.
As well if targets just die way too fast then there is no reason to have formations,then i feel games actually just become dull combat.I like to see player to player interaction within each battle,it doesn't have to be way over the top but give players something to think about.
If you create too powerful of formations,such as a wall it can really hamper combat in a bad way.What i have seen happen in games is one high level player will pull 20-30 mobs back to a party full of 10 mages who then all nuke at the same time and mobs dead,zero interaction,way too easy.Or if you could easily blockout the mob/s from getting to the squishy dps players,it becomes TOO EASY for them to just spam full out assault.
Basically what i am saying is ideas have to be careful so they do not end up "exploiting" the combat.