Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Combat design Ideas/core principles
Ace1234
Member
Hi, in my opinion (and many others from what I hear) combat is the most important aspect to the game. I wanted to give some ideas that I have based on a rediculous amount of competing, analysis, theory crafting, and testing of different types of combat systems, of what core principles that I think makes for the most diverse, engaging, rewarding, player-empowering, balanced, and overall fun combat system you can make.
Freedom= fun
freedom allows for creativity and possibilities. It should always be the most important aspect if you are trying to create a fun system. The more possibilities, the more that will trickle down into other aspects to create engagement, because players will realize that something is possible so they will try to figure out different ways of leveraging the systems in place to achive their desired outcome.
Based on this, i think uninhibited control of your character during combat would make for the most innovative type of combat. This doesn't neccessarily mean you never give up full control of your character, such as having certain times where you are locked into place and cant move- it just means that it should be your choice at all times whether you want to follow through with that commitment and accept the risks/weaknesses in using that tool throughout its active duration, or instead changing your mind and choosing not to follow through with that choice anymore.
You should be able to have that ability to change choices in an active way. An example of how this can be done would be through being able to cancel out of animations at any time. I will go into how this can easily be balanced down below. Again, your tools can have drawbacks, but you should have the ability to make a choice/change a decision as long as you are the one that is in control (obviously there can be situations where you are meant to lose control, such as an opponent outplaying you and being rewarding with an advantage of their own that results in you losing your sense of control), but this approach puts control into the players hands to be able to create outcomes in their own way without frustrating limitations.
You might say "if you give a player to much freedom then they never have to have consequences for their choices"
- yes they will, like I said, your tools can have negatives to them, the consequences come every time you decide to use that tool and for the duration of using that tool until you change your mind, during that process of actively using that tool you have to commit to the risks/weaknesses associated with using that tool.
The choice comes with always being able to have control over if/when you want to follow through with that commmittment. If you don't want to follow through then you should have the control and choice to do so, but that means you won't get to utilize the benefit and the situational use of that tool.
Situational options/tools = fun
I think the next aspect of a fun combat system is having as many situational tools/options as is possible to mentally manage.
A limiting way of thinking is that it can be "overwhelming" by having so many tools, which can be true, but doesn't neccessarily have to be permanently true. Through learning and organizing information as you get experience, it becomes a lot easier as you mentally establish "which situations you will do what". this can make something that started off as overwhelming turn into something boring through mastery over time.
For a good combat system, even after mastery of the options, it should still require a certain amount of thought to actively recognize various combat scenarios you are in and organize the information available, rather than being so simple that you already know everthing you are about to do at all times because there are so few situations you have options for, or so few options you have for different situations.
This situational awareness isnt something you have to do in inferior combat systems because there are so few situational tools that you know well beforehand when a situation is coming up that you will have to do X thing, without much moment to moment observation and consideration.
Through options comes strategy, problem solving, skill, and a sense of accomplishment.
This also ties in to the freedom aspect, as it doesn't matter how much freedom you have if you have no tools to make the possibilities a reality.
When you have situational tools you begin to strategize how to best put yourself into advantageous situations, and you solve the problems of figuring out which tool would work best in a given situation. based on the outcome you are trying to achieve. And throughout the process you gain a sense of mastery and accomplishment of figuring out the system and gaining an advantage over those you don't have as good of a grasp the combat system's nuances.
Determining situational tools:
Its easy to say "more situational tools" but this is how it translates into mechanics
Combat gameplay revolves around 3 main things.
1. Spacings
2. Timings
3. Strategy
A) spacings- The more options you have at different distances, whether it is a method of getting to a different distance, defending yourself, or attacking the opponent, the better
B)The more options you have for different timings the better. This means the ability to change/mix up the timing of an option you use in a given situation at a given distance. this could be through built in options that have faster or delayed timings in that situation, or the ability to mix up the timing yourself through adjusting the timing or canceling the option altogether.
C) The more strategies you have available the better. This includes methods/tools of puting yourself in advantageous situations. This can occur before an encounter altogether through preparation of stats/class choice or pre-battle positioning, or during the battle through being able to create situations where you have favorable spacings and timings such as through sufficient movement options to relocate and reposition effectively. Or it could be through conditioning a player to act a specific way in a fight to put them into a disadvantageous situation.
Balance:
No its not overpowered to be able to do things in combat, at least it doesn't have to be. The main balancing factor is that (assuming we are talking about universal options not bound to individual classes) both players are on equal footing and have the same options available, so if one player is able to leverage systems better than another, then the difference in outcome may seem more exaggerated when there are more systems available for the higher skilled player to utilize to his advantage.
The main potential issues that get introduced by adding this kind of depth are less about balance or more about maintaining these gameplay elements based on the meta that could form when you introduce the more "human" factors.
Meta
The goal should be to implement these ideas into the gameplay so that the ideas are preserved, rather than tainted when other factors of gameplay, such as the "human element", are introduced. This means the implementation needs to account for how people play, the tactics they use, their limitations, etc., if you want the above ideas of gameplay design to actually be the end result when put into the hands if the players.
The meta should encourage using the tools proactively for good combat pacing. you don't want an overly campy defensive meta where each players just waits for the other to act and then punish them. This just means that the tools reflect that when factoring in how people play games.
1. If you can always be punished for being aggressive then there is no reason to be. This means that characters need to have at least one aggressive situational option that is relatively safe to use against defensive/evasive options without paying a steep price when used in the correct situation. This can act as a "win-condition" as far as being something that encourages action during a "neutral" state to win that neutral exchange.
That gives the player a goal during combat, to proactively try to put themselves into a favorable situation to use their aggressive win-condition and begin to deal damage to the opponent. This doesn't mean that the offensive option has to counter those options, it just means that it can be possible for both the defensive and the aggressive player to be rewarded from using their given tools in the correct manner through coming out of that situation unscathed, and not automatically catering to a playstyle that might encourage an unhealthy meta.
This will simultaneously give the player a goal in combat, which encourages mastery of the system rather than aimlessley reacting to different situations they are in, they can try to proactively put themselves into favorable situations based on their win-conditions of different situational tools.
2. People can react to others choices in order to gain an advantage, if this is always advantageous then that will encouraged to just always wait because that will be meta. To account for this there needs to be situational tools that support your aggressive win-condition- that are not punishable on reaction, through being unreactable, which means the opponent can't just sit and wait for you to take action and punish you for it (unless they knew ypu would take that action ahead of time)- Which leads into the next point.
3. Players need to have tools that allow them to be unpredictable. Otherwise everytime they go to use their tool for that situation the opponent will know its coming and act aggressively on their own to shut you down. This is good to have this dynamic, but not when you have no choice but to act predictably.
That should be a mistake you make as a player, and not something you are forced into doing. You should have ability to use your situational tools in an unpredictable way in order to act with intention, otherwise it can just become a guessing game between yo playets making high risk predictions, which feels like you have no control or freedom over the fight and can tend to boil down to feeling like combat is just RNG.
Having the ability to freely and deliberately mix up your spacing and timing can encourage this kind of gameplay.
You might say "if you have full control and can avoid committments then the other player can too, so how would that not dissolve into them constantly mixing up in an overly defensive/campy way to bait you and punish your aggression" well, because if you have tools that are unreactable, then that encourages you to be the first one to commit to an aggressive action in specific situations, because they will lose that interaction by trying to wait and react.
The counter-play is for them to proactively and deliberately mix up their spacings and timings to bait you, which requires actually playing the game rather than sitting back and waiting for the other to act.
In summary
1. players need to have as much freedom as possible and never feel forced into actions they are ready to commit to
2. players need to have many situational tools to capitalize on that freedom, while also maximizing player engagement
3. in order to promote good combat pacing the player needs to have situational tools that
A) proactive play needs to be rewarded through having certain low risk offensive options when used correctly in their intended manner. This means rewarding offensive styles, without neccessarily punishing defensive styles
B)allowing the player to be unpredictable which promotes good pacing, aggressive play, and proactive use of the tools in their arsenal
C) allowing the player to punish predictability which discourages repetitive strategies, reinforcing the unpredictability aspect and increases the skill gap
Freedom= fun
freedom allows for creativity and possibilities. It should always be the most important aspect if you are trying to create a fun system. The more possibilities, the more that will trickle down into other aspects to create engagement, because players will realize that something is possible so they will try to figure out different ways of leveraging the systems in place to achive their desired outcome.
Based on this, i think uninhibited control of your character during combat would make for the most innovative type of combat. This doesn't neccessarily mean you never give up full control of your character, such as having certain times where you are locked into place and cant move- it just means that it should be your choice at all times whether you want to follow through with that commitment and accept the risks/weaknesses in using that tool throughout its active duration, or instead changing your mind and choosing not to follow through with that choice anymore.
You should be able to have that ability to change choices in an active way. An example of how this can be done would be through being able to cancel out of animations at any time. I will go into how this can easily be balanced down below. Again, your tools can have drawbacks, but you should have the ability to make a choice/change a decision as long as you are the one that is in control (obviously there can be situations where you are meant to lose control, such as an opponent outplaying you and being rewarding with an advantage of their own that results in you losing your sense of control), but this approach puts control into the players hands to be able to create outcomes in their own way without frustrating limitations.
You might say "if you give a player to much freedom then they never have to have consequences for their choices"
- yes they will, like I said, your tools can have negatives to them, the consequences come every time you decide to use that tool and for the duration of using that tool until you change your mind, during that process of actively using that tool you have to commit to the risks/weaknesses associated with using that tool.
The choice comes with always being able to have control over if/when you want to follow through with that commmittment. If you don't want to follow through then you should have the control and choice to do so, but that means you won't get to utilize the benefit and the situational use of that tool.
Situational options/tools = fun
I think the next aspect of a fun combat system is having as many situational tools/options as is possible to mentally manage.
A limiting way of thinking is that it can be "overwhelming" by having so many tools, which can be true, but doesn't neccessarily have to be permanently true. Through learning and organizing information as you get experience, it becomes a lot easier as you mentally establish "which situations you will do what". this can make something that started off as overwhelming turn into something boring through mastery over time.
For a good combat system, even after mastery of the options, it should still require a certain amount of thought to actively recognize various combat scenarios you are in and organize the information available, rather than being so simple that you already know everthing you are about to do at all times because there are so few situations you have options for, or so few options you have for different situations.
This situational awareness isnt something you have to do in inferior combat systems because there are so few situational tools that you know well beforehand when a situation is coming up that you will have to do X thing, without much moment to moment observation and consideration.
Through options comes strategy, problem solving, skill, and a sense of accomplishment.
This also ties in to the freedom aspect, as it doesn't matter how much freedom you have if you have no tools to make the possibilities a reality.
When you have situational tools you begin to strategize how to best put yourself into advantageous situations, and you solve the problems of figuring out which tool would work best in a given situation. based on the outcome you are trying to achieve. And throughout the process you gain a sense of mastery and accomplishment of figuring out the system and gaining an advantage over those you don't have as good of a grasp the combat system's nuances.
Determining situational tools:
Its easy to say "more situational tools" but this is how it translates into mechanics
Combat gameplay revolves around 3 main things.
1. Spacings
2. Timings
3. Strategy
A) spacings- The more options you have at different distances, whether it is a method of getting to a different distance, defending yourself, or attacking the opponent, the better
B)The more options you have for different timings the better. This means the ability to change/mix up the timing of an option you use in a given situation at a given distance. this could be through built in options that have faster or delayed timings in that situation, or the ability to mix up the timing yourself through adjusting the timing or canceling the option altogether.
C) The more strategies you have available the better. This includes methods/tools of puting yourself in advantageous situations. This can occur before an encounter altogether through preparation of stats/class choice or pre-battle positioning, or during the battle through being able to create situations where you have favorable spacings and timings such as through sufficient movement options to relocate and reposition effectively. Or it could be through conditioning a player to act a specific way in a fight to put them into a disadvantageous situation.
Balance:
No its not overpowered to be able to do things in combat, at least it doesn't have to be. The main balancing factor is that (assuming we are talking about universal options not bound to individual classes) both players are on equal footing and have the same options available, so if one player is able to leverage systems better than another, then the difference in outcome may seem more exaggerated when there are more systems available for the higher skilled player to utilize to his advantage.
The main potential issues that get introduced by adding this kind of depth are less about balance or more about maintaining these gameplay elements based on the meta that could form when you introduce the more "human" factors.
Meta
The goal should be to implement these ideas into the gameplay so that the ideas are preserved, rather than tainted when other factors of gameplay, such as the "human element", are introduced. This means the implementation needs to account for how people play, the tactics they use, their limitations, etc., if you want the above ideas of gameplay design to actually be the end result when put into the hands if the players.
The meta should encourage using the tools proactively for good combat pacing. you don't want an overly campy defensive meta where each players just waits for the other to act and then punish them. This just means that the tools reflect that when factoring in how people play games.
1. If you can always be punished for being aggressive then there is no reason to be. This means that characters need to have at least one aggressive situational option that is relatively safe to use against defensive/evasive options without paying a steep price when used in the correct situation. This can act as a "win-condition" as far as being something that encourages action during a "neutral" state to win that neutral exchange.
That gives the player a goal during combat, to proactively try to put themselves into a favorable situation to use their aggressive win-condition and begin to deal damage to the opponent. This doesn't mean that the offensive option has to counter those options, it just means that it can be possible for both the defensive and the aggressive player to be rewarded from using their given tools in the correct manner through coming out of that situation unscathed, and not automatically catering to a playstyle that might encourage an unhealthy meta.
This will simultaneously give the player a goal in combat, which encourages mastery of the system rather than aimlessley reacting to different situations they are in, they can try to proactively put themselves into favorable situations based on their win-conditions of different situational tools.
2. People can react to others choices in order to gain an advantage, if this is always advantageous then that will encouraged to just always wait because that will be meta. To account for this there needs to be situational tools that support your aggressive win-condition- that are not punishable on reaction, through being unreactable, which means the opponent can't just sit and wait for you to take action and punish you for it (unless they knew ypu would take that action ahead of time)- Which leads into the next point.
3. Players need to have tools that allow them to be unpredictable. Otherwise everytime they go to use their tool for that situation the opponent will know its coming and act aggressively on their own to shut you down. This is good to have this dynamic, but not when you have no choice but to act predictably.
That should be a mistake you make as a player, and not something you are forced into doing. You should have ability to use your situational tools in an unpredictable way in order to act with intention, otherwise it can just become a guessing game between yo playets making high risk predictions, which feels like you have no control or freedom over the fight and can tend to boil down to feeling like combat is just RNG.
Having the ability to freely and deliberately mix up your spacing and timing can encourage this kind of gameplay.
You might say "if you have full control and can avoid committments then the other player can too, so how would that not dissolve into them constantly mixing up in an overly defensive/campy way to bait you and punish your aggression" well, because if you have tools that are unreactable, then that encourages you to be the first one to commit to an aggressive action in specific situations, because they will lose that interaction by trying to wait and react.
The counter-play is for them to proactively and deliberately mix up their spacings and timings to bait you, which requires actually playing the game rather than sitting back and waiting for the other to act.
In summary
1. players need to have as much freedom as possible and never feel forced into actions they are ready to commit to
2. players need to have many situational tools to capitalize on that freedom, while also maximizing player engagement
3. in order to promote good combat pacing the player needs to have situational tools that
A) proactive play needs to be rewarded through having certain low risk offensive options when used correctly in their intended manner. This means rewarding offensive styles, without neccessarily punishing defensive styles
B)allowing the player to be unpredictable which promotes good pacing, aggressive play, and proactive use of the tools in their arsenal
C) allowing the player to punish predictability which discourages repetitive strategies, reinforcing the unpredictability aspect and increases the skill gap
0