Not a fan of this sort of system, I'm pretty sure Mu had something similar for combat which you couldn't drink potions to recover, so you needed to wait to recover and it was dogshit.
I'm in favor of adding some limitations to characters like weight limit, inventory size and oxygen, but no exhaustion/stamina. So that's a no from me, brotherman.
I looked it up and it looks like a bad game for a lot of reasons lol.
I'll go ahead and copy over something else I said [paraphrased] in another thread:
"You could be sniffed out by animals if you don't bathe or coat yourself in something. Would be a good mechanic.
Running and 'effort' could require spamming a button press to mirror physical effort and focus. Simply holding the button could be moderate or low power/ effect.
If you compare that to fighting games or starcraft it's child's play. "
It would certainly make for a more visceral and satisfying game to many. The increased power would increase in-game exhaustion to be clear.
For someone who cares so much about other people's opinions on your ideas you sure do suck at convincing them when the best you can do are these insults:
"-If only it does everything and you win! Then it's good design. get real man
-you're just a fool.
-Then again I'm the more open-minded one here lmao.
-how pointless of an argument can you make?
-Try reading the damn thread
-because you're a smooth brain.
-You can't use your brain or contribute to the topic with any effort. It's clear how phobic....you are.
@Ace1234 You haven't even responded to the content of the topic. Avoidant.
All of those are my genuine thoughts and interrogations as well.
I don't think one person has interfaced fully with the topic, mostly dismissive and interrogative themselves.
Actually, to elaborate further:
Spellcasters gain and hold mana differently.
Every class has a slow mana regen and low pool. 1/1 at level 1 for a summoner, 3/3 for a mage, et cetera. 1 mana per minute.
They can expend effort to add temporary mana up to say 150% of their pool for 30 seconds, or expend greater effort to put that mana in a crystal. Crystals hold mana for 1 minute at the low end and 1 hour at the high end or something.
Spells have different mana requirements.
CRAFTABLES have different mana requirements.
Craftables can incorporate "mana holding" or "temporary mana duration increase" stuff into it.
Professions could be a necessity for mana management in this way, and design of mana using classes would be tight and intentional; Easy for balance and conducive to mechanical elaboration.
More OOMPH to the spellcasters.
Simple as that.
Just thought of an extension of this. Put 1 mana into a wand/stave/staff for 12 magic autos or 3 small abilities that deal some OK damage.
I was reproducing your level of debate skill. I have no reason to avoid the content as I can fully comprehend and fully articulate why I think its a bad idea.
Options are fun. The more options you have the more there is to master and more skill expression, providing there is reason to use said options.
Limiting options is counterproductive to this. Yes, you force people to adapt within a set of limitations to require thinking, but that thought had been there from the start, it might just not be as "forced" until people start to motivate themselves to understand the depth of the options within that system. All your doing is limiting peoples ability to strategize with all the potential interactions and combinations of the options available at any given time, instead of limiting this you should be allowing them more room for strategy through more options to consider at all times, requiring more strategic counterplay, flowcharting, planning, etc.
While yes, the added constraints can prompt that thinking more easily, it does not lead to a metagame with the most depth if that is your preference. Which it may not be, but it is mine.
All your doing is limiting peoples ability to strategize with all the potential interactions and combinations of the options available at any given time, instead of limiting this you should be allowing them more room for strategy through more options to consider at all times, requiring more strategic counterplay, flowcharting, planning, etc.
The constraint increases tactical and strategic depth. Like how some terrain permits tactical and strategic depth vs a flat or rolling hills plane.
@Sapiverenus
I disagree. Like I said. If there are more options to consider at any given time, you have more option combinations that can take place between both sides. That is a literal defining aspect of depth in the gameplay. There is more counterplay to consider, more planning required, and more of an overall grand scheme path to chart in order to accomplish your objective within a system like that. There is no discussion or debate on that matter it is an indisputable fact. It just seems more tactical because since your options are constrained - your enemies options are constrained as well, which makes it actually a lot easier to manage, making something that seemed "random" into something that seems like you can approach purposefully. But for those that are capable, they can take that "randomness" of a system that has more options for both players, and have a lot more room to capitalize on that much higher skill ceiling to outplay their opponent- though it requires a lot more cognitive ability to be able to manage a more complex system to gain that satisfaction.
"I disagree. Like I said. If there are more options to consider at any given time, you have more option combinations that can take place between both sides. That is a literal defining aspect of depth in the gameplay"
If the consequences are similar then it's shallow optionality. Having no new mechanic and variable constraint means less possible 'game states', so there are less situations to consider.
If you come up with some good execution on weapon types let me know.
"If the consequences are similar then it's shallow optionality. Having no new mechanic and variable constraint means less possible 'game states', so there are less situations to consider."
Again, great observation- assuming by consequence you are reffering to the more of the "risk" aspects- the discussion was not about the consequences of said options it was about the quantity, but nice try derailing. And if by no consequence you mean "usefulness of options" try referring to my first point that the options have to be meaningful. So if the latter is what you meant, then I would agree on that, but that has no bearing on the value of having a higher amount of viable options within a system which was my original point.
But if you come up with a good supporting argument that doesn't get destroyed by facts then let me know unless you can't handle it, which apparently you can't as you keep switching into different topics now. The irony, coming from the "if people would just address my points they would see im always right" guy. @Sapiverenus
"Again, great observation- assuming by consequence you are reffering to the more of the "risk" aspects- the discussion was not about the consequences of said options it was about the quantity, but nice try derailing."
Consequences refer to risk and reward. And to quote from my other post:
"If you manipulate the different combinations of spacing/timings/risk/reward ratios that you provided for weapon variations; not everything you list as "good direction" in the original post (emboldened by me in a previous message) will be possible for many situations. In fact, you will have to choose your weapon based on the situation; or avoid that situation; rather than fiddle with WASD12345Space."
"And if by no consequence you mean "usefulness of options" try referring to my first point that the options have to be meaningful."
White washing the usefulness of each weapon by letting them do every job like a Swiss Army knife does not increase the number of unique and consequential game states. You're delusional.
"So if the latter is what you meant, then I would agree on that, but that has no bearing on the value of having a higher amount of viable options within a system which was my original point."
You are admitting that the optionality becomes shallow because they all get the same result. . . ((((by having similar mechanics))))
"But if you come up with a good supporting argument that doesn't get destroyed by facts then let me know unless you can't handle it, which apparently you can't as you keep switching into different topics now. The irony, coming from the "if people would just address my points they would see im always right" guy."
Get over yourself.
I was asking for active engagement not reductive bickering.
"White washing the usefulness of each weapon by letting them do every job like a Swiss Army knife does not increase the number of unique and consequential game states. You're delusional."
False. It increases the amount of "consequential game states". Im not sure why you are going in circles but this is due to the fact we already established- that more options vs more options is more game states providing they are consequential. There is no reason they cannot be made to be consequential. Im not sure what you are reffering to as "every job" other than the overall combat system criteria I stated in my other post, but thats more about combat balance and flow than individual weapon roles. The "job" of each weapon in that system manifests itself differently to create more "weapon jobs" than even what you yourself are using as a benchmark- This is through the combination of the spacings/timings/risk reward ratios- in which case the consequence comes from the counterplay and risk resulting from the varying interactions between these different combinations balanced against each other (I explained how to different combinations of offensive options in the other post.)
1. The quantity of combibations and subsequently the interactions amongst them- creates the weapon variety
2. The interactions themselves being manipulatable through spacings/timings mixups directly controlable by the player that directly affect the results of said interactions creates exponentially more consequential game states as a result.
But regardless of that fact, this is within the contraints of a well designed overall combat system that prioritizes other things over weapon variety, yet still achieves more weapon variety than you could even think up- as I just explained. The overall system takes priority over arbitrary "amounts of weapon jobs" anyway- as it is the main driving force behind creating the most varying and consequential game states that are so important to you, which is exactly why it is imortant. The difference is that the implications of this is nowhere near what you have in mind.
"False. It increases the amount of "consequential game states". Im not sure why you are going in circles but this is due to the fact we already established- that more options vs more options is more game states providing they are consequential."
At least be self-aware instead of carrying every thread through to the end.
The mechanisms you suggest are from 2D and 3D fighters and you want everyone to behave like a 2D and 3D fighter at the cost of the RPG part of MMORPG.
ffs
"Im not sure what you are reffering to as "every job" other than the overall combat system criteria I stated in my other post"
Your criteria is dogshit that takes the role out of roleplay game. You want to turn every class/ char into a 2D/3D fighting game character.
"
The "job" of each weapon in that system manifests itself differently through the combination of the spacings/timings/risk reward ratios- in which case the consequence comes from the counterplay and risk resulting from the varying interactions between these different combinations balanced against each other (I explained how to different combinations of offensive options in the other post.)
"
You are saying they all do the job of dueling the enemy I get it yes you want to balance the entire game around a 1 on 1 3D fighter.
"
The interactions themselves being manipulatable through spacings/timings mixups directly controlable by the player that directly affect the results of said interactions creates exponentially more consequential game states as a result.
"
The game state being a 3D fighter I get it yes many unique.
Maybe if I put it this way: All of what you're saying bootstraps (you're probably familiar with that software engineering term) a 2D/3D fighter. Not an MMORPG.
"Your criteria is dogshit that takes the role out of roleplay game. You want to turn every class/ char into a 2D/3D fighting game character."
No, it would not have to be, you can have the best elements of both. The skill required to optimize the combat system could be balanced against the more traditional rpg archetypes through having a weighting of how impactful each is in the end result of combat. By making class role superior or inferior in a given matchup by a certain percentage, you can weigh that against the percentage difference in skill required by the other player to overcome that difference.
Don't unload your bootstrap for a different game on others; it should be at least similar.
What I've suggested is nothing like what you are suggesting.
This need for perfect combat balance just isn't relevant. What's relevant is creating a game conducive to creative and fun emergent gameplay. From the bottom up. Not a 2D/3D fighter that might be more interesting the better you are at it.
No one wants this mirror perfectionism shaping the whole game. Bootstrap the RPG not the Fighter.
You don't seem to get what role-playing is lol it's not a Fighter gimmick.
No I am well aware. I don't think it should be a fighter gimmick, I just think that would be a good starting point for designing a balanced combat system, then expanding out to add different roles and favorable matchups between the archetypes for impactful and strategic role choice. I want to have a mixture of both. Where your strategic roleplay is just as impactful as your combat skill.
To quote yourself "They say it but that's all they say. That's all you said as well. It's an arbitrary judgement. Being part of a world and surviving doesn't stop it from being an MMORPG."
Theres no reason you can't design it to have an equal blend of both and still feel like an mmorpg.
strategic roleplay isn't a real term and you're trolling because your ego was hurt
an mmo fighter isn't bad but it's not an MMORPG. roles as a combat strategy is far from RPG as it is.
This is why I suggested exhaustion mechanics and class tie ins with professions/ resources along with world-building stuff.
Again: your 3D fighter bootstrap has almost nothing to do with an RPG.
Why would my ego be hurt? If anything im satisfied that someone as stubborn as yourself would admit to understanding someone elses perspective.
Strategic roleplay is absolutely a thing, regardless of what you want to call it the idea is a thing. I gave an example in my other post of a whole competitive community around this type of gameplay.
That was a typo, I just meant that you made effort to hear another perspective without resorting to the usual insults.
But there went that sentiment lol. Pokemon is an rpg with rpg roles you can build with an entire competitive community around that type of gameplay so just because you don't know about it doesn't mean its not a thing. I mean how much do you even know on the topic to be able to talk on it or call me an idiot? Obviously there is something to it or I would have never made the suggestion to have strategic class picking elements coincide with 3d combat.
@Sapiverenus I think the idea is great, but actually making it work would be hard. Having a stamina bar for sprinting would be easy enough. But once you start adding in calculations for character stamina/str/weight/class ect you add in more things the server needs to process. Even if you assume that wouldn't be an issue you'll have problems with balancing all the character classes with this system, fighters, mages, rogues, priests, ect... Then problems with people manipulating it for EXP gain. With how much Intrepid is already biting off I don't think a system like this would add much value to the game, I'd rather see the effort put else where.
But I do agree a system that took in character weight, carry weight, str/stam, ect. Applied that to how fast that character could swing a sword, and how much energy it took from them would be extremely fun and lead to so many different types of physical combat builds. Imagine if you applied the character weight/weight/str/stam to there swimming or climbing abilities. Anyone ever see anyone swim in full plate? or even chain mail? New World accidentally got that right lol.
I would loathe a game where my character is less capable than my real life capabilities. My Valheim character can't run for 30 seconds, it is annoying, tedious, not fun, it has never been fun, but the rest of the game was fun.
I would loathe a game where my character is less capable than my real life capabilities. My Valheim character can't run for 30 seconds, it is annoying, tedious, not fun, it has never been fun, but the rest of the game was fun.
But it can run dead sprint for 30 seconds carrying 150kg. More if you get the strength belt.
To me a stamina bar isn't much different than a mana bar, you just need to learn to manage it. Of course we can't cast magic in RL (unless people are keeping secrets!) so we can't annoyed by how limited our magic endurance is in a game... Like any mechanic though if implemented poorly it could be really annoying. Such as if your stamina bar goes to zero you can't walk anymore... but we stamina bars in tons of great games and they are work fine and are fun.
@Volgaris yeah but the game isn't exactly realistic, i can carry what is essentially 20-30 chopped trees on my back, so are we going for realism or practicality here?
That was a typo, I just meant that you made effort to hear another perspective without resorting to the usual insults.
But there went that sentiment lol. Pokemon is an rpg with rpg roles you can build with an entire competitive community around that type of gameplay so just because you don't know about it doesn't mean its not a thing. I mean how much do you even know on the topic to be able to talk on it or call me an idiot? Obviously there is something to it or I would have never made the suggestion to have strategic class picking elements coincide with 3d combat.
The only quality you value is a 3D fighter; and you've only told me how your way of doing things is possible [yes of course you can create a 3D fighter] without understanding that I don't care that you want a 3D fighter.
Your Tenets on 3D fighter combat are not important to me. Reference to what I don't give a shit about.
I would throw them away whenever I felt like it while developing an MMORPG.
Stop telling me about your dream for a 3D fighter.
Comments
I looked it up and it looks like a bad game for a lot of reasons lol.
"You could be sniffed out by animals if you don't bathe or coat yourself in something. Would be a good mechanic.
Running and 'effort' could require spamming a button press to mirror physical effort and focus. Simply holding the button could be moderate or low power/ effect.
If you compare that to fighting games or starcraft it's child's play. "
It would certainly make for a more visceral and satisfying game to many. The increased power would increase in-game exhaustion to be clear.
For someone who cares so much about other people's opinions on your ideas you sure do suck at convincing them when the best you can do are these insults:
"-If only it does everything and you win! Then it's good design. get real man
-you're just a fool.
-Then again I'm the more open-minded one here lmao.
-how pointless of an argument can you make?
-Try reading the damn thread
-because you're a smooth brain.
-You can't use your brain or contribute to the topic with any effort. It's clear how phobic....you are.
-Every one of your replies have been low effort
-what kind of scripted response is this?"
All of those are my genuine thoughts and interrogations as well.
I don't think one person has interfaced fully with the topic, mostly dismissive and interrogative themselves.
Just thought of an extension of this. Put 1 mana into a wand/stave/staff for 12 magic autos or 3 small abilities that deal some OK damage.
I was reproducing your level of debate skill. I have no reason to avoid the content as I can fully comprehend and fully articulate why I think its a bad idea.
Options are fun. The more options you have the more there is to master and more skill expression, providing there is reason to use said options.
Limiting options is counterproductive to this. Yes, you force people to adapt within a set of limitations to require thinking, but that thought had been there from the start, it might just not be as "forced" until people start to motivate themselves to understand the depth of the options within that system. All your doing is limiting peoples ability to strategize with all the potential interactions and combinations of the options available at any given time, instead of limiting this you should be allowing them more room for strategy through more options to consider at all times, requiring more strategic counterplay, flowcharting, planning, etc.
While yes, the added constraints can prompt that thinking more easily, it does not lead to a metagame with the most depth if that is your preference. Which it may not be, but it is mine.
@Sapiverenus
The constraint increases tactical and strategic depth. Like how some terrain permits tactical and strategic depth vs a flat or rolling hills plane.
I disagree. Like I said. If there are more options to consider at any given time, you have more option combinations that can take place between both sides. That is a literal defining aspect of depth in the gameplay. There is more counterplay to consider, more planning required, and more of an overall grand scheme path to chart in order to accomplish your objective within a system like that. There is no discussion or debate on that matter it is an indisputable fact. It just seems more tactical because since your options are constrained - your enemies options are constrained as well, which makes it actually a lot easier to manage, making something that seemed "random" into something that seems like you can approach purposefully. But for those that are capable, they can take that "randomness" of a system that has more options for both players, and have a lot more room to capitalize on that much higher skill ceiling to outplay their opponent- though it requires a lot more cognitive ability to be able to manage a more complex system to gain that satisfaction.
If the consequences are similar then it's shallow optionality. Having no new mechanic and variable constraint means less possible 'game states', so there are less situations to consider.
If you come up with some good execution on weapon types let me know.
Again, great observation- assuming by consequence you are reffering to the more of the "risk" aspects- the discussion was not about the consequences of said options it was about the quantity, but nice try derailing. And if by no consequence you mean "usefulness of options" try referring to my first point that the options have to be meaningful. So if the latter is what you meant, then I would agree on that, but that has no bearing on the value of having a higher amount of viable options within a system which was my original point.
But if you come up with a good supporting argument that doesn't get destroyed by facts then let me know unless you can't handle it, which apparently you can't as you keep switching into different topics now. The irony, coming from the "if people would just address my points they would see im always right" guy.
@Sapiverenus
Consequences refer to risk and reward. And to quote from my other post:
"If you manipulate the different combinations of spacing/timings/risk/reward ratios that you provided for weapon variations; not everything you list as "good direction" in the original post (emboldened by me in a previous message) will be possible for many situations. In fact, you will have to choose your weapon based on the situation; or avoid that situation; rather than fiddle with WASD12345Space."
"And if by no consequence you mean "usefulness of options" try referring to my first point that the options have to be meaningful."
White washing the usefulness of each weapon by letting them do every job like a Swiss Army knife does not increase the number of unique and consequential game states. You're delusional.
"So if the latter is what you meant, then I would agree on that, but that has no bearing on the value of having a higher amount of viable options within a system which was my original point."
You are admitting that the optionality becomes shallow because they all get the same result. . . ((((by having similar mechanics))))
Get over yourself.
I was asking for active engagement not reductive bickering.
"White washing the usefulness of each weapon by letting them do every job like a Swiss Army knife does not increase the number of unique and consequential game states. You're delusional."
False. It increases the amount of "consequential game states". Im not sure why you are going in circles but this is due to the fact we already established- that more options vs more options is more game states providing they are consequential. There is no reason they cannot be made to be consequential. Im not sure what you are reffering to as "every job" other than the overall combat system criteria I stated in my other post, but thats more about combat balance and flow than individual weapon roles. The "job" of each weapon in that system manifests itself differently to create more "weapon jobs" than even what you yourself are using as a benchmark- This is through the combination of the spacings/timings/risk reward ratios- in which case the consequence comes from the counterplay and risk resulting from the varying interactions between these different combinations balanced against each other (I explained how to different combinations of offensive options in the other post.)
1. The quantity of combibations and subsequently the interactions amongst them- creates the weapon variety
2. The interactions themselves being manipulatable through spacings/timings mixups directly controlable by the player that directly affect the results of said interactions creates exponentially more consequential game states as a result.
But regardless of that fact, this is within the contraints of a well designed overall combat system that prioritizes other things over weapon variety, yet still achieves more weapon variety than you could even think up- as I just explained. The overall system takes priority over arbitrary "amounts of weapon jobs" anyway- as it is the main driving force behind creating the most varying and consequential game states that are so important to you, which is exactly why it is imortant. The difference is that the implications of this is nowhere near what you have in mind.
At least be self-aware instead of carrying every thread through to the end.
The mechanisms you suggest are from 2D and 3D fighters and you want everyone to behave like a 2D and 3D fighter at the cost of the RPG part of MMORPG.
ffs
"Im not sure what you are reffering to as "every job" other than the overall combat system criteria I stated in my other post"
Your criteria is dogshit that takes the role out of roleplay game. You want to turn every class/ char into a 2D/3D fighting game character.
"
You are saying they all do the job of dueling the enemy I get it yes you want to balance the entire game around a 1 on 1 3D fighter.
"
The game state being a 3D fighter I get it yes many unique.
No, it would not have to be, you can have the best elements of both. The skill required to optimize the combat system could be balanced against the more traditional rpg archetypes through having a weighting of how impactful each is in the end result of combat. By making class role superior or inferior in a given matchup by a certain percentage, you can weigh that against the percentage difference in skill required by the other player to overcome that difference.
What I've suggested is nothing like what you are suggesting.
This need for perfect combat balance just isn't relevant. What's relevant is creating a game conducive to creative and fun emergent gameplay. From the bottom up. Not a 2D/3D fighter that might be more interesting the better you are at it.
No one wants this mirror perfectionism shaping the whole game. Bootstrap the RPG not the Fighter.
You don't seem to get what role-playing is lol it's not a Fighter gimmick.
To quote yourself "They say it but that's all they say. That's all you said as well. It's an arbitrary judgement. Being part of a world and surviving doesn't stop it from being an MMORPG."
Theres no reason you can't design it to have an equal blend of both and still feel like an mmorpg.
an mmo fighter isn't bad but it's not an MMORPG. roles as a combat strategy is far from RPG as it is.
This is why I suggested exhaustion mechanics and class tie ins with professions/ resources along with world-building stuff.
Again: your 3D fighter bootstrap has almost nothing to do with an RPG.
Strategic roleplay is absolutely a thing, regardless of what you want to call it the idea is a thing. I gave an example in my other post of a whole competitive community around this type of gameplay.
Yes Pokemon the most RPG game out there. Get real. You're an idiot. You think you'll skate through life manipulating people to do your bidding.
Quit posting in this thread.
But there went that sentiment lol. Pokemon is an rpg with rpg roles you can build with an entire competitive community around that type of gameplay so just because you don't know about it doesn't mean its not a thing. I mean how much do you even know on the topic to be able to talk on it or call me an idiot? Obviously there is something to it or I would have never made the suggestion to have strategic class picking elements coincide with 3d combat.
Bye then. Don't suppose we'll see you around here again. Don't let the door hit y.... you know what, I don't care if it hits you or not.
But I do agree a system that took in character weight, carry weight, str/stam, ect. Applied that to how fast that character could swing a sword, and how much energy it took from them would be extremely fun and lead to so many different types of physical combat builds. Imagine if you applied the character weight/weight/str/stam to there swimming or climbing abilities. Anyone ever see anyone swim in full plate? or even chain mail? New World accidentally got that right lol.
But it can run dead sprint for 30 seconds carrying 150kg. More if you get the strength belt.
To me a stamina bar isn't much different than a mana bar, you just need to learn to manage it. Of course we can't cast magic in RL (unless people are keeping secrets!) so we can't annoyed by how limited our magic endurance is in a game... Like any mechanic though if implemented poorly it could be really annoying. Such as if your stamina bar goes to zero you can't walk anymore... but we stamina bars in tons of great games and they are work fine and are fun.
The only quality you value is a 3D fighter; and you've only told me how your way of doing things is possible [yes of course you can create a 3D fighter] without understanding that I don't care that you want a 3D fighter.
Your Tenets on 3D fighter combat are not important to me. Reference to what I don't give a shit about.
I would throw them away whenever I felt like it while developing an MMORPG.
Stop telling me about your dream for a 3D fighter.