Frogboy Frogboy

Discussion: General Combat System

Discussion: General Combat System

The latest poll shows that people are very interested in us taking a new look at the combat system (https://www.elementalgame.com/journals)

One of the biggest complaints we have seen is that weapons are 1 D N where N is the max the weapon does.

While 1 D N is the same system GalCiv II uses, the difference is that in GalCiv, a ship might have many weapons which would tend to equalize the overall damage.

Simply put, there is too much luck involved in Elemental's combat.

The purpose of this post is to discuss other ways combat could be done.  What suggestions or preferences do you have AND how would you communicate (visually) to the player how such a system would work?

326,531 views 140 replies
Reply #126 Top

Quoting Lantros, reply 123

Really, I'm NOT proclaiming for You. I'm proclaiming this for Those Who Want It


 

I understand that. You wrote it once or twice. And your "official" Thread is ok. I have nothing against it. You want that and you fight for that. Everything ok. In this request-thread you describe what you want and everbody who is with you could say "Yes, i want it".

But other threads are started and written in another context. For example this thread. Frogboy asked for input and everbody is free to give this input, his personal ideas. So pls dont use words like "we" and "us".  That would be nice. thx.

Look, brother, when I said "We" and "Us" in my reply here, I was STILL talking about All the Other People in the Other threads, which would still, by your own choice not include you. So when I'm talking about more people than just me, how would You like me to denote a plural meaning? Maybe I should have said "Those other people and Me but not Lantros"? :P I know what I ment to say and Who I was talking about, and when Frogboy reads the reply he will know who I was talking about as well. Please stop posting semantics when YOU were Not included in the "Us" or "We". Thanks.

Reply #127 Top

Simply use Search&Replace and replace all occurrences of "we" with "we (for values of we)".

Then everyone can go back to talking about the game instead of about which "we" in which post was erroneously applied to "us". (for values of us)

Reply #128 Top

ok, your horse is way too high for me. No karma, not named in the credits.

No problem. Go on. I can ignore your post.

Reply #129 Top

Quoting MOIISKA, reply 115

Quoting RogueCaptain, reply 105Nothing beats the old school computer game tbs combat like Pools of Radiance.  I always preferred Pools of Darkness myself as having higher levels gave more abilities to play around with.OMG...  flashback.  Awesome games.

Indeed.  I was playing a series of old schools and thinking to myself:  "Now why couldn't Elemental's combat be as fun as this?" Definitely gotta mod that in.

Reply #130 Top

Quoting Raven, reply 119



Quoting Lantros,
reply 116

I think adding more units to the unit counts as so many of us want to see


 

@ravenx

Pls, can you stop proclaiming this. There are also many players, who dont want this. For example me. Isnt one big thread enough?



Really, I'm NOT proclaiming for You. I'm proclaiming this for Those Who Want It, which are counted in the other two threads going about it. You can't say there aren't a lot of people who want it, because there ARE a LOT of people who want it. If you like, feel free to count those who want it in the Two Threads going about it, please. Frogboy asked for input here, and input is what I'm giving. It's the first time I've replied to the thread so I think I have the right to say it when so many Other People (not you of course) want it and want them to stick to it even if it is "hard to balance". Something being hard to do isn't an excuse in my book not to do it. If you don't do something because it's hard to do, what does that make you?

Please, don't tell me what I can and can't suggest when You weren't one of the people who wanted the suggestion made. We all have our own opinions my friend, and we're all free to speak them. Would it be cool with you if I asked you not to say something just because I didn't agree with it? I don't think you'd like that much, and my entire argument, along with everyone else's was kept in the threads about it. If the head honcho asks for input, I'll give any input I feel the game needs, just as I expect you or anyone else to, ok

 

This is starting to get scarey...you are like the number one fan who now feels jilted and believes he is the messiah of the forums.  Dude, you have posted the same thing in like every thread you visit.  We know what you want.  They know what you want.  What else do you want??

Reply #131 Top

Quoting Rune_74, reply 130



Quoting Raven X,
reply 119



Quoting Lantros,
reply 116

I think adding more units to the unit counts as so many of us want to see


 

@ravenx

Pls, can you stop proclaiming this. There are also many players, who dont want this. For example me. Isnt one big thread enough?



Really, I'm NOT proclaiming for You. I'm proclaiming this for Those Who Want It, which are counted in the other two threads going about it. You can't say there aren't a lot of people who want it, because there ARE a LOT of people who want it. If you like, feel free to count those who want it in the Two Threads going about it, please. Frogboy asked for input here, and input is what I'm giving. It's the first time I've replied to the thread so I think I have the right to say it when so many Other People (not you of course) want it and want them to stick to it even if it is "hard to balance". Something being hard to do isn't an excuse in my book not to do it. If you don't do something because it's hard to do, what does that make you?

Please, don't tell me what I can and can't suggest when You weren't one of the people who wanted the suggestion made. We all have our own opinions my friend, and we're all free to speak them. Would it be cool with you if I asked you not to say something just because I didn't agree with it? I don't think you'd like that much, and my entire argument, along with everyone else's was kept in the threads about it. If the head honcho asks for input, I'll give any input I feel the game needs, just as I expect you or anyone else to, ok 
 

This is starting to get scarey...you are like the number one fan who now feels jilted and believes he is the messiah of the forums.  Dude, you have posted the same thing in like every thread you visit.  We know what you want.  They know what you want.  What else do you want??

I still am the number one fan :)

As for every thread? Really? I posted it in the thread I started, and then here because Frogboy asked for imput. I wouldn't call that every thread I visit, let it go, you're beating a dead horse. I don't think we need to spamm up Frogboy's post with BS, do you? If anything it's you people dragging the BS from thread to thread.

Reply #132 Top

For anyone who may care about my two cents in this matter, the following is part of a message I wrote recently to a member of the dev team. I am post it hear because it captures something missing from most discussions of the tactical combat.



I do not share the general opinion that the current tactical combat is broken. In fact, the tactical combat of Elemental is a fair approximation of the vast majority of comparable games. MOO2, the Shining Forces series, the Final Fantasy Tactics series, etc. all used a similar tactical frame work. However, the biggest distinction between these games and Elemental does not involve one side then another or 1dn or even different damage types. While these additions are niceties which could make the game better, the real thing limiting Elemental combat is choice.

The average unit in Elemental has one choice, attack or move. While there are special units which gain more choices - monsters, spellcasters, summons, etc - the generic troop has only this one choice. If you look at galciv2, the same dynamic is in place, though you added depth by using damage types to balance each type in a rock paper scissor manor. What made Final Fantasy tactics so much fun and so very replayable was the variety of things a unit could do or be. As each unit progressed, they became deeper and deeper tactically because more choices of how to approach the battle emerged. If you look at Sins of a Solar Empire, this is the same reason why combat in that game has incredible depth. If you look at Elemental, there is no such thing as a support unit, no combat healers, no buffers, no debuffers, no rooters, save for the special units which tend to make up the vast majority of players core army.

This leads me to another point, the only consequence to a player's choice in combat is a counterattack, but this is only a limited consequence as units appear to have a counterattack limit. Consider a sovereign with a high combat speed and a high mana pool. This unit can spam chain lightning until he runs out of speed or mana, and will more than likely destroy a large part of an enemies force.  Now, add to this that he has shards (multipliers working of course), this mage has just become a god amongst men. In most cases, which spell to cast and even if you should cast the spell are non choices as there are fairly limited ramifications to doing so. Spell are instant cast and require no cooldown of any kind. In fact, if a modder even tries to add tactical cooldowns, the game crashes to desktop. While I am not a fan of arbitrary limitations on game systems, I believe that adding cast times and cooldowns to tactical spells would make the casting of spell a much more potent and interesting choice. This would also make OP abilities like Arcane doom much more reasonable if a unit had to take a turn or two to cast it.


After I wrote this I came to release that the idea of choice underlies most of the issues with respect to elemental's combat. Consider that the best/most OP units are the various summons and champions, but why is this? Most of these units have special abilities and even more importantly they have roles to fill in combat. While the sovereign and the champions can fulfill multiple roles, consider the roles of the various summons and special units. Even after the latest updated changed the Vigilant Minion to no longer have arcane doom, the creature still has a role as a defensive unit with its 4x counter attacks. It is these types of roles which make monster fights more fun to fight and why unit v unit combat ultimate boils down to simplistic smash fest between the various sides.

Reply #133 Top

@Boltcutter re. Dominion:

Couldn't agree more! If I can't have my TITAN-based combat and terrain mechanics, I want to be able to script my troops.

Dominion really is a wargame for programmers to play.

Can't imagine how much of a pain in the ass it would be to write though :)

Reply #134 Top

Quoting Raven, reply 126

Look, brother, when I said "We" and "Us" in my reply here, I was STILL talking about All the Other People in the Other threads, which would still, by your own choice not include you. So when I'm talking about more people than just me, how would You like me to denote a plural meaning? Maybe I should have said "Those other people and Me but not Lantros"? I know what I ment to say and Who I was talking about, and when Frogboy reads the reply he will know who I was talking about as well. Please stop posting semantics when YOU were Not included in the "Us" or "We". Thanks.

"Many players" would be better in my opinion, because it leaves room for players that dont like a suggestion.

Reply #135 Top

What I think we need:

General Combat:

  1. A to-hit system: We need this for melee, ranged, and magic attacks
    1. Melee: Each unit has a base chance to hit (depending on weapon, e.g. Longsword gives 85% chance to hit) adjusted by both positive and negative modifiers. Positive modifiers include boni from STR, AGI, and/or special abilities. Negative modifiers include mali from dodge, parry, and/or special abilities. Special abilities could include 'Lightning Fast - Unit gets a 5% modifier to attack and defense rolls' and similar abilities.
    2. Ranged: I'd use the same rules for ranged as for Melee.
    3. Magic: Chance to hit should be dependent on spell used (e.g. Hurl Boulder may have a 60% chance to hit, Meteor Shower could be a 90% chance to hit, while a (guided) Magic Missile could have a 100% chance to hit), and be modified by intelligence of user (e.g. Intelligence of 15: no bonus, each point in excess of 15 adds 1% to hit). The only way to decrease the chance to hit should be through special abilities (e.g. 'Mirror Image - The caster creates an identical copy of himself to trick enemies'). There should also be a 'Spell Resistance' stat, but this one would decrease damage from magic, while leaving the chance to hit alone.
  2. A damage system:
    1. Each attack that successfully hit someone (be it through melee, ranged, or magic) needs to deal some damage. In order to account for attacks such as glancing blows against someone in heavy armor we need high HP counts (glancing blows would deal damage to the persons endurance ... they still hurt, they just don't draw  blood).
    2. We get rid of the current Defense stat, and replace it with: Dodge, Parry, Spell Resistance, and Armor (we could also add spell resistances for specific elements).
    3. Dodge and Parry were explained earlier: They modify a units chance to hit.
    4. Spell Resistance and Armor modify actual damage taken. A unit in plate might have 80% armor - when this unit takes physical damage, all physical damage is reduced by 80%. A Priest unit might have 50% Spell resistance, all spell damage (except from spells that deal physical damage, such as 'Hurl Boulder' is reduced by 50%)
  3. A better health pool:
    1. Units (especially Champions) need to gain several stats upon level-up. Champions should always get a boost in HP. I propose we simply use HP = Constitution x Level (This gets updated constantly, so when a Champion equips a Plate of Constitution that grants +10 Constitution giving him a total of 20 Constitution, his new HP (at level 5) should be 100).
  4. Weaker weapons for units:
    1. I'd rather see bigger groups of weaker regular units. 15 troops with Lords Hammers don't seem fun to me. I'd rather see 100 troops with weaker weapons that deal damage as per the above rules. Well equipped regular units might use Longswords that deal 1 or 2 damage, with a 45% chance to hit. They would also have lower HP per squad-member. This would keep them fighting longer against other normal units, able to damage Heroes and Dragons, but make it very unlikely that one lone squad could kill one.
Reply #136 Top

First get the flow of combat down. I don't care to stare at a slooooowly rising MISS message after every missed swing. I want a quick animation that ends immediately so I can continue on. I want when I click on the battefield that my character moves there pronto not just ignore my command because of some unfinished attack animation or pause.

 

Things need to flow quickly so that tactical battles are enjoyable. I cannot stand clicking 20-30 times in anger trying to get my guy to move when he can't do to some latent pause or problem with the combat messages or animations.

Reply #137 Top

Quoting Malloreon, reply 135
What I think we need:

General Combat:


A to-hit system: We need this for melee, ranged, and magic attacks

Melee: Each unit has a base chance to hit (depending on weapon, e.g. Longsword gives 85% chance to hit) adjusted by both positive and negative modifiers. Positive modifiers include boni from STR, AGI, and/or special abilities. Negative modifiers include mali from dodge, parry, and/or special abilities. Special abilities could include 'Lightning Fast - Unit gets a 5% modifier to attack and defense rolls' and similar abilities.
Ranged: I'd use the same rules for ranged as for Melee.
Magic: Chance to hit should be dependent on spell used (e.g. Hurl Boulder may have a 60% chance to hit, Meteor Shower could be a 90% chance to hit, while a (guided) Magic Missile could have a 100% chance to hit), and be modified by intelligence of user (e.g. Intelligence of 15: no bonus, each point in excess of 15 adds 1% to hit). The only way to decrease the chance to hit should be through special abilities (e.g. 'Mirror Image - The caster creates an identical copy of himself to trick enemies'). There should also be a 'Spell Resistance' stat, but this one would decrease damage from magic, while leaving the chance to hit alone.
A damage system:

Each attack that successfully hit someone (be it through melee, ranged, or magic) needs to deal some damage. In order to account for attacks such as glancing blows against someone in heavy armor we need high HP counts (glancing blows would deal damage to the persons endurance ... they still hurt, they just don't draw  blood).
We get rid of the current Defense stat, and replace it with: Dodge, Parry, Spell Resistance, and Armor (we could also add spell resistances for specific elements).
Dodge and Parry were explained earlier: They modify a units chance to hit.
Spell Resistance and Armor modify actual damage taken. A unit in plate might have 80% armor - when this unit takes physical damage, all physical damage is reduced by 80%. A Priest unit might have 50% Spell resistance, all spell damage (except from spells that deal physical damage, such as 'Hurl Boulder' is reduced by 50%)
A better health pool:

Units (especially Champions) need to gain several stats upon level-up. Champions should always get a boost in HP. I propose we simply use HP = Constitution x Level (This gets updated constantly, so when a Champion equips a Plate of Constitution that grants +10 Constitution giving him a total of 20 Constitution, his new HP (at level 5) should be 100).
Weaker weapons for units:

I'd rather see bigger groups of weaker regular units. 15 troops with Lords Hammers don't seem fun to me. I'd rather see 100 troops with weaker weapons that deal damage as per the above rules. Well equipped regular units might use Longswords that deal 1 or 2 damage, with a 45% chance to hit. They would also have lower HP per squad-member. This would keep them fighting longer against other normal units, able to damage Heroes and Dragons, but make it very unlikely that one lone squad could kill one.

This looks like the Dominions 3. system [actually it was more complicated, but oh well]. I'd go with this, if we want to have a serious/decent combat system in EWoM.

[[Also just a note Malleron: You forgot about damage types -> damage reduction. [Like X armor piece offers 10% piercing dmg reduction, Y armor offers 10% crushing dmg reduction etc.] -> So, for example a full plate armor set should reduce slashing and piercing dmg taken by 50% & crushing dmg taken by 35%.]]

 

Reply #138 Top

Considering I wasnt thinking of any particular model when I wrote this, I wouldnt say I forgot anything. I dont think that damage types are the most important factor, so I didnt think of including any.

Reply #139 Top

Well, some ideas for the rework of the combat system:

- Units get to move and do one other action per turn (attack, cast spell, use special ability). No more action points.

- Players move one unit at a time until all of them have moved for the turn.

- Have attack and defense to calculate the probability of hitting. If the hit lands then there is a damage attribute that gets deducted from the hit points. Magic works the same, but it has a different defense attribute (resistance, willpower, as you like). Only those two damage types, normal and magic.

- There are no "researchable" units sizes. Units can be heroes (1 guy), artillery (2 guys), cavalry (4 guys), infantry (8 guys). End of the story (those numbers are an example, just pick the ones you like the most). Balance around those static numbers (for example to choose monster unit sizes).

- Units with multiple members do not add their attributes, they do more attacks (like MoM, TW,...). Hp tracked at member level.

- Reduce the range for ranged weapons, but allow longer ranges if firing from elevated terrain (hills,...). Movement ranges and ranged weapons ranges should be balanced together, so no infantry can blitz in one turn to the archers, but also so they don't take 23423 shots before reaching melee.

Reply #140 Top

Here are a couple of my suggestions - if my 2 cents count. :thumbsup:

INITIATIVE - In "rounds"......In tactical battles give each unit on the battlefield a 1-20 initiative roll modified by + combat speed. Highest # goes first on the field no matter if attacking or defending and lowest goes last. In a case of a tie, roll again between the ones in question (higher wins) until combat order is resolved. Once combat order is set for that "round", it will rotate through (move 1 square or attack if in range) and repeat until all units have had all of their attacks or moves. This would equal one "round".

Rinse and repeat for "round 2" et al until last units are standing.

I think this would be a simple fix and would resolve the issue of the attacking army having the insane advantage at attacking first that the game currently has. It would also offer much more of a realistic battle.

 

Currently melee units are fairly ineffective. I think that making the tactical map larger and making the armies start farther apart(out of range of archers) would resolve the issue of archers being OP'd. In the same vein, give spells range similar to archers so as to fix the range issue there also.I also think that being able to set a combat formation for each battle would add extra depth to tactical battles (melee in front, archers and casters in back or customize-able).

 

Also ranged units should be affected by terrain and "line of sight". Units that have "cover" (behind trees, behind hills, behind buildings, even behind other units) should get a defensive bonus against range. This should make melee units more useful and even mandatory.

I hope these suggestions help in making the combat system more balanced while not making it too complex to slow down game play.

I would like to also say congrats on making a very excellent game that is bordering on being a monumental success.