[Suggestion] La fatigue

[Alhanalem]

No, all the mediocre games such as Starcraft boil down to an RPS system.

This statement completely discredits any further opinions of yours posted.

It's solely the fact that the player base reached 9.5 million players that keeps it going

Did you ever think there might be a reason the game was/is so successful? Maybe because it's good?

 

[Phallas]

Ok stamina should not be a major feature in this game
but it should be there in a small part, to tie the game together.

This system will only work if there are quick movement features. Double taps in the direction you wish to move,
Example, Quick step back, quick step forward, left , right and ect.
They do not need animations just the current ones but with quick 200% jolts of movement.
So rather then constant a back peddle you would make a quick short one.

Unknown to most but the current Bow mechanics work with stamina, when the bow is pulled back the reticule size  increases as if the person is being fatigued
and thus loosing accuracy.

So far the only troop type affected by fatigue are archers, Think about it......
Why not include fatigue for other troop types.

Loose stamina if

- You swing thin air (do not make a hit). This would deter people from swinging wildly while ganking someone
- Holding back a weapon in the ready position for more then say 5 secs.
- You receive or make a kick. So its only really worth it if you actually strike the target.
- You block a heavy weapon with a lighter one.
- blocking with a heavy weapon.
- Horse's at full gallop would loose stamina, and not be able to hold the gallop after its diminished
( The horse's stamina should be tied into the players stamina bar, this can be balanced by giving horseman a larger stamina bar while mounted)
- Horse rearing, being stopped by a wall or other obstacles,  damage to the horse should also reduce its stamina bar.

(heavy 2 handers  should be a offensive weapon with limited defensive options, Blocking every single stab and slash form a sword is just strange , this is balanced by the fact that
shield breaks within 1-4 hits , depending on the shield strength, See swadian shield and by the fact that blocking a heavy wepaon with a lighter one would cause your opponent to loose stamina

Gain stamina If
- You make a hit, less of a reward when you hit a shield.
- When you walk instead of jog, or you stand still. (walking would be a better option in a fight. With quick bursts of maneuvering  speed with double tap)

It would also help out stamina regeneration if dodging strikes was more then just getting out of range by back pedaling you could move slight to the right or left to doge a strike.

Alot of these points are debatable but i think essentially in the big picture stamina should be there in some form, but not affecting things deeply just in the back of the players minds.
Players should just go by feel, by knowing there limits and thus gaining skill in this area, rather then having a stamina bar display.

Please note that having no stamina would not make you useless , just less effective in attacking , but defending should not be slowed or reduced,
So while you are defending ,Forcing your opponent to use up stamina while dodging attacks blocking you gain back stamina in this way,
Unless you are blocking a heavy weapon with a lighter one and other ways of loosing stamina. But overall you should still be effective just not as effective
as you would have been....

I think we need to trust that the devs will make the right decisions with stamina, and if they don't then we are here to let them know. 

 

[Papa Lazarou]

Test,

First of all, I'm not supporting any stamina system, let alone this one. Also your last line is actually exactly what I'm getting at. I say you can't list crappy stamina systems and then say all future stamina systems will suck. Seems we agree.

Also, I think you're not quite getting my point on measures and countermeasures.

Rock-paper-scissors is very simplistic in my mind. I'm all for measures and countermeasures, but rock-paper-scissors is too simple. As I said, real combat rarely looks like rock-paper-scissors. If you think differently, try to find a quote from a military strategist or tactician or martial artist that says otherwise. I've read The Art of War and George Silver and they don't mention anything resembling rock-paper-scissors. Actual fencing techniques and grappling counters do not resemble rock-paper-scissors either. Of course there are measures and countermeasures, but that they do not go round in a little circle like in rock-paper-scissors. Warband does have what I would call good measure and countermeasure gameplay in some areas already (for example, duels between unshieled opponents and between horsemen and footmen).

If you respond, please try to do it without insulting me personally and telling me that I'm "trivialising real combat" when I tell you that a rage bar with unlockable special attacks is unrealistic.

 

[dstemmer]

A few points about RPS in M&B. First I don't think it's helpful to think of weapons in a RPS kind of way. It would be better to think about it as a directed graph (this kind: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_%28mathematics%29). The weights between vertices would be the statistical likelihood of a weapon winning against another.

I see what Test is saying about RPS for melee combat, though. If I understand he correctly, he prefers an unequal reward type RPS system, that goes something like:

attack --(80%)--> kick --(80%)--> block --(10-95%, depending on blocking ability)--> attack

The percentages are the probability that a certain type of attack will succeed against the the next type on the chain. The reward for winning on an attack (damage the enemy) is much higher than the reward blocking an attack or kicking through a block, which should only give you a temporary advantage.

I don't know if this is a really useful abstraction, though. It seems kinda oversimplified. Once you have more than 3 types of attacks (which you would if you factored in regular attacks from horseback, couched lance, attacks from range, slow crushing attacks etc.) you'd find again that RPS is no longer expressive enough to represent the actual game mechanics. Again, if you feel the need to come up with a statistical model, you'd be better off representing it as a directed probability graph.

 

[Phallas]

yeah i think test is just against any stamina system what so ever. We know your opinion on the matter you have made it very clear and have brought many
good examples, and there is no need to keep restating your opinion.

I think you need to summarize everything before you post, There just seems to be  alot of clutter in your posts , no offense.

 

[Gumpy]

Rock-paper-scissors is very simplistic in my mind. I'm all for measures and countermeasures, but rock-paper-scissors is too simple. As I said, real combat rarely looks like rock-paper-scissors. If you think differently, try to find a quote from a military strategist or tactician or martial artist that says otherwise. I've read The Art of War and George Silver and they don't mention anything resembling rock-paper-scissors. Actual fencing techniques and grappling counters do not resemble rock-paper-scissors either. Of course there are measures and countermeasures, but that they do not go round in a little circle like in rock-paper-scissors.

People need to stop confining their picture of RPS as a simple three-element system.  Good games build off of it as a base, resulting in deep, layered systems where stalemates can always be broken.

To clarify, RPS doesn't mean "this kills this which is killed by this". It means, as an example, combat was good but we had difficulty with people facehugging so we implemented kick. It's tiny little things like that, which don't really fit in to the one-cancels-the-other mechanic people balk at when the acronym crops up, which give players options against combat dead-ends (like shieldhugging), and if they're too powerful or can be abused there are other small options against that, more than one. It's a system like that which definitely does guarantee deep multiplayer gameplay, though I would personally rather something much more freeform than a sculpted system, but that's me. The above is my basic understanding of it. If I've compeltely missed the point then feel free to disregard my comment altogether.

Also though I disagree with stamina ever being implemented I think if it were it would have to be a much more simple method, without a "stamina bar" or something ridiculous, and with losing stamina simply resulting in slowed down movement and swing speed, not enough to stultify combat, but enough to be noticeable and something you want to avoid. Take Flashpoint for instance (I know it's a **** example but it gets the 'feel' of what I'm trying to explain), where sprinting for a long period of time didn't stop you from sprinting, but slowed you down and made shooting difficult. It felt natural, and was rarely noticable in combat unless you'd just burst into a group of guys after a marathon run.

It wouldn't cripple combat but it would encourage players not to spam and to be a little more careful when they engaged. Ideally, it should make you still able to defeat a fresh enemy without overdue effort, but it should be an annoyance and enough of a disadvantage that players seek to minimise it. If it's implemented in a way that makes a fatigued person very obviously at a disadvantage to a fresh player, well, there will be uproar, because we'll have been caged and chained by a game mechanic and unable to play the way we want.  I disagree with stamina on that principle. I don't like artificial barriers around my playstyle and spam has never been that much of a problem for me.

I make no apologies for the hilarious confusion and lack of readability of this post. Also, **** Starcraft

 

[test]

Rock-paper-scissors is very simplistic in my mind. 

That's the crux of your argument.  You still see RPS as being a strictly 3 element cycle, when every competitive MP game add layers and build upon it with unequal payoffs.  In Starcraft, an RPS cycle can have a dozen layers, and in SF, RPS can mean 5-6 divergences within the span of two seconds.

I'm all for measures and countermeasures, but rock-paper-scissors is too simple.

I've flown around the world playing tournaments over the years, from Quake to CS to SF to various RTS games, and every one of them essentially boiled down to RPS at its base, whether it was strats/tactics or built-in game mechanics.  Competitive games are popular, playable, and interesting to watch because there's always multiple ways to break a stalemate.  On the martials arts side of things, there's always counters to any technique, style or gameplan, provided you train hard enough.  Take the UFC for example: First there was Jiu-jitsu dominance, then there was wrestling/ground and pound, followed by Muy-Thai cross-trained with the above, and now there's Karate with all of the above.  Fighters must keep evolving, or else they die - there isn't a skill-cap or stalemate that can't be broken, like there are when you lack a solid RPS base in mp games.




RPS in RTS
by Sirlin

Real-time strategy games such as StarCraft also use the RPS system. Like fighting games there's the concept of RPS on large scale and a small scale. On the small scale, particular units are designed to counter each other in a RPS way. A marine dies to a guardian. A guardian dies to a corsair. A corsair dies to a marine. Abstractly, there are 6 categories of unit. Ground units can either attack 1) other ground units, 2) air units, or 3) both. Air units can attack 4) other air units, 5) ground units, or 6) both. Pure ground-to-ground units usually beat both other types of ground units, yet lose to both types of air units that can attack ground. Similarly, pure air-to-air units usually beat both other types of air units, but loose to both types of ground units than can attack air.

RPS is not limited purely to units countering each other though. Real-time strategy games also have the concept of trading off powerful units now for a strong economy now, which leads to even more powerful units later. So on one extreme, a Zerg player in StarCraft might sacrifice his entire economy to get a quick attack force ("6 pool" is the term). This will likely beat a player who chose the other extreme of playing for pure economy and no immediate attack force (by building double oven triple hatcheries). A moderate build (pool on 9th peon, one sunken colony) will likely defend against the early attacker's rush, though. Surviving the rush, the moderate build will have a much superior economy and win in the end. However, this moderate build will produce an inferior economy to the player who built 2 or 3 hatcheries and went for pure economy.

In Starcraft, the early rush is a very, very risky strategy. It's all or nothing. You'll either win right away off it, or your rush will fail and you'll almost surely lose. Because of this, the early rush isn't all that common (depending on the map), but the very threat that the opponent might play the early rush is enough to stop you from playing for pure economy every time.

Finally, notice how hard it is to determine the actual payoffs in StarCraft. If your correct guess results in a battle between a few enemy Zealots and several of your Marines, what is the payoff? How many Marines will you lose? It depends on the micromanagement skill of both players, the terrain, and whether each player even focuses on the battle at all (maybe there's a more pressing battle somewhere else on the map). A lot of the goodness of StarCraft's design is that it's full of RPS with unequal and unclear payoffs.

 

[Archonsod]

Jesus, starcraft, this is probably the LONGEST RUNNING MULTIPLAYER GAME IN HISTORY! Do you know that yes, in south korea they have 3  or more channels that broadcast starcraft matches all day, TV. People make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year competing in this game.

And how much of those hundreds of thousands of dollars go to Blizzard?

My god man, you realize that a game that is over 10 years old still remains competitively interesting for people to watch?

Woo, lets cater to 2% of our market. That's a sound strategy

Please, just stop.  Starcraft and SF have global followings that are growing with age, to deny their success just makes you an Iraqi Information Minister.  SF has frequent regional tournaments in every major city, and WC3/SC is the cornerstone for every respected international tournament http://www.wcg.com/6th/fun/news/news_view.asp?keyno=C09111510093&page=1.  Hell, people move to Korea to build careers out of those games.

There are roughly 2 billion PC's in the world. Do you want to take a rough guess at how many of those are gaming pro's, or even interested in that kind of play? (hint - it's a single figure) Now, why would you want to cater to such a small market?
Also, take a guess at how many games aimed and designed for said market have succeeded in the past five years.

 

[test]

Jesus, starcraft, this is probably the LONGEST RUNNING MULTIPLAYER GAME IN HISTORY! Do you know that yes, in south korea they have 3  or more channels that broadcast starcraft matches all day, TV. People make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year competing in this game.

And how much of those hundreds of thousands of dollars go to Blizzard?

Are you in marketing, by any chance?  Blizzard's successful because they're not so short sighted to try to nickel and dime their customers/sponsors at every turn.  They know how to grow and support a community by making deep, highly replayable games and supporting competition (eg. working with TV stations for better in-game broadcasting tools).  Blizzard's not exactly hurting for cash, and SC2 will undoubtedly be one of the most successful games of all time, sales-wise.

My god man, you realize that a game that is over 10 years old still remains competitively interesting for people to watch?

Woo, lets cater to 2% of our market. That's a sound strategy

I'm half-expecting you to pitch a Mount&Blade cellphone game with DLC ringtones.

Please, just stop.  Starcraft and SF have global followings that are growing with age, to deny their success just makes you an Iraqi Information Minister.  SF has frequent regional tournaments in every major city, and WC3/SC is the cornerstone for every respected international tournament http://www.wcg.com/6th/fun/news/news_view.asp?keyno=C09111510093&page=1.  Hell, people move to Korea to build careers out of those games.

There are roughly 2 billion PC's in the world. Do you want to take a rough guess at how many of those are gaming pro's, or even interested in that kind of play? (hint - it's a single figure) Now, why would you want to cater to such a small market?
Also, take a guess at how many games aimed and designed for said market have succeeded in the past five years.

CoD series, Quake series, Starcraft, CS, Street Fighter, Virtua Fighter, Tekken, Warcraft (including WoW), Jedi Knight series, DoTA, HoN, Left4Dead, Halo, Gears of War, Chess, or any pvp game with a huge community, do well precisely because they're deep and balanced for sustained high level play.  These games give you room to evolve as a player.  What fun is a game where you're never surprised, see the same ****ty outcome every fight, and hit the skill cap after one month? 

 

[glustrod]

Please, just stop.  Starcraft and SF have global followings that are growing with age, to deny their success just makes you an Iraqi Information Minister.  SF has frequent regional tournaments in every major city, and WC3/SC is the cornerstone for every respected international tournament http://www.wcg.com/6th/fun/news/news_view.asp?keyno=C09111510093&page=1.  Hell, people move to Korea to build careers out of those games.

There are roughly 2 billion PC's in the world. Do you want to take a rough guess at how many of those are gaming pro's, or even interested in that kind of play? (hint - it's a single figure) Now, why would you want to cater to such a small market?
Also, take a guess at how many games aimed and designed for said market have succeeded in the past five years.

mmh, I don't want to take up the whole argument, but the point is that Starcraft suceeded in said market and in the more public semi-profi/fun market. Thats why test is always blabbering of layers and depth. A game should succeed for more fun orientated players (more facile layers) and pro players ("deeper" layers). At least thats my understanding of it.

 

[grimage]

I don't know where this discussion is going with RTS, RPS, rock/paper/scissors and those pro-competitive games, but thank you those who posted pertinent arguments about stamina.
Phallas, i usually don't agree with your input, but this one was refreshing. I appreciated your comments on stamina, especially this reminder:

Unknown to most but the current Bow mechanics work with stamina, when the bow is pulled back the reticule size  increases as if the person is being fatigued
and thus loosing accuracy.

So far the only troop type affected by fatigue are archers, Think about it......
Why not include fatigue for other troop types.

And this comment:

Players should just go by feel, by knowing there limits and thus gaining skill in this area, rather then having a stamina bar display.

Immersion is really what moves me. This goes in the right direction, imho.
I think that's one thing that differentiate two "categories" of players in this discussion, some have competition and game flow/pace in mind, others have immersion, simulation, feeling the battle with your guts, not just like a mind game. Maybe that's why some like starcraft/chess/SF, and others hate it. Maybe that's why i do it, thanks for making me realise it
Back to stamina implementation, i totally agree with you on those quotes.

I want to thank modest Gumpy too, nice input there (and i really like modesty ).

Also though I disagree with stamina ever being implemented I think if it were it would have to be a much more simple method, without a "stamina bar" or something ridiculous, and with losing stamina simply resulting in slowed down movement and swing speed, not enough to stultify combat, but enough to be noticeable and something you want to avoid. Take Flashpoint for instance (I know it's a **** example but it gets the 'feel' of what I'm trying to explain), where sprinting for a long period of time didn't stop you from sprinting, but slowed you down and made shooting difficult. It felt natural, and was rarely noticable in combat unless you'd just burst into a group of guys after a marathon run.

It wouldn't cripple combat but it would encourage players not to spam and to be a little more careful when they engaged. Ideally, it should make you still able to defeat a fresh enemy without overdue effort, but it should be an annoyance and enough of a disadvantage that players seek to minimise it. If it's implemented in a way that makes a fatigued person very obviously at a disadvantage to a fresh player, well, there will be uproar, because we'll have been caged and chained by a game mechanic and unable to play the way we want.  I disagree with stamina on that principle. I don't like artificial barriers around my playstyle and spam has never been that much of a problem for me.

I make no apologies for the hilarious confusion and lack of readability of this post. Also, **** Starcraft

Still in the same thought, i really agree with you on that quote too.

 

[Reapy]

You are right, there is no point arguing about starcraft when someone looks up and sees green skys.  So firstly getting back to stamina fatigue to stay on point. Here are some of phallas's ideas. I just wanted to show how these things are already punished in the game, and don't need more punishment by stamina reduction (imho):

Loose stamina if

- You swing thin air (do not make a hit). This would deter people from swinging wildly while ganking someone --- Punished by long recovery times. Miss a swing, someone will move in and strike you before you can recover and block.

- Holding back a weapon in the ready position for more then say 5 secs. ----Punishable by being an easy target for arrows (always arrows in battle) and/or spear /thrust attacks. Running around like this will get you killed generally.

- You receive or make a kick. So its only really worth it if you actually strike the target.  -- You are punished/rewarded with the kick landing and the stagger/interrupt that occurs.

- You block a heavy weapon with a lighter one.  ---- Penalized with possible crush through, stun (does that happen on side swings like is supposed to?, and inertia loss.

- blocking with a heavy weapon. ---- Hrm, currently no downside here...does it need one? If so, maybe the penalty should be a bit slower in getting into the set guard position then a smaller weapon.

- Horse's at full gallop would loose stamina, and not be able to hold the gallop after its diminished
( The horse's stamina should be tied into the players stamina bar, this can be balanced by giving horseman a larger stamina bar while mounted)  --- No penalty for full gallop, but lots of things slow you down. I do not know that I would penalize horses for running around too much and having to wait for them to rest. I do not think it would add much to the game but would instead slow it down. Sort of like adding a bathroom break to the game.

- Horse rearing, being stopped by a wall or other obstacles,  damage to the horse should also reduce its stamina bar.  ---- Penalty is getting lit up by arrows. Half of my horse shots are on people who have reared and/or stopped. Also, if someone is on foot near you when this happens, your horse and you are most likely going to die, or come out severely damaged.

(heavy 2 handers  should be a offensive weapon with limited defensive options, Blocking every single stab and slash form a sword is just strange , this is balanced by the fact that
shield breaks within 1-4 hits , depending on the shield strength, See swadian shield and by the fact that blocking a heavy weapon with a lighter one would cause your opponent to loose stamina  -----Blocking every hit from a fast sword should be MECHANICALLY difficult, meaning the hits come fast, the user is feinting, and you can not keep up. This outcome should be a direct line between your control ability and the opponents. I do believe that heavy weapons should affect lighter ones, but not by making you unable to attack or fight effectively, but perhaps by momentum changes or slowing down your ability to counter attack.

Gain stamina If
- You make a hit, less of a reward when you hit a shield.  ---- Rewarded already by interrupting their current action and doing damage.
- When you walk instead of jog, or you stand still. (walking would be a better option in a fight. With quick bursts of maneuvering  speed with double tap)  ---- Nothing in game currently, but having your movement effect your fighting ability is good also...but not as a stamina boost.

It would also help out stamina regeneration if dodging strikes was more then just getting out of range by back pedaling you could move slight to the right or left to doge a strike.  ---- Yes, more movement/dodge options would be good...but not with stam.


So, in summary, how I feel, is that we all sort of want the same things to have to be a consideration. My problem personally with stamina, is that a stam meter does everything it can to stop you from playing the game. I think all of these things mentioned in all the stamina posts should be considerations in your head while playing. But the way to make them work well and fun, would be so that doing these things affected your performance, not by lowering a stam meter.

Anytime that thing is down, you can not play the game. Not only that, by having the extra stam loss/gains, you are making the game more complex and micromanagement intensive. Because now while you are trying to maneuver for a good hit, with lots of stuff going on, you ALSO have to keep tab in your head of the +/- of your stam bar, so perhaps you did get your opponent right where you want him, but oh gee look I just ran out of stam, now I have to back off, so all your hard work on positioning, timing, and blocking has gone down the toilet because the other player decided to be more inactive then you. The stam just adds a double layer to the game.

Flashpoint is a great example too of why stam stinks. It is a very different style game (actually im mad at that game in general but thats another topic ), but think about how much running you do in that game, then, when you finally have sprinted half way across the map, you have to stop and sit for 30 seconds to get your health up, and all you did was get into place. Now, it is not as punishable in that game since generally you skip to a location, hunker down, then pop shots.

In m&b you sprint to a location, then engage in melee. If you add a sprint mode, you have 2 options. 1. Sprint to your location, and do nothing until your stam returns.  2. Walk at a slow speed to arrive with full stam.  In either way, have you improved the game options at all?  If you get there fast, you are useless, so why be there? If you get there slow, there would have been no reason to have a sprint at all, and just stick with regular walk speeds.

I disagree that the archery fade is stamina, at least in the traditional sense. But yes, the archery is a good example of how to simulate fatigue without using a "stamina system". Global stamina yellow bar thing === bad.. Checks and balances and timing === good (archery).

So really what would work are moves where doing an option, would have a recovery penalty. Like you can't draw the bow for too long and have to fire in a certain window, adds a nice skill component to firing AND dodging arrows.  Either way, whatever effects to simulate, they should be incorperated right into the move. A big swing with a long recover, or a long wind up. This becomes part of the game mechanics, not an arbitrary system that would stop you from playing the game.


--------------------------------------------------------------------NON STAM
Some other topics here --- There was talk about immersion. I think m&b does a great job with two of its features, heraldry and custom faces. With these two things, I now recognize players on the battlefield due to their shields and player faces / gender. I find that very immersive, and would love more things like that in game.  Already m&b does so many things that make the game a reminder of how real world physics work, having weapon weight and speed bonuses etc. Most of these things are under the hood and unexposed though, which is a shame.

RPS design. --- Hopefully you guys get what it is by now. RPS is used as the example as 3 elements is the least amount of design you need for it to work. Let me lay it out for you (yes I know you know how it works but sometimes the obvious must be explained for comprehension to sit in....see finances   )

I have a game where i can perform the move Rock or the move Scissors.

What happens? Everyone performs Rock. Either you draw, or you win..why ever use Scissors?

Ok, lets add a 3rd move to the game, Paper.

Now, the game got more interesting. The winning conditions for all moves are now equal.
R > S
S > P
P > R

You now have 3 moves to pick from. 1/3 of the time you will lose. 1/3 of the time you will draw. 1/3 of the time you will win.

So now, lets move this over to a m&b example to show that the game already has it, and, to show that RPS does not mean auto win.

I have a 2h, throwing axes, and a shield.  So does my opponent.
My opponent approaches with 2h. I take out throwing axes. We know from playing that
Throwing > 2 Hander (at range but we are simplifying )

Opponent takes out shield. I put away axes. If I take out 2h, he will take out throwing axes. The counter to my 2h. If I take out shield, we close and fight at about equal odds.

Now, this is not 100% correct, as distance matters and what not, but you see the design here? Neither is a guaranteed victory, but you do have a strong advantage over the other...with the caveat that the disadvantaged player can correct the disadvantage, or even gain one, by employing another move.

So, ok, now in a more complex design, you might have a move chain like:

a>b>c>d>e>a

Now this doesn't have to be that explicit, you have stuff on there like

A>C  or D > B

It can get very complex. The MAIN thing you want to remember is that no one move is overpowering. No one move will give you more win advantages in more situations then another, and even if that was the case, you still have to worry about them busting out their E when you are using A.

That is the heart of a balanced RPS design, and it is at the core of every game you have probably played growing up.



------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[test]

So, ok, now in a more complex design, you might have a move chain like:

a>b>c>d>e>a

Now this doesn't have to be that explicit, you have stuff on there like

A>C  or D > B

It can get very complex. The MAIN thing you want to remember is that no one move is overpowering. No one move will give you more win advantages in more situations then another, and even if that was the case, you still have to worry about them busting out their E when you are using A.

That is the heart of a balanced RPS design, and it is at the core of every game you have probably played growing up.

or:
A>C and E 
B or D > A
C > B or E
D = every letter in the alphabet, but  always > A, and always < E
E > every letter in the alphabet except A or C
..and so on. 

The point is no one tactic or mechanic is absolute, for every one rule there are multiple exceptions, and those exceptions have their own.  Mix in unclear payoffs and you have a flowing, interesting game.

 

[Archonsod]

Blizzard's successful

Being bought out by a competitor is not what most people would call "successful".

I'm half-expecting you to pitch a Mount&Blade cellphone game with DLC ringtones.

Why not? In fact, why not release a cell phone version which links in with the PC version so you can still play the "same" game everywhere? Technology is there, just needs someone to step in and open it up. Before EA does.

What fun is a game where you're never surprised, see the same ****ty outcome every fight, and hit the skill cap after one month?

Ask a WoW player

I just wanted to show how these things are already punished in the game, and don't need more punishment by stamina reduction (imho)

Stamina doesn't have to be about punishment. In fact, some of the things you list shouldn't be punished at all; taking longer to recover after missing a swing for example simply encourages conservative, defensive play rather than being more aggressive. Hence why combat boils down to a swing/block pattern until someone ****s up.
What you could do with a stamina system is to allow minimal recovery time between blows, but reduce the speed and damage of each subsequent swing accordingly. You're now encouraging players to attack a little more, but at the same time a reckless player is still penalised, and due to the slowdown it still creates an opening for the defender to get their own attack in. You end up with slightly more fluid combat dynamics than the traditional blow exchange, while retaining that element of skill in when to counter attack.

- Horse's at full gallop would lose stamina, and not be able to hold the gallop after its diminished

Lose, not loose. Loosing something would be altogether different I'd agree with you on this one. A horse is developed for long distance running, assuming they were galloping in game rather than the canter they look to be doing you'd still get a good two mile or so out of it before it even started to slow down. I wouldn't tie the two stamina bars together either; the horse should not become tired because the rider is swinging a sword, and vice versa.

In m&b you sprint to a location, then engage in melee.

And of course people charging were generally thought to be more effective than people casually strolling up to the foe in order to prevent fatigue

So really what would work are moves where doing an option, would have a recovery penalty.

Slapping a recovery penalty on everything doesn't work, because you then come down to a simpler system than RPS since it essentially boils down to whether the first person to make an attack hits or not. It's basically turned into tennis except with pointy bits of metal rather than a ball (battle tennis, now why has nobody ever invented that?) You need a way to limit swing spam and the like, but that shouldn't involve giving the opponent a free shot. What you really want is to increase the options of both players with each having it's own advantage and disadvantage.

 

[dstemmer]

Stamina doesn't have to be about punishment. In fact, some of the things you list shouldn't be punished at all; taking longer to recover after missing a swing for example simply encourages conservative, defensive play rather than being more aggressive. Hence why combat boils down to a swing/block pattern until someone ****s up.
What you could do with a stamina system is to allow minimal recovery time between blows, but reduce the speed and damage of each subsequent swing accordingly. You're now encouraging players to attack a little more, but at the same time a reckless player is still penalised, and due to the slowdown it still creates an opening for the defender to get their own attack in. You end up with slightly more fluid combat dynamics than the traditional blow exchange, while retaining that element of skill in when to counter attack.

I like this suggestion. It's the same idea as melee fatigue in Left 4 Dead. It would be nice to see a little more back-and-forth momentum in combat that, as you say, doesn't entail just taking turns trading blows. Right now it's a big problem that certain weapons can never get an attack in if the attacker keeps spamming -- scimitar vs. warhammer for example. Your suggestion would mean that after enough times blocking a scimitar, the attacker would be tired enough that the warhammer guy could finally get a hit in. I suggest tying attack fatigue to weapon weight and power strike skill.

I don't think this would affect combat negatively as Test suggests either -- there's no way that attack fatigue of this sort would encourage people not to attack, since blocking wouldn't carry any inherent advantages. All it would do is require the attacker to switch to the defensive once in awhile.

Interestingly, it's also the exact OPPOSITE idea of test's HYPER COMBO! rage bar.

 

[test]

Having less recovery on swings would be awful. Do you know how badly good players would abuse that?  Say goodbye to two-handers, and any heavy/slow weapon again, as everyone spams 1h/shield like it was August 2009.  Good timing, distance, inertia/punishment would no longer be important.  Not to mention how you'd have to wait 4 swings for players with fast weapons to slow down, something that isn't feasible outside of duels.  Archonsod would like that too, as I remember him arguing that these weapons should be useless.

I like this suggestion. It's the same idea as melee fatigue in Left 4 Dead.

L4D, seriously?  In L4D, frying pans are flat damage 180 degree-arc AOE's that oneshot 30 zombies in one swing.  There's no blocking. There's chainsaws that attack every 0.1 seconds.  Vomit.  Flying ninja zombies.  Mortal Kombat harpoons that drag you off buildings. 

If you're going to rip one aspect from a successful system, at least consider why it works in their situation.

Interestingly, it's also the exact OPPOSITE idea of test's HYPER COMBO! rage bar.

Revisionist.

These were the original posts:
http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,86310.msg2226348.html#msg2226348

And

隐藏

        Maybe one day M&B could integrate a 'balance' or 'momentum' meter.  This would increase by landing hits (blocked or not), and decrease for completely missing attacks.  For the defender, blocking hits would decrease meter, unless some sort of perfectly timed parry was done.  Certain ailments or attacks would be more potent depending on the meter.  Being too off-balance would make you more open to knock-downs, say from a simple kick to a powerful weapon smash, while having enough meter could give your weapons more crushing power or access to more moves - say a throw, bodycheck or pommel smash that could open your opponent up.

    I like the idea of incorporating balance, but I think a 'balance meter' is too much of an abstraction. I'm going to plug this post again, where Mithras talks in detail about a "balance point" system, where the game keeps track of each character's center of balance:

Depends on how it's simulated.  Jedi Outcast basically had an invisible balance meter coded underneath that adjusted and reset very quickly/instantly, depending on the action.  Blocking a heavy attack and having your weapon batted away momentarily would make you more vulnerable to knockdowns for a split second.  Moving deducted from your balance moderately, missing swings deducted it greatly.  Being off-balance would negatively impact your auto-blocking chances, but not manual/perfect parries.  Not sure how Bushido Blade was coded, but its mechanics played out similarly and is the most in-depth, realistic melee combat sim to date.

 

[dstemmer]

I like this suggestion. It's the same idea as melee fatigue in Left 4 Dead.

L4D, seriously?  In L4D, frying pans are flat damage 180 degree-arc AOE's that oneshot 30 zombies in one swing.  There's chainsaws that attack every 0.1 seconds.  Vomit.  Flying ninja zombies.  Mortal Kombat harpoons that drag you off buildings.

Nice how you took that entirely out of context. I mentioned Left 4 Dead because it was a game that introduced a specific game mechanic, melee fatigue, to stop attack spamming. I never tried to make the point the Left 4 Dead was realistic or that Mount&Blade should try to emulate it in other ways. You're bringing up points that are completely irrelevant, it would be like me yelling "HADOUKEN!" every time you mention Street Fighter.

Now stop derailing the the conversation and read the rest of the post and tell me how exactly it would be bad to have attack recovery time increase after a number of successive attacks. It wouldn't overpower 1h weapons, since the amount of recovery time would depend on both the weapon weight AND whether it's being held two-handed or not. If you're holding a weapon with two hands, you can swing more weight without tiring. Only the very heaviest 2h weapons would cause you to tire faster than than a fast 1h weapon.

The only difference it would make, as far as I can tell, is that it would force people to stop attack spamming once in awhile so that people with slower weapons could actually get a hit or two in.

Interestingly, it's also the exact OPPOSITE idea of test's HYPER COMBO! rage bar.

Revisionist.

These were the original posts:
http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,86310.msg2226348.html#msg2226348

And

隐藏

        Maybe one day M&B could integrate a 'balance' or 'momentum' meter.  This would increase by landing hits (blocked or not), and decrease for completely missing attacks.  For the defender, blocking hits would decrease meter, unless some sort of perfectly timed parry was done.  Certain ailments or attacks would be more potent depending on the meter.  Being too off-balance would make you more open to knock-downs, say from a simple kick to a powerful weapon smash, while having enough meter could give your weapons more crushing power or access to more moves - say a throw, bodycheck or pommel smash that could open your opponent up.

    I like the idea of incorporating balance, but I think a 'balance meter' is too much of an abstraction. I'm going to plug this post again, where Mithras talks in detail about a "balance point" system, where the game keeps track of each character's center of balance:

Depends on how it's simulated.  Jedi Outcast basically had an invisible balance meter coded underneath that adjusted and reset very quickly/instantly, depending on the action.  Blocking a heavy attack and having your weapon batted away momentarily would make you more vulnerable to knockdowns for a split second.  Moving deducted from your balance moderately, missing swings deducted it greatly.  Being off-balance would negatively impact your auto-blocking chances, but not manual/perfect parries.  Not sure how Bushido Blade was coded, but its mechanics played out similarly and is the most in-depth, realistic melee combat sim to date.

Not revisionist at all. You argue in that post that attacks should increase a meter that increases chance of knockdown, gives you access to new 'moves', etc. Archonsod argues that a number of sucessive attacks should actually slow down your attacks. Pretty much opposite.

I'm in favor of attacks putting you off-balance in conjunction with a body balance system, but that's quite different than your meter.

You also completely failed to quote the part of the post where I say:

The only thing his system wouldn't do would be to give your own attacks 'momentum'. I don't like the idea of 'momentum' for attacks though, it doesn't make logical sense to me that each attack should get successively stronger. It sounds too much like a C-C-COMBO BREAKER.

Talk about revisionist 

 

[test]

Nice how you took that entirely out of context. I mentioned Left 4 Dead because it was a game that introduced a specific game mechanic, melee fatigue, to stop attack spamming.

And I'm saying you're trying to rip a system without considering the context in which it's implemented.  Melee fatigue works in L4D because of the factors I listed.  You can kill a crowd of zombies (and push back the stronger ones) with one frying pan swing.  There's no blocking.  No delay between swings, or arc-dependent damage.  Melee essentially forms an impenetrable forcefield of death as long as you hold RMB.  You're worrying about ninja zombies landing on your head from 50 feet, not rhythm and counters. 

how exactly it would be bad to have attack recovery time increase after a number of successive attacks.  It wouldn't overpower 1h weapons, since the amount of recovery time would depend on both the weapon weight AND whether it's being held two-handed or not. If you're holding a weapon with two hands, you can swing more weight without tiring. Only the very heaviest 2h weapons would cause you to tire faster than than a fast 1h weapon.

1)  M&B isn't only about duels.  Melee fatigue would be bad for the game for the same reason stamina would.  It enforces turtling, dead-time, and zerging.  Risks should be encouraged and rewarded.  And you shouldn't have to wait multiple swings to tire someone out to optimally counter, it just leads to more dead-time, and no one would take the initiative if there was a third player involved.

2) If you're going to support a system, don't ignore the important points.

What you could do with a stamina system is to allow minimal recovery time between blows

I already out-interrupt everything with 1h's as it is, even after I'm blocked.  And you want to give me even less recovery?

Melee fatigue in L4D kicks in after 4 back-to-back swings.  I'd never have to worry about timing or distance or be careful about missing, just get close and stab swing stab swing (out-interrupting every step of the way), block 2 seconds for stamina, next person.  It takes me seconds to kill the best players when I'm fully abusing 1h as it is (if they're using shields it's back to being August block->hit->blockx20 mindlessness).

I'm in favor of attacks putting you off-balance in conjunction with a body balance system, but that's quite different than your meter.

You're getting fixated on the examples I bring up when talking about meters in SF.  I talk about them because they're systems that reward, instead of punish you for taking risks.  In SF your meter only charges, and it takes time.

The system I actually suggest rewards risks, but quickly gains, decreases or quickly resets depending on your actions - similar to the invisible balance meter underneath Jedi Outcast/Academy and Bushido Blade.  It's more similar to Mithras' system than SF, where actions or ailments are more potent depending on your meter/how balanced you are.  If you are sufficiently balanced, while your opponent is off balance, you'd be able to block-crush with normally non-crushing weapons, kicks would knockdown, you'd be able to do a trip, etc.

 

[Reapy]

FYI the front half of the stam ideas were not mine, i commented after the ---- part. I should have used different colors and QUOTE to make that clearer though.

Ok, see, I think the different ways we are thinking on this.

With stamina, fighting would be in "X round bursts" So lets just assume we could attack at full bore, or decreasing effectiveness until we hit the softcap of the stam bar, let us pick 4 as that number of attacks.

You would see combat in 4 round bursts to the initiator. You would close, jockey, then one player would open with the 'winning' hit causing the other to defend. The attacker would then have 4 attacks to try to open up the fight and score hits.

At this point, either the defender is losing stam due to blocking, or staying at a high stam for being defensive (depending how you do stam). So the 4 round burst is over. Now the defender, if he loses stam for blocking, has to back off and wait to get his stam back up, at the same time, the attacker does the same.  If this is the case, the flow of the fight is decided in the initial exchange and who attacks first, as well as adding in this delay to recover stam.

If the defender stays high on stam for defending, he would then get in his 4 free attacks while the initial attacker has to now defend. It would result in an attack/block repetition pattern we were trying to get away from, except it would be the length of the the stam bar.  It would ALSO require points where both people have to back up because the stam bar said so while they wait for it to be at a 'good' level to start the attack again.

On the other side of the coin, the 'momentum' and punishing recovery side of things, what is thought (imho) is that the 'effects' that are happening are just modifiers to your current state. IE if you are moving backwards perhaps your blocking ability goes down a tad.

I'm hard pressed here to try to describe what it is that is better this way. It is just really the 'feel' and satisfaction you get for taking someone down. The game would move at YOUR pace. If you want to back up and play defensive, ok, if you want to be aggressive and swing a lot, ok. I think it is up to the game mechanics to not allow overly defensive play or overly aggressive play to become too strong a technique.

In otherwords, if you tie in the rock paper scissors idea to this, if someone is being overly aggressive, calling this move "A",  then there should be a move C to counter it. Move C could perhaps be, stepping away from a mistimed swing, then closing in in the recovery period and attack. Move C was just used to trumph A.  So now the player using A might realize that move C could be employed, so he might continue A, then as soon as the other uses C, he then swaps over to use move F to over come C.

But you want the flow to be this constant guessing fake out game. You want it to be like in say TENNIS, where someone like Federer might set up a winning shot 4 volleys before hand and push the guy out of position with a few hits then as soon as he hits that 4th move the guy has no physical way possible of getting to that tennis ball.

Or in CHESS where 10 moves ahead of time a GM might sacrifice his queen for position to start an inevitable series of moves in which you will lose.

That is how you want to win, that is what makes the game great. You don't want to beat someone cause he just got done killing another guy and has no stam left. You want to beat him because you performed a series of moves that shook him off balanced and caused him to make a misstep.  You want to beat him in the first hit because the two of you just faked the living **** out of each other 20 times before either person started swinging. 

Stam won't let that happen. It will always be an arbitrary limit on what actions you can take.  You want that limit to be "I can make 4 attacks in a row" (just example). But that limit of 4 attacks in a row should be because, well if  I keep attacking I'm going to die. It should not be, well stam says I can hit 4 times max.  Do you get the difference? It is sort of subtle, but it has a big effect on the gameplay. The limit should be on "what works?" not "what is allowed?" .

 

[dstemmer]

Test, in response to your main points:

M&B isn't only about duels.  Melee fatigue would be bad for the game for the same reason stamina would.  It enforces turtling, dead-time, and zerging.  Risks should be encouraged and rewarded.  And you shouldn't have to wait multiple swings to tire someone out to optimally counter, it just leads to more dead-time, and no one would take the initiative if there was a third player involved.

• I don't see how melee fatigue enforces turtling at all. Let's follow your example and say that you can swing 4 times with your weapon before fatigue sets in, and so can the enemy. Why wait for the other person to attack you 4 times before responding? You'd want to get the first blow, ideally. And even if you don't, you don't have to block all four enemy attacks before counterattacking -- in fact you could do the suboptimal thing and try and squeeze a counterattack in early. Incidentally this is precisely what the article on RPS mechanics advises -- occasionally choose the strategy with a lower chance of success in order to catch the enemy off guard.
• I also don't see how it enforces dead-time. So you have to wait a second or two after launching a string of attacks in order to avoid fatigue. What's happening during this time? Well, if the opponent is smart, he's attacking while you're recovering. No dead-time, just the momentum of the fight has changed. I'm not advocating a stamina system, where blocking and attacking both lower your stamina and both people have to back off after a few attacks.
• I'm not even sure what you mean by 'zerging'. Do you mean that because of melee fatigue, players would be able to gang up on another player, tire him out by forcing him to attack and then butcher him? If that's the case, then I grant you your point. But so what? This is exactly what happens in real fights. If two people go against one, it's a viable strategy to have one person try and tire somebody out while the other person circles around for the killing blow. I think that melee fatigue would actually encourage teamwork -- having a partner to step in and protect you when you tire would dramatically improve your odds of survival.
• You're contradicting yourself when you say that nobody would take the initiative when there was a third player involved. Weren't you worried about zerging? Wouldn't the side with the numbers advantage take the initiative? Or are you talking about a deathmatch situation with every man for himself?

Melee fatigue in L4D kicks in after 4 back-to-back swings.  I'd never have to worry about timing or distance or be careful about missing, just get close and stab swing stab swing (out-interrupting every step of the way), block 2 seconds for stamina, next person.  It takes me seconds to kill the best players when I'm fully abusing 1h as it is (if they're using shields it's back to being August block->hit->blockx20 mindlessness).

• I don't think anyone's suggesting that melee fatigue work exactly like Left 4 Dead, that's just an example. Things like inertia would stay, and it would still be possible for a defender to get in attacks before fatigue kicks in if it's timed correctly, just like now. And I think it would help alleviate the exact problem that you mention here. As you say, for some weapons it's almost impossible for the defender to get an attack in -- warhammer versus scimitar or shortsword is the classic case. With melee fatigue, the attacker would eventually tire, which would enable the defender to get at least one good attack in before having to block again.
• I do agree that shields pose a problem for melee fatigue, though. I think the problem you're getting at is that a shield user only has to hold right-click while recovering from fatigue and waiting for the opponent to tire, while a non-shield user would have to actively block. But I think that this is a much more general problem with shield forcefields, not specific for melee fatigue. I suggested a way to fix that here: http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,83928.0.html. At least block-crushing weapons would still fare better with a melee fatigue system. How about this -- shield block doesn't cause melee fatigue, active block does? Or just punish excessive shield blocking with a body balance system. I talk about how they could complement each other below.

I'm in favor of attacks putting you off-balance in conjunction with a body balance system, but that's quite different than your meter.

You're getting fixated on the examples I bring up when talking about meters in SF.  I talk about them because they're systems that reward, instead of punish you for taking risks.  In SF your meter only charges, and it takes time.

The system I actually suggest rewards risks, but quickly gains, decreases or quickly resets depending on your actions - similar to the invisible balance meter underneath Jedi Outcast/Academy and Bushido Blade.  It's more similar to Mithras' system than SF, where actions or ailments are more potent depending on your meter/how balanced you are.  If you are sufficiently balanced, while your opponent is off balance, you'd be able to block-crush with normally non-crushing weapons, kicks would knockdown, you'd be able to do a trip, etc.

Point granted. The mention of meters spooked me. HADOUKEN! 


I think we agree that balance should play a role in combat -- but I think that could work in conjunction with a melee fatigue mechanic, not in opposition to it. Warhammers for example would knock opponents hugely off-balance but would have only perhaps 1 or 2 attacks or so before melee fatigue kicks in, so you'd have to make each attack count. I actually think melee fatigue is a better way of limiting heavy weapons than weapon speed. Weapon speed in its current implementation increases chambering time. It shouldn't take a long time to chamber a swing for a warhammer, but it should take a long time to recover from a missed swing (that's inertia) and also tire the wielder out after a number of swings (that's melee fatigue).

Melee fatigue and body balance would complement each other well I think:

• Body balance would make it impossible to constantly block strong attacks, at the risk of being pushed off-balance and knocked down.
• Melee fatigue would make it impossible to indiscriminately spam weak attacks -- with a body balance system a player with a scimitar and shield or a short sword and shield could just keep interrupting a player with a slower weapon and eventually knock them down. Fatigue would be a way to ensure that very fast weapons don't dominate combat. Mass weapons designed for knockdown would require fewer hits to knock somebody off-balance, so they'd be able to have an effect before the fatigue cap is reached.