Time-Break in combat system...

Users who are viewing this thread

Some topics talk about this theme,
but no one is specific.

If the actualy system is very enjoyed to play,
over the stamina implementation,
I mean he need a more physical developpement...

"time-break" after an attack,
in the same way the actual two-handed weapons, for all;
"time to block" more sensitive... switching on defend position during an attack action is a little... "hum" :-/

I think that all action should have a cost, on time stuff.
This will render more "rythm" in the fight,
and permit more option in future developpement.
(and avoide, maybe, the actual back-pedaling problem)
 
lol
No, it is not the same way that "speed_rating".

I speak about a "pause" (time-break) marked after an attack,
like actualy, with the two-handed weapon;
and about a "time-cost" to block.

So, with this,
you cannot do another action immediatly after doing an attack,
or block with the same velocity if you have a bastard-sword, as you have a little knife.
The combat would have a "rythm", in this case.

Maybe it is more understandable, this time... I hope :eek:)
 
Now I get it, thought it was a poem at first...

Although i like more radical solutions (like inertia for weapons for example) this might be a good aproximated solution, if the 'pause' duration is based on strength and maybe agility, and the pause would apply only when another action is in progress.

I'd also add different attack strengths based on the time the attack button is being held: short tap for rapid strike from the elbow - hold down for mighty blow with full torso spin.
 
Mantis, you mean like a wind up? I agree, it would also give more variety with AI attacks. To add to that, maybe a *sweat spot* on the wind up for max damage. So people don't walk around the battle field holding full swing till they meet up with a target. Maybe let it drop to 75% of max if you hold it too long.

I agree with the pause after doing something. Making a full swing (as said above) should leave you open for a bit since you need to recover from the motion. I'd say weapon wieght vs STR should be the measure of the delay.
 
PrinceScamp said:
Er, I do not fully understand what you mean, but I don't think it's a good idea and there is already a speed rating.
Heh, you don't understand the suggestion so you disagree just in case.

Anyways, I all for the slight block delay thingie. The delay should be higher with a large cubersome weapon and lower with a well balanced sword for example. Your weapon skills should maybe affect that as well.
 
yehrom said:
Some topics talk about this theme,
but no one is specific.

If the actualy system is very enjoyed to play,
over the stamina implementation,
I mean he need a more physical developpement...

"time-break" after an attack,
in the same way the actual two-handed weapons, for all;
"time to block" more sensitive... switching on defend position during an attack action is a little... "hum" :-/

I think that all action should have a cost, on time stuff.
This will render more "rythm" in the fight,
and permit more option in future developpement.
(and avoide, maybe, the actual back-pedaling problem)

if you got this idea off eternal lands, i hate it. if you want to play a game liek that, play eternal lands. Mount and blade was made to be realistic, not waiting to have an enemy attack you while you do a turn based attack and he does a real time. Man, eternal lands sucks...
 
Yes Manitas,
the purpose is to render inertia.
But an true_inertia_engine would be to heavy in hardware ressources.

cheer danny :
I know my english is not always very understandable,
and I understand that you have relational's problem with this unkown game, but... I mind you don't understand what is the subject :???:
 
Manitas said:
Now I get it, thought it was a poem at first...

Hey, I thought it was quite a good poem. Maybe if more native English speakers wrote like that forums would be more pleasant :smile:
 
yehrom said:
the purpose is to render inertia.
But an true_inertia_engine would be to heavy in hardware ressources.
Then I'm in.

I'm not sure inertia engine would be so heavy on resources. You know, it's the GPU that gets red hot these days. The CPU is idling around much of the time, not to mention the math coprocessor which is just drinking beer and watching football on TV.
 
Mmm... maybe, maybe, Manitas.
But I have a pretty old configuration,
my fps turn around 30-50 (Uhuhuh), and I don't have co-process ... ^^

The problem with an inertia engine may be his "true-time" request.
(as far I know, I don't have a lot of knowledge about this)
I find the actual two-handed weapon system, a pretty good solution.
This don't need to more ressource & recall,
it is just an "interruption" in the "main_program_line", and the render work nice.
Maybe this can be more evoluate, and consider a report between STR && AG && "instant_speed" (I mean about the value using for speed_bonus),
instead of only the AG.

(I remember the fallout_skill_system.... mmm, very nice work, it was :eek:)


p.s. Thanks, graphia :eek:)
 
I have no idea what you are talking about lol...
But if you mean making the combat 'turn based' i would have to disagree....'
You can already interrupt ur swing with a 'block', but.... ok im dumb sorry, i just don't understand... Maybe if you can explain what the problem is with the current system, then the solution would be easier to understand?
 
Like I say in precedent post,
it's not a "turn-based" way, but a "rythm" on the action_line.
As it is already implemented for two_handed weapon.
So "Having a time needed just after doing an attack, to be able engaging an other..."

Sorry but with the inertia comment,
I don't understand how man cannot understand at this point... Oô
 
graphia said:
Manitas said:
Now I get it, thought it was a poem at first...

Hey, I thought it was quite a good poem. Maybe if more native English speakers wrote like that forums would be more pleasant :smile:

I thought it was a poem too, but didn't want to say anything because I'm a literary illiterate. But since other folks mentioned it, I don't feel shy to say the same!
 
Manitas said:
I'd also add different attack strengths based on the time the attack button is being held: short tap for rapid strike from the elbow - hold down for mighty blow with full torso spin.

i like that.

to the thread starter: i understand what youre talking about, perhaps because i understand french and understand the way the French speak english :wink:
unfortunately, i have no real opinion on this suggestion :???:
im all for rythm though, rythm rocks :cool: especially rock
 
I honestly don't see the point of having a stamina/fatigue system, or a "time-break" system (I assume where you can't attack after some arbitrary time limit each time you initiate an attack?).
 
I don't like it. The only reason you'd be inert after an attack would be if you overspent yourself. You never put 100% into an attack in combat, as that would leave you wide open. If you gave it your all you'd be exhausted pretty damn quickly, too, which is why you ration your energy - same as you see boxers do. Fighting is a practical art, and being inert is not practical.
 
I partly agree...
Some heavier weapons would have a recovery time before the next attack and possibly before blocking. For example a two handed axe (all the weight at the end) has alot of momentum and an untrained hobo (river pirate) would leave a significant oppening.
However, I think it would be best if this game stayed as realistic as possible (but still fun), so i'm against having any gauges or unrealistic charging up of attacks.
 
Papa Lazarou said:
unrealistic charging up of attacks.
Why do you think it's unrealistic?
The further back you withdraw your weapon before strike, and the more you spin your torso, the greater is the distance along which you propell your weapon, so the greater the final velocity, energy etc.

It's quite realistic to have different strengths of attacks.

The most important thing is - that's self balancing system: the more you charge your attack up, the longer you are open to opponent's attacks.


Kissaki said:
Fighting is a practical art, and being inert is not practical.
Maybe it's not practical, but common, you know, everything that has any weight is inert.
Inertia is among the most important factors in real melee fights.
 
Manitas said:
Papa Lazarou said:
unrealistic charging up of attacks.
Why do you think it's unrealistic?
The further back you withdraw your weapon before strike, and the more you spin your torso, the greater is the distance along which you propell your weapon, so the greater the final velocity, energy etc.

It's quite realistic to have different strengths of attacks.

The most important thing is - that's self balancing system: the more you charge your attack up, the longer you are open to opponent's attacks.
That's the only premise under which I'd accept inertia - that we were able to decide how much force to put into each attack.

Maybe it's not practical, but common, you know, everything that has any weight is inert.
Inertia is among the most important factors in real melee fights.
In real fights there isn't much noticeable inertia. If the attack misses, or grazes (by accident or design) it will continue the movement and end up in guard. Here's a greatsword flourish:

http://www.thearma.org/Videos/mov37.mpg

As you see, you don't simply make an attack and that's it. Something must come afterwards, and you'd rather not stay "spent" for longer than absolutely necessary. There is already considerable inertia in the game, and I really don't see how either realism or game play is served by adding more.

By the way, here's James Williams, telling you what he thinks about inertia :wink:

http://www.mounzer.dk/bugei10mb.mov

(For some reason Bugei isn't hosting it's videos any longer, but I still managed to find this little tameshigiri bit. Think it's the Dragonfly.)
 
Back
Top Bottom