Combat prototype: I need feedback

[Castanova]

I threw together a combat prototype for a turn-based RPG. Possibly a party-based roguelike (PBRL). I'm posting it here because I'm looking for feedback from this prestigious magazine. Let me know your thoughts/comments/complaints/bug reports.

There's no AI implemented so you'll have to play against yourself or do a hotseat.

Download link:
http://www.filedropper.com/pbrl

Note: this is purely a prototype. This means all the "graphics" are placeholders:

Also note, this is Windows only for the moment. I'm using all cross-platform libraries but I don't have access to a Linux box.

Background on the controls/gameplay:

- Left click to select units.
- If a unit is next to an enemy, select your unit then right click the enemy to attack.
- To access a unit's special actions, select him and then right click him to get the menu.

- A unit can spend his turn by either moving OR attacking.
- A unit standing next to an enemy unit cannot move away.
- All units are assumed to be sword/shield users. This means a normal attack, in a 1-on-1 situation, will only knock the enemy back.
- A unit is knocked back into one of the three spaces opposite the attacker, chosen at random.
- If the space the enemy is knocked into is occupied (by other units or by a wall), they will potentially take damage.
- A unit taking damage first takes an armor roll; if he fails, he takes an injury roll; the result can be a flesh wound (nothing happens), instant death, or bleeding out.
- Bleeding out means the unit will die in a certain number of turns. However, there is a chance to spontaneously recover after each turn which depends on his constitution.
- The chances of it being a flesh wound are modified by the differential between the attacker and victim's agility.
- If the victim succeeds on the armor roll, he may still be stunned; the stun roll depends on the differential between the attacker's strength and the victim's constitution.
- Stun means the unit cannot act on his following turn. Also, it means that adjacent enemy units can move away.

There are three special actions implemented:
- Extra step: after a unit is finished moving, he may continue moving at the cost of 1 energy per tile. Energy does not regenerate.
- Risky Attack: a unit attacks an adjacent enemy recklessly. There is a 60% chance the enemy counters and the attacker has to make an armor roll. There is a 40% chance the attack succeeds and the enemy must make an armor roll.
- Charge: a unit that has moved into a tile adjacent to an enemy may spend 1 energy to attack the enemy as well. The unit can only charge if he has movement points left in that turn.


Other notes:

- Skills will be added at some point. A unit's choice in skills will be limited by his stats.
- This is only sword & shield units. Once this is all fine and good, I will implement archers.
- After that, I'll probably put in magic users.
- The magic stat does nothing yet and it won't until I put in magic.
- After that, maybe I'll make a game out of it.


Enjoy?

 

[Castanova]

Reserved.

 

[Elwro]

Cool! Will download and test tomorrow!

 

[Karmapowered]

Looking nice, thank you!

This however :

- A unit standing next to an enemy unit cannot move away.

smells like an in-built cheat-mode to me, as soon as (and if) you implement ranged attacks.

 

[Castanova]

smells like an in-built cheat-mode to me, as soon as (and if) you implement ranged attacks.

Well, I intend to make archery difficult to execute. Like, you'll have to pull the bow back in one round and then can't shoot until the next round. Plus, I would probably make it risky to shoot at someone who's standing next to one of your own units. That's all theory for the moment, though - obviously haven't implemented it.

 

[Zed]

I tried it. I could move stuff around. Uh I don't know what kind of feedback you are expecting but a turn-based roguelike would be cool. But would this be an instanced battle "screen", and you'd move the party as a single character in the dungeon? Or would you move around 5 (or less/more) character simultaneously all over the dungeon?

 

[Castanova]

No instancing. So, yeah, you'd be moving a party around the dungeon. Dunno. Did you try playing against yourself or did you just move stuff around and exit?

 

[Yeesh]

I tried it, but I don't know if you're looking for feedback on the actual fighting. I mean you must be, so let me say that the one fight I had took forever to finish. The dots just keep bouncing each other around, so once the energy runs out each dot ends up using a lot of their turns just walking the one or two spaces into range only to be bounced back again. Seeing as how movement allowances are reasonable, and there's no point in saving movement points once energy is out, it seems unlikely that anyone would be shoved up against a wall in an open arena like that, so I don't know how that would affect things.

It's hard to judge since I was just playing against myself. I can't imagine an AI being too much smarter or dumber than I was, and maybe the system gets more rich with strategy the more you learn it. I figure you have to try and smash dots into other dots for a damage bonus, but I'm not sure how that works out against a cagey opponent.

Anywho, seems like a great and functional interface and it looks like you're off to a great start. But damn it took forever for one side to win.

EDIT: I guess I'll add that I think the move OR fight system really limits your tactical options, because most of the time that means your dots are limited to hitting the one other dot that happens to be next to it. And if there are two, you hit the one that isn't adjacent to any of your other dots, lest you rob your later dots of the opportunity to attack. So I wasn't really planning so much as playing hit the closest dot.

 

[Castanova]

Thanks for the feedback. In terms of timing, I was aiming for battles to be time consuming. Obviously I'm familiar but it only takes me like 10 minutes to play through a battle... I've become pretty good at corralling the enemy (er, my own, eh) units into a tight formation so it's easy to kill them. That being said, I think it feels tedious even at only 10 minutes because it's so limited in terms of character skills/weapon types/etc. and thus tactical variety.

Being cagey in terms of formation doesn't work well because then you get surrounded. When you get surrounded, your guys take damage cuz they get knocked into each other.

Anyway, I think adding archers should make things more interesting. Since you'll want to stay out of their line of fire, it should add another dimension to space management. Plus, I didn't think of the sword-and-shield guys as the killers on the team, anyway. Another reason it probably takes longer than expected.

 

[villain of the story]

Congrats for actually putting out something. You are ahead of the rest of us in the armchair designer curve by 1000 KKK.

Oversimplicity of the combat is kind of a turn off for me. A hits B, B hits A, can't detach without stunning or being hit, it feels rather tedious. It needs more tactical options.

Actually, this kind of reminds me of IE games and why I think RTwP isn't inherently bad. Despite having similarly simple mechanics, I can enjoy IE combat but dread to think about "what if they were turn-based?". Turn-based demands more options.

 

[Johannes]

Definitely needs some way to disengage an opponent, maybe that should cost an energy point or give you some other disadvantage.

And it really seems too luck based as is. In my game, maybe I didn't have the most refined formations, but nevertheless both sides had kinda similar opportunities to attack. But when blue side took its first casualty (couldve easily been a red guy instead with different dice rolls), then it was just a slippery slope from there on, it was too hard to fight when outnumbered but still the battle took a long time to finish.
With a different start scenario it would get really silly too, imagine a battle with half as many guys, that would never end in open terrain at least, not to mention a 1v1 battle.


And the darker grey tiles really seemed like walls - I was surprised when I realised you can walk there, is that intended?

 

[Elwro]

Looks cool, but in Windows 7 on my netbook it positions the "End Turn" button so that it's barely visible (1376x768). Plays nicely, but I would add a possibility of a follow-up move after a successful knock-back.

 

[Johannes]

Hmm, maybe add some extra benefit to making an attack? So that there'd be a chance to wound the opponent even when you're fighting 1v1 in the open. You'd get knocked back but also a small hit into health/fatigue/energy/whatever bar.

As it is you'll occasionally run into situations where both guys just stand next to each other without attacking, when if you'd attack you'd just let the enemy free and go surround your other guys next turn, while your guy would only get to move later - basically you'd be giving the enemy an advantage by attacking in an even situation. Well, there's risky attack but that favors your opponent too. Or make risky attack to favor the attacker and make it into the main damage dealer for these guys, and retain knockback as a mostly positioning tool.

 

[Castanova]

It needs more tactical options.

Agreed. I guess that's the downside of releasing an unfinished prototype. I thought maybe I could refine the sword/shield combat before adding other unit types but maybe I should have thrown everything into the mix right away.

Definitely needs some way to disengage an opponent

I agree. A few thoughts I had were (a) an agility-based dodge move (b) the ability to take one step regardless of enemy position (i.e., you can take one step away but forfeit the rest of your movement that turn) (c) something else? ideas?

And it really seems too luck based as is.

I think adding the rest of the unit types and tactical options would temper this problem. Plus, it's only an even battle because there's no AI / no over-arching game. In the real game, probably 4 out of 5 of the battles will favor the player punctuated by difficult "set piece" battles.

And the darker grey tiles really seemed like walls - I was surprised when I realised you can walk there, is that intended?

They're supposed to be walls but I forgot to code them in. Thanks for reminding me.

Looks cool, but in Windows 7 on my netbook it positions the "End Turn" button so that it's barely visible (1376x768)

I assumed everyone would have more than 768 of vertical resolution. Perhaps a bad assumption...

Hmm, maybe add some extra benefit to making an attack?

One thing to note is that I plan to add skills, including a "Sword Proficiency" skill with, say, 3 levels. I would make it so that a unit with better sword proficiency would not only knock back a less-skilled opponent but can also pick which square they go to.

I think this is another area where what I have in my head isn't being realized because I haven't implemented other weapon/unit types. I don't really want a sword and shield vs. sword and shield single combat to be quick and bloody. I think having archers or, say, a melee damage dealer (with a giant axe or something) would make positioning just one (important) dimension of the game rather than the entire game.

 

[torpid]

Definitely needs some way to disengage an opponent

I agree. A few thoughts I had were (a) an agility-based dodge move (b) the ability to take one step regardless of enemy position (i.e., you can take one step away but forfeit the rest of your movement that turn) (c) something else? ideas?

This is typically where attacks of opportunity come into play: when a fighter engaged in melee combat steps away, the other fighter(s) get an attack of opportunity. You can go further and have the fighter fail his disengagement if the attack of opportunity succeeds (that's how AoD does it, for example).

 

[villain of the story]

When I say more tactical options, I mean in a 1vs1 fight with things like maybe feint or grapple, not different units. Or maybe alter how energy works and add an option adjust how many energy points you assign into any single attack or something like that. Have you read the various threads on combat here?

 

[Johannes]

If you've got different types of melee fighter designs planned, how about just rolling them together and just make the various different attacks vary a lot in effectivity depending on the type of weapon you have? Then you wouldn't get this stuff about 1v1 sword duel being only endless back and forth bouncing. Sure some stuff could be exclusive to only if you have a especially long weapon, or only if you have a shield, or a weapon longer than what your opponent has, etc.

So if you want a fast damage dealer you won't give him sword and shield, but when an unexpected situation comes up you can still try to hurt people instead of just pushing them around to gain a better position.
Also then it allows for wider range of sensible party builds.


Oh and with the resolution it's not just whether you have 768 or not, but if you have just 768 or 800 (very common) it might still not fit after you've reducted possible toolbar widths which eat space.

Maybe also turn the energy bar into a slowly regenerating one? With bigger values to better see the regeneration pace, and different actions draining more or less of it.

 

[Castanova]

When I say more tactical options, I mean in a 1vs1 fight with things like maybe feint or grapple, not different units. Or maybe alter how energy works and add an option adjust how many energy points you assign into any single attack or something like that. Have you read the various threads on combat here?

I'm not interested in one-on-one tactical options for a party-based combat game. It devolves into either rock-paper-scissors (not interesting at all) or game theory (not interesting against a computer opponent). My intention was to abstract that aspect of combat away which is why two sword/shield users standing next to each other are effectively in a stalemate until one of them takes a risk (or if one of them is significantly more skilled than the other, which obviously isn't implemented yet).

If you've got different types of melee fighter designs planned, how about just rolling them together

Yeah, that's how I was thinking of it too. Combat style just based on weapon, which individual units can switch between.

Maybe also turn the energy bar into a slowly regenerating one?

This is something I'll need to balance once there's an actual game in place, with multiple battles. I don't think I want energy to regenerate in the middle of a battle, though, and I'm considering it not regenerating at all. I want energy-based attacks to be something you only use when you think it'll make a big difference. I'm thinking that you may find energy potions in the dungeon.

 

[villain of the story]

I'm not interested in one-on-one tactical options for a party-based combat game. It devolves into either rock-paper-scissors (not interesting at all) or game theory (not interesting against a computer opponent). My intention was to abstract that aspect of combat away which is why two sword/shield users standing next to each other are effectively in a stalemate until one of them takes a risk (or if one of them is significantly more skilled than the other, which obviously isn't implemented yet).

I don't know why you think it automatically devolves into r-p-s (which I disagree with) but then, how will different units in a party-based combat will not be the same thing? But I get what you mean with party combat.

Energy not regenerating is ok, I think.

 

[Castanova]

I just mean that, to make a 1-on-1 encounter interesting, it would need to be modeled in much greater detail than makes sense in a party-based game. Anything less detailed becomes a guessing game.

 

[Johannes]

If you've got different types of melee fighter designs planned, how about just rolling them together

Yeah, that's how I was thinking of it too. Combat style just based on weapon, which individual units can switch between.

I wouldn't make it like that, if you want the ability to switch between different types of attack, why introduce it with a ridiculously unrealistic system (switching weapons midfight)? Just give the ability to do several different attacks with any weapon.

 

[Lord Rocket]

Well bros, apparently it is unrealistic to unsheathe a different weapon in the middle of a fight. You learn something new everyday.

 

[Severian Silk]

Action Points please...

 

[Johannes]

Well bros, apparently it is unrealistic to unsheathe a different weapon in the middle of a fight. You learn something new everyday.

It's not the switching in itself, which can situationally make sense (dropping your spear once your enemy is within shorter reach for example), but the reason you'd be switching. As if hitting your enemy with a sword or an axe would be so fundamentally different that it'd make sense to carry both and switch back and forth as needed.

Then again I don't mind abstraction if it makes for a good system.

 

[Castanova]

I doubt I'd allow for weapon switching if an enemy is nearby. It would need to be risky to do it mid-fight (takes a couple turns?) and I agree it's dumb to arbitrarily assign vastly different characteristics to particular weapon types that don't make sense.

Action Points please...

I'm trying to do a system that's relatively unique. So, no, probably not. I don't see the benefit for where this system is going.