Editorial Combat In Oblivion

[Greatatlantic]

Hmmmm... I don't suppose there is a chance that the giant squirells can yield to the player?

Hmmmm... I don't suppose there is a chance you read the article which answered that question?

Hmmmmm... I don't suppose there is a chance you know what a joke is suppose to be.

 

[Deathboy]

Hmmmm... I don't suppose there is a chance that the giant squirells can yield to the player?

Hmmmm... I don't suppose there is a chance you read the article which answered that question?

Hmmmmm... I don't suppose there is a chance you know what a joke is suppose to be.

As has been pointed out in other threads GA you can't use sarcasm unless it's followed by a :wink:

PS your post count is too low to use sarcasm effective anyway

 

[Fresh]

As has been pointed out in other threads GA you can't use sarcasm unless it's followed by a :wink:

PS your post count is too low to use sarcasm effective anyway

Man. Face it. You got served.

 

[Deathboy]

Man. Face it. You got served.

 

[Fez]

Wow, this thread gets better and better.

 

[Claw]

Hmmmmm... I don't suppose there is a chance you know what a joke is suppose to be.

I know I do, but you must have learnt it from Lieutenant Commander Data.

 

[Greatatlantic]

As has been pointed out in other threads GA you can't use sarcasm unless it's followed by a :wink:

PS your post count is too low to use sarcasm effective anyway

As has been pointed out in my disclaimer, its a joke for me. Whether or not you anonymous script machines get it is entirely secondary to the amusement of Giagantic Squirels begging for their life in front of me. :arrow: :D

 

[Deathboy]

Ummm I probably was a bit too subtle GA my comments should be read in the light of this thread

http://www.rpgcodex.com/phpBB/viewtopic ... c&start=50

Hope you understand now

 

[Greatatlantic]

No, I got it, it was just more fun to reply the way I did.

 

[Deathboy]

At the risk of baiting Mistress Volly some more....

Fair enough

Edit for spelling

 

[MrBrown]

I'm not really that overjoyed by this 'yielding' feature, from the NPC/enemy viewpoint. While it could be great when used as dramatic device in storytelling or as an option when fighting an important enemy (for non-linearity), it sounds more like it'll just end up as one of those features you try once or twice, think "neat" and never try again.

As for the PC yielding, that sounds like it could work.

 

[Stark]

I'm not really that overjoyed by this 'yielding' feature, from the NPC/enemy viewpoint.

well, that mechanism worked out okay in Gothic. think of it this way: it's an additional option open to people to role-play. if Bethsoft implement some sort of reputation system to go with killing/not killing a yielded opponent (earning a tag as a ruthless killer/benovalent hero/softhearted sissy), it'll make this feature trully worthwhile. (MSFD, I hope you're reading this...)

I liked the fact that not excessively killing the terrorists in DX would lead to dramatically different reactions from the NPCs. if only the rest of the game consistently implemented that.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

I'm not really that overjoyed by this 'yielding' feature, from the NPC/enemy viewpoint. While it could be great when used as dramatic device in storytelling or as an option when fighting an important enemy (for non-linearity), it sounds more like it'll just end up as one of those features you try once or twice, think "neat" and never try again.

As for the PC yielding, that sounds like it could work.

Well, one problem is that in the vast majority.. VAST majority of CRPGs, everyone fights to the death. It really makes no sense. Even when you get attacked by puny humans like villagers, they fight to the death. Allowing an option for NPCs to say, "Okay, you win! Please don't kill me!" is much better than everyone that engages you in combat being a lemming.

Experience should be rewarded for victory in battle rather than a kill in battle, with a flag stating that you have beaten that individual.

 

[Fresh]

Well, one problem is that in the vast majority.. VAST majority of CRPGs, everyone fights to the death. It really makes no sense. Even when you get attacked by puny humans like villagers, they fight to the death. Allowing an option for NPCs to say, "Okay, you win! Please don't kill me!" is much better than everyone that engages you in combat being a lemming.

Experience should be rewarded for victory in battle rather than a kill in battle, with a flag stating that you have beaten that individual.

YES! I agree with this 100 %. This is TEH TRUTHZOR.

 

[crpgnut]

I agree with most here that this could be a nice feature, if implemented properly. An example would be if I'm sent on a quest to find a rare scroll for the mages guild in dungeon X. Dungeon X is being held by the Imperial Cult, of which I'm also a member, though of lesser standing than the mages guild. Rather than kill the guardians to obtain the scroll, I choose non-lethal means; such as a sleep spell. Now the Cult knows I took the scroll but they also know that I spared several of their members while doing it. This lowers my reputation in the guild but maybe not as badly as it would had I gone in and killed everyone. If THIS is how non-lethal combat is implemented then I think it will be an awesome addition to the game.

 

[space captain]

It will have to be - now that they opened pandoras box they will need to implement reactions to it... if the quest given was to make sure a certain NPC did not testify in court (for example) and you "convinced" him without killing him - it would be very relevant to other things that could happen, including the quest-giving NPC responses, as well as other forks in the quest itself

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

I agree with most here that this could be a nice feature, if implemented properly. An example would be if I'm sent on a quest to find a rare scroll for the mages guild in dungeon X. Dungeon X is being held by the Imperial Cult, of which I'm also a member, though of lesser standing than the mages guild. Rather than kill the guardians to obtain the scroll, I choose non-lethal means; such as a sleep spell. Now the Cult knows I took the scroll but they also know that I spared several of their members while doing it. This lowers my reputation in the guild but maybe not as badly as it would had I gone in and killed everyone. If THIS is how non-lethal combat is implemented then I think it will be an awesome addition to the game.

Well, in this case, I would assume you can already get in the building. If you're wanting to screw over an affiliation, it's probably best to sneak around rather than do the non-lethal combat thing - or kill them. After all, if you're stealing their important scroll, I don't think they're going to be that much less pissed off at you just because you didn't murder the guards. In fact, they're probably going to be more pissed off that you dicked them over and took their scroll than they're going to be pissed off about putting guards to sleep instead of killing them. It's that whole broken trust issue.

It would just be corny if they let you off light just because you didn't kill their guards.

 

[Fresh]

I see alot of opportunities in the realm of everyday aggressivity - especially in the rougher part of town or in "pirate-towns" or such. Killing-sprees doesnt make any sense at all. Barbrawls, fist-action, etc is a so much more appropriate way of dealing with situation where you want earn some respect, relieve some1 of their possesion, etc.

Lets face it - lethal combat is always the last resort when it comes to sentient/conscious beings. Geez, just killing ONE person makes you a MURDERER and a psycho IRL.

This way you can also be a dick without having to worry as much about killing off plot-critical characters.

 

[Stark]

just adding on to the overall sentiment here. the game should ideally reward me for not killing sentient opponents. maybe reward is too strong a word. a better word would be recognize.

if the game world does not react differently depending if i kill/spare the sentient opponent who yielded to me, then in the end it's just a superflous feature that does not really matter to a gamer at all.

a reputation system would be cool, to allow the game to actively acknowledge the player's action/inaction. Other than that, i would assume sparing a person's life may shift other NPC's alignment to me, be it negatively or positively.

 

[MrBrown]

Well, one problem is that in the vast majority.. VAST majority of CRPGs, everyone fights to the death. It really makes no sense. Even when you get attacked by puny humans like villagers, they fight to the death. Allowing an option for NPCs to say, "Okay, you win! Please don't kill me!" is much better than everyone that engages you in combat being a lemming.

Experience should be rewarded for victory in battle rather than a kill in battle, with a flag stating that you have beaten that individual.

I agree.

However, the article provided very little info about how it works, so I'm just afraid it'll end up as a half-assed feature that doesn't really affect anything, or even detracts from gameplay.

Maybe I'm just too much of a skeptic.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

Yay, so after following you across the sky for the entire map, when you finally turn to one-hit-one-kill the seven hundred cliff racers that are behind you, they'll all give up and fly away.

You know, if I got attacked by 4 bandits and killed three of them, it'd be cool if the last one after seeing his friends get cut down, ran away or yielded in that instance. If it's done right, it could work (which means if it's done wrong, it's really going to suck and seem completely stupid).

 

[MrSmileyFaceDude]

No, because creatures won't ever accept a yield from you.

And it is quite easy to set up NPC's to yield or flee if they start losing.

Here's how yielding works for an NPC or creature. Whenever an NPC takes a hit, or if their weapon breaks or they run out of magicka (or a few other circumstances), the NPC re-evaluates its strategy. This includes deciding to either flee or yield. Current health, weapon status, and more go into both of these decisions. The decision to flee is also based heavily on the NPC's Confidence stat, while the decision to yield is based on the NPC's disposition towards their opponent. If they decide to yield to another NPC or creature a quick check is done to see if the opponent would accept a yield -- that's based on the opponent's disposition towards the yielding NPC or creature, among other things -- and if so, the creature/NPC yields and the opponent stops combat with it.

When yielding to the player character, obviously the "would yield" check can't be done automatically, and so the yielding actor plays a yielding animation (and NPC's say something along the lines of "you have bested me" -- there's a bunch of choices for them). Then the player has the choice of either continuing to whale away on the yielding actor, in which case the actor might choose to flee (or might even start fighting again, since the post-yield attack lowers the actor's disposition towards the player). Or the player can simply stop fighting the yielding actor and combat ends.

The player can yield to an opponent in combat by pressing the "activate" key (spacebar on the PC) with the opponent close enough to activate. This is the same way you initiate conversation when you're not in combat. Anyway, if the opponent would accept the yield, the opponent says something to that effect and then stops fighting the player. If the opponent would NOT accept the yield, the opponent keeps fighting -- and NPC's might sometimes taunt the player. And as I mentioned, creatures will never accept a yield from the player.

Basically yielding all comes down to disposition. If you go up against someone who really hates you, that person is unlikely to attempt to yield or to accept a yield. If that person's confidence is low, he'll flee. But if the confidence is high enough, he'll fight to the death.

It's very configurable on an individual basis through simple modification of stats.

 

[Elwro]

Interesting info; I still have a question which basically repeats what DU asked.

. Whenever an NPC takes a hit, or if their weapon breaks or they run out of magicka (or a few other circumstances), the NPC re-evaluates its strategy. This includes deciding to either flee or yield. Current health, weapon status, and more go into both of these decisions.

What about group attacks? If a friend of the NPC stops fighting, does that influence his own chance of yielding?
There could be situations in which there wouldn't be a group attack per se, but the PC would e.g. be attacked by 2 non-connected wild penguins. If Penguin A joins the fight after Penguin B, does the game take into account the fact that if one of them yields to the PC, the other should make a morale check?

 

[Fresh]

-SNIP-

Great post, nice to see you taking the time to clarify things!

I do have one question - Will you be awarded EXPERIENCE for getting someone to yield or only when you actuallydo kill them? (And will the amount of XP differ?)

 

[Elwro]

And another thing I remembered - if you yield to a NPC, will he/she be able to take some of your belongings?