PvP game design

[Slamz]

I think a lot about my Perfect PvP game. This post is mostly me rambling...

/ponder

I've been thinking that one element I really enjoy is the FPS concept of "sometimes, through skill and luck, one person can defeat many". Sometimes you get to be Rambo. In an FPS, 5 v 1, each of the 5 is capable of killing the 1, but the 1, sometimes, can manage to beat the 5.

This element is almost completely missing from RPG style PvP games. If it's 5v1 in WOW or WAR, all players max level, you're dead. No way around it. It's an amazing feat to defeat 2 on 1, let alone 5 on 1.


The FPS gets away with it because FPS skill comes in the form of aiming. 1 can beat 5 if he's fast on the draw and a good aim.

Is this concept incompatible with RPG gaming?

RPG style combat doesn't have the "skill based aiming" component. RPG combat skill comes from effective use of abilities and counter-abilities and that takes time to play out. Root, break root, knockdown, stun, snare, teleport, etc. After 60 seconds of fighting the player who understands his class better is probably winning, all else being equal. But you can't be Rambo like that. The best you can ever do to capture the Rambo feel in an RPG combat system is to have BIG fights with LOTS of people so that at least some of you can feel like Rambo as you get kill after kill while your teammates take the hits. The smaller the battle, the more this model falls apart.

Hmmm...

What can we do to a non-aim based, RPG style combat system to bring back the Rambo element? The idea that one skilled player can potentially take on 3 or more equally powerful opponents and have a chance of coming out on top, without making it purely a game of "whoever hits 'TAB 1' first wins"? We'll also need to address the problem of spawning in a town and having to run around for 3 minutes to find a fight, if fights are only going to take a couple of seconds.

Let's see....


1) You must have the ability to spawn close to the action. Planetside did this right. Defenders spawn in the base. Attackers spawn not far away, outside the base.

2) The real battle must be for control of spawns. Planetside did this right, as well. Although the goal may have been "secure the base", the real way you did this was to shut down the enemy's ability to spawn.

But #3 is tricky. How can you have a 1 to 5 second, skill based fight (as happens in an FPS) without relying on "aiming" to be that skill?

How do you make combat fun, fast and skill based without using FPS mechanics? We still want to rely on character stats to influence hit rate and damage -- that's the heart of RPG combat, after all, and we want to keep that, but we don't want to simply make fireballs to 15000 damage for that Rambo effect...

...

I'm pondering some kind of "preparation" mechanic. Like something you can do beforehand to prepare for a battle and that preparation has a big impact on how you can fight, perhaps not unlike deck building for a strategy card game. So maybe the fight itself is over in 5 seconds but somewhere beforehand you spent a lot of time thinking about what all you wanted lined up and ready to go.

Perhaps not unlike what I originally thought the Warhammer "tactics" were going to do. Like if you knew what was coming, you could prepare in a very specific way and give yourself a tremendous advantage. Of course, Warhammer's "tactics" skills were kind of diluted and didn't achieve this goal as I had envisioned it, but maybe that's an idea that can be built on.

For example, Rambo knows he's going to be fighting numerous human enemies in a wooded area in close combat, and prepares fully for this. Enemies coming in may be more generally prepared for a variety of things, but they are not specifically prepared for Rambo. Rambo might have a real shot at taking several of them out. The fights themselves are short -- the skill was more in the preparation than in the execution.

Is there potential in something like that to work and make for a fun game?

[Snowreap]

if you posit the existence of advanced rifles that take ammo magazines, with the shells in those magazines being of different interchangeable types (armor piercing, hollowpoint, concussion, fragmentation, etc.), then there are some possibilities.

if emptying and refilling magazines can only be done out-of-combat, and if your only in-combat options are to shoot whatever's in your current magazine, or switch magazines, then preparation makes a difference.

how much of a difference depends on what you loaded.

remember Moonraker (I think it was), the James Bond movie where he got a wristwatch with a little mini-rocket launcher in the band? he also got some poison-tipped rockets with it, as well as some explosive-tipped. he used that rocket launcher twice in the movie, and both times he had exactly the right ammo loaded. the movie would have turned out very different if he'd chosen a different ammo type in either of those situations.

likewise, if you have 12 'pockets', choosing to carry 12 magazines can result in a very different outcome than carrying 10 magazines and 2 big knives. especially if you're trained in 2-handed knife fighting and you find yourself in an area with a lot of cover.

-ken

[Kakarat]

RPG style combat doesn't have the "skill based aiming" component. RPG combat skill comes from effective use of abilities and counter-abilities and that takes time to play out. Root, break root, knockdown, stun, snare, teleport, etc. After 60 seconds of fighting the player who understands his class better is probably winning, all else being equal. But you can't be Rambo like that. The best you can ever do to capture the Rambo feel in an RPG combat system is to have BIG fights with LOTS of people so that at least some of you can feel like Rambo as you get kill after kill while your teammates take the hits. The smaller the battle, the more this model falls apart.

When you are looking at the RPG game like Warhammer, there is also the mitigation, resists, armor penetration, crit chances, parry, dodge, disrupt involved in the calculation to damage taken/output. Of course that is why you said etc.

For example, there is a set of gear that gets me up to 23% crit chance. I have an ability that takes away some of their inititive(chance to be crit) and gives it to me. That basically makes me at 25% crit. On the downside to all of this crit. I do not have a -50% healing debuff, I lose close to 1200 hps and 200 str. I tend to run with the 12% crit and a that 200 str. Everything in a game like this is situational.

In the rest of your pondering, are you trying to combine the RPG and the FPS together?

[Diggles]

Truthfully I think D&D Rules do more justice to RPG fighting.

Inventory weight and stamina

STRENGTH: How much weight you can hold/lift/move, inventory adds weight
STAMINA: How much are you currently holding compared to your maximum? THe closer you are the faster you lose stamina
DEXERITY: How accurate your attacks, lower stamina = less accurate

The truth of the matter is, someone in full plate shouldnt really have much to worry about some peasant with knives. However when there are 5 peasants, thats when you need to start to worry.

The entire DPS class archetype in the RPG games is shit. Someone with knives would stand little if any chance to an armored oponent unless they wore them out. They pick their battles because armored opponents cannot chase them.

THey need more 'all or nothing' dmg where I take no dmg but lose a tiny big of durability on my armor if I get hit. The lower the durability the higher the chance something catasphrophic might happen.

Armor isnt going to reduce the dmg a 'uber knife' does by 50%, its going to reduce it by 99% unless you hit them in the right spot, then its going to do ALOT of dmg.

Slash
Hack - weapons generally slashing in nature but with enough weight/mass behind them to do bludgeon crushing dmg as well
Blungeon
Pierce

So if a guild rolls in mounted in full plate, guess what, you need to be more mobile and kite them or your going to be dead.

If you are rolling into an enemy guilds terrority by yourself, probably wanna be wearing some armor incase you get jumped, you can fend them off long enough to get help.

Warhammer did a decent job of making true tanks able to take/deflect/nullify dmg...they just do too much dmg in return.

[Vllad]

Most of you are still caught up in the fine details that mean nothing. That is why we keep ending up with the same crappy games.
Digs, Snow and Kak you are all talking about mechanic implimenation, Slamz is talking about the mechanics itself.

The trap that all RPG's keep falling in are the following:

1. Class based game.
2. Holy Trinity set up to give classes a sense of purpose.
3. Click auto target system.
4. PVE Reliance.
5. Special effects

You can't balance or fix any of the above to fit in a quality pvp game. To address them in an RPG you can do the following on each issue.

1. Dump class based games. Let people decide themselves how to play their characters. It doesn't take a genius to prevent the Plate Wearing Mage Healer with Duel wielding swords.

2. Holy Trinities are pve based concepts. When you take care of number 4 you will solve number 2. First start with healing. Planetside had very little healing. You just don't need it.

3. You can impliment FPS theories to the RPG chaundra. AoC did some of that. If you want to hit something with a sword you walked up to it and hit it. If it runs you follow it and hit it from behind. Dump AOE concepts totally. They break every game. If you want to hit something with spells you have to aim and hit it. If it moves bummer for you. Same with friendly spells. You need to aim to hit it.

4. PVE reliance breaks every pvp game. I am not saying you can't do both but very few people have ever gotten this right. If I can't log in and with in 5 minutes be pvping and can actually tell I am contributing your game is broken.

5. Build the game so that 200 people can stand in the same place and pvp. Games that look good never perform well. Spell effects and fancy graphics make pvp games worse not better. If you are looking at the pretty lights when you are in the midst of a pvp fight you are not a good pvper anyway.

As long as RPG games are in the Fantasy chaundra I don't expect any of these things to change. The next really good pvp we ever play will probably be of a different chaundra or something completely new anyway. If you are building a fantasy game you are automatically competing with WoW. That means you have real money behind you and pressure to fuck up your game.

The next great game will be something we totally didn't expect. The Wild West, Sci Fi, Japanese Samurai or something crazy like that.


Vllad

[Kakarat]

he next great game will be something we totally didn't expect. The Wild West, Sci Fi, Japanese Samurai or something crazy like that.

Ha, I can totally see Vllad playing the dirty Mexican robber riding his donkey in the Wild West game.

[Slamz]

In the rest of your pondering, are you trying to combine the RPG and the FPS together?

Not really. I just like the quick, skill-based action that an FPS can bring, and I'm trying to think of a way to capture that while using a character-based RPG system, which normally takes a much slower pace in order to give players a chance to do the ability/counterability game, which takes the place of "aiming".

For example, let's suppose we're talking about combat between wizards, especially old school AD&D style wizards.

The spells they can do can be devastating but they have to be memorized beforehand. They can't simply decide that what they need right now is a second fireball. Either they memorized two fireballs spells or they didn't. If they did, then they had to give up something else to do it, because they only had so many spell spots.


Hmmm...

Suppose instead of 10 rows of 10 hotkeys, you had 3 hotkeys. This is what you start with and it's all you ever get.

Each hotkey must be assigned a type:
OFFENSE
DEFENSE
UTILITY

You may assign these any way you wish. 3 offense. 2 offense and a utility. 3 defense. Whatever. You can only have 1 spell of the appropriate type in each hotkey. You may have a whole book of spells to choose from, but you can only ever have 3 "ready". Once a hotkey is used, it's on cooldown for 3 seconds and you can only cast 1 spell per second, so 3 OFFENSE hotkeys lets you spam offensive spells while 3 DEFENSE hotkeys lets you spam defensive spells (e.g., counterspells, shields, etc).

Or perhaps each hotkey represents a stack of spells which you have to spend time outside of combat setting up. e.g., hotkey #1 alternates Fireball and Magic Missile while hotkey #2 alternates Cone of Cold and Fireball. Maybe there are no cooldowns and each hotkey can be assigned to a different target, so that 3x OFFENSE lets you engage 3 targets simultaneously.

Combat can then be fast paced, because we've shifted a lot of the strategy/thinking/skill to the setup. You might need to create completely different setups for ideal performance in different environments or against different enemies. A well prepared player might have a sizable advantage against a less prepared opponent, but getting the jump on someone and knowing what spells to sling when still plays an important role.


You might be able to get additional "one-off" hotkeys -- clickies. Like you can wear 1 magic ring which tends to either do something really weak really frequently or really strong once in a great while. So again, preparation is a big part of combat, but you still have to look for the right time to use it.



WOW/WAR equipment builds aren't really what I had in mind because they aren't very situational, or if they are, "PvP" tends to be one situation and other situations are various types of PvE. That is, a "crit build" isn't likely to switch to something else based on the type of PvP situation he expects to get into. A crit build is just what he is.

Not that that's a bad idea, but I'd call that "character customization", not a direct component of a skill-based combat system. That is, switching from "crit build" to "strength build" to "armor build" is an interesting customization choice that can impact how you play, but I'm not sure I'd call it a "skill".

[Diggles]

Grand Theft Auto MMO would solve most of these. Money drives everything in the game. Many of the tasks you do to make money could affect or come from other players. (player run econ)

Another large problem is there is no inbetween. Either you have privately owned servers running 64 or less players or massive MMO's with an average of 2k concurrent users or 40k like Eve. Let private servers have their own persistant worlds as well.

[Slamz]

3. You can impliment FPS theories to the RPG chaundra. AoC did some of that. If you want to hit something with a sword you walked up to it and hit it. If it runs you follow it and hit it from behind. Dump AOE concepts totally. They break every game. If you want to hit something with spells you have to aim and hit it. If it moves bummer for you. Same with friendly spells. You need to aim to hit it.

This is one of my central questions.

Can you make it fun, fast and skillful WITHOUT requiring aiming?

The problem I have with aiming is that you are no longer "role playing". That is, how good of a marksman your dwarf is should be based on the character's skill with the rifle, not your skill with the mouse. If we're using your skill with the mouse, then it's not a pure RPG anymore.

Not that I'm violently opposed to this, just that I'd like to think of a way to keep it pure RPG while capturing as much of the pace and player skill of the FPS as possible. We just need to shift the "skill" away from aiming and towards...something else.

Possibly pre-game preparation? Or would that be too obscure for most folks to find fun?



For example, in a deck building card game like Magic: The Gathering, you have:

Pre-game skill -- how you build your deck
In game skill -- how you play your cards
Random element -- how your cards turn up

So maybe an MMORPG can have:

Pre-combat skill -- how you setup your abilities
Combat skill -- how you use those abilities
Random element -- character skill rolls

WOW/WAR type games have "combat skill" but I don't think that having tons of hotkeys is really helping us capture the fast-paced, skill-based gameplay of an FPS. When you have 15 different abilities you can use at any time, fights MUST last long enough for you to use a fair number of those abilities in order for it to really feel skillful.

But maybe if we move some of that skill to a pre-combat setup, we can quicken the pace without sacrificing skill.

[Vanraw]

I think Darfall could be thaw game, if they get the bugs out. Its very FPS like. Also there are RPG skills that are based on selection of skills that are not obvious buy how you look. Hell there isnt even a lable floating over your head.

[Diggles]

I think Darfall could be thaw game, if they get the bugs out. Its very FPS like. Also there are RPG skills that are based on selection of skills that are not obvious buy how you look. Hell there isnt even a lable floating over your head.

You cannot have twitch based play when the average ping is triple digits

[bonestomper]

Rambo won because it was a movie, not because 1 guy can take out 5 more than 1% of the time.

[Gnarnok]

I enjoy CS for that very reason. The ability for one guy to drop 3-5 and everyone is spectating? It's addictive, exhilarating at the least.

[Jakensama]

Fights lasting long is the fun of War/Wow games. A lot of people don't enjoy CS type games because its not fun to be shot in the head by some little 14 year old virgin with nothing to do but play the game within 2 seconds of spawning.

Maybe aiming would be fun without ping, which is probably why I like playing friends on a split screen console FPS, but not on PC ones.

[Slamz]

Rambo won because it was a movie, not because 1 guy can take out 5 more than 1% of the time.

Actually this happens on a fairly frequent basis in any FPS. Not necessarily "5v1" in the sense that you are standing in a wide open field with 5 enemies and you kill them all but rather, you rapidly manage to kill 5 people in a row because the combat is paced quickly enough that you can kill the first one before the second one realizes he needs to turn around, then kill the second one right as the third one rounds the corner, then kill the third one and round that corner to find the 4th one reloading, etc. I'm sure every FPS player has had their "Rambo" moments as they manage to pull off a killing spree.

You can't get that sort of action in WOW/WAR because combat takes too long. You attack the first guy and his buddies have ample time to respond. But if you took WOW/WAR as they are and made fights last 1-5 seconds, it wouldn't feel like there's enough skill involved, since there's no aiming.


So the question is, "How can we shorten the battles (to allow for the FPS style 'Rambo Effect') without taking away too much skill and without adding 'aiming'?"



Some sort of pre-battle setup is all I can think of. But while that could work for "wizard battles" (spells and counterspells) I'm not sure how well that would translate to melee combat (memorizing "slice" and "parry" doesn't make as much sense as memorizing "fireball" and "magic missile").

[Jakensama]

But why is shortening the battles a goal to begin with? I dont understand the fun of being killed before you see your attacker.

[Hoofhurr]

It's the level of attentiveness and focus required that draws you in and the immediacy of the consequences that keeps you on edge and engaged. I miss Rainbow Six Ravenshield!

I have to say though that Mechwarrior4 was just as intense as any FPS I've ever played and the battles lasted a lot longer because you could take a few shots in all the locations on the Mech you were piloting. Alpha strike single trigger kill shots were few and far between and the anticipation of knowing you were getting focus fired was intense in its own right. You needed a good connection to play this game competitively however.

Aiming is a big deal because you tap into primal instincts with that action. It comes from hunting and is the foundation of 99% of sports. You have to find something equally as primal if you want to have mass appeal and staying power.

The other component to FPS games that made the game more cerebral than simply aiming is learning a map inside and out. When Jake says it sucks to get shot without knowing where you got shot from, this is actually a misrepresentation. Experienced players know that there are usually only a handful of good angles that you might get shot from if you are doing a respectable job of using cover. After dying, you know immediately that your opponent has to be in one of a handful of places and you can attempt to go get revenge. You could pinpoint where people were going to be in EQ based on experience and that anticipation was half the fun. You also knew where they were mostly like to run to once you engaged them so you could have people waiting for them there. Learning the maps, trapping and getting trapped is a fun mini-game in and of itself.

On the risk/reward level I always thought it would be interesting to have a loot system that was open item-loot but you could not loot an item that was worth more in 'item-points' than anything you yourself were wearing. In this way you might have sick gear that allowed you to go on killing sprees against other players with lesser gear but you risked losing the item that gave you that advantage.

[Vllad]

This is one of my central questions.
Can you make it fun, fast and skillful WITHOUT requiring aiming?
The problem I have with aiming is that you are no longer "role playing". That is, how good of a marksman your dwarf is should be based on the character's skill with the rifle, not your skill with the mouse. If we're using your skill with the mouse, then it's not a pure RPG anymore.

Aiming can be adjusted. The problem is people have their minds stuck with what they know instead of being creative.

Aiming doesn't have to impacted at all about whose mouse is faster just because that is how FPS games are today.

For example: Reticle controls like Planetside. Lets say for a second that reticle controls are different for different spells. The reticle can be controlled by how much skill you have or what kind of spells you are casting.

In a skill based game you make people make choices. You can either cast big bombing spells but the sacrifice is good reticle controls. You can sacrifice the damage for faster or longer reticle control. Think of the sniper in Planetside.

You can also have dissapation or increase of energy the longer a shot travels. You can do all kinds of things in an aiming world to prevent the pure FPS twitch fighting.

Their is a consistant theme on games that use aiming methods over auto targeting. Auto targeting games require zergs to win and Aiming targeting games require strategies to win.

I know where you are going with the set up piece. You are saying the same thing I am about a skill based game. A skill based game with the ability to respec as often as you like fixes that.

The problem with your set up piece is it could create scenario's that are to slow. Two groups run into each other and can't do anything because niether is set up correctly. They both run away and nothing happens. I see more running then fighting if you don't have access to things.

Vllad

[Jakensama]

The other component to FPS games that made the game more cerebral than simply aiming is learning a map inside and out.

Yes, knowing every spawn point in Servanaya bunker in Goldeneye and putting proximity mines on them was my favorite cerebral activity in an FPS

[Slamz]

For example: Reticle controls like Planetside. Lets say for a second that reticle controls are different for different spells. The reticle can be controlled by how much skill you have or what kind of spells you are casting.

I like this idea. The Rainbow Six series was big on reticule changes, like:

M16: Very tight reticules for high accuracy but they jump out more when you shoot and they jump out when you turn or move, representing the extra time it takes to get the long barrel on target and the impact of recoil.
MP5: Fairly wide reticules represent the gun's basic long range inaccuracy compared to the M16 but they don't move much when you move or shoot, allowing you to much more easily rake bullets across someone's forehead while running across the opening of a hallway, provided they aren't very far away.


Taking that idea into an RPG, I could see things like...

* As you increase your Aiming skill, your reticules get closer together allowing for more accurate shots at longer ranges.
* As you increase your Reaction skill, your reticules snap closed faster
* As you increase your Stability skill, your reticules snap open slower

This could apply to everything from swords to arrows to fireballs. And different spells and abilities may have inherent modifiers to this. Like Magic Missile doesn't touch your aiming but Meteor Toss takes a long time to recover from. A newbie with a sword would have reticules halfway across his screen, meaning he's basically swinging wildly. If he's charging into a wall of people, he's guaranteed to hit SOMEONE but not necessarily the person he was aiming for. Or maybe he can even adjust this -- the more "berserk" you go, the faster you swing but the less accurate you are.


Maybe that's the fusion of "FPS" and "RPG" I'm looking for.

But why is shortening the battles a goal to begin with? I dont understand the fun of being killed before you see your attacker.

It's an FPS thing, which I think most FPS gamers would agree is fun. Whether it's Team Fortress 2, Rainbow Six or to some extent even Quake type games (insta-gib rockets) there's usually some ability to just kill someone in one shot which they never saw coming.

Part of the skill of playing is how to avoid these types of situations as well as how to do them. Or optionally, you just get used to the idea that when you jump down this opening in the ventilation system, you've got about 0.5 seconds to kill whoever is in that room before they kill you.

It's some real heart-pumping action which I think slower paced RPGs fail to capture. It also sets you up for situations where you KNOW you're badly outnumbered but it's worth a shot anyway, whereas in an RPG if you're outnumbered, there's often no point in trying (e.g., if 5 people are attacking the Lord, you might try to stop them and rely on the NPCs to help. If 5 people are sitting on a tower flag waiting for it to flip, you wouldn't bother trying. Whereas if there's 5 people in a room guarding a capture point in Team Fortress 2, you'd attack them and stand a reasonable chance of killing at least 1 of them. If you're a Demo Man, you might be able to kill several...)

[Kakarat]

Rambo won because it was a movie, not because 1 guy can take out 5 more than 1% of the time.

Actually this happens on a fairly frequent basis in any FPS. Not necessarily "5v1" in the sense that you are standing in a wide open field with 5 enemies and you kill them all but rather, you rapidly manage to kill 5 people in a row because the combat is paced quickly enough that you can kill the first one before the second one realizes he needs to turn around, then kill the second one right as the third one rounds the corner, then kill the third one and round that corner to find the 4th one reloading, etc. I'm sure every FPS player has had their "Rambo" moments as they manage to pull off a killing spree.

You can't get that sort of action in WOW/WAR because combat takes too long. You attack the first guy and his buddies have ample time to respond. But if you took WOW/WAR as they are and made fights last 1-5 seconds, it wouldn't feel like there's enough skill involved, since there's no aiming.


So the question is, "How can we shorten the battles (to allow for the FPS style 'Rambo Effect') without taking away too much skill and without adding 'aiming'?"



Some sort of pre-battle setup is all I can think of. But while that could work for "wizard battles" (spells and counterspells) I'm not sure how well that would translate to melee combat (memorizing "slice" and "parry" doesn't make as much sense as memorizing "fireball" and "magic missile").

Actually, you can have the 'Rambo effect' in WAR. I personally have done it a few times in scenarios. Mind you it usually has been 2vs5. Examples. Battle for Praag, All out assualt for tug-o-war capture points. Myself and a tank ended up behind enemy lines for some reason, and we completely annihilated the healing core, with me ending up with all the killing blows.
Second example, Logrin's Forge. There was 4 mid 30's destro defending one of the capture points. A 40 tank goes in to fight them, they are all on him, I sneak in and take out 2 before they realize what is happening, and then take out the other 2. I don't remember if the tank survived or not. Some of those scenario fights are the funnest I have had.

But anyways, those are far and few beyond the rest of the game.

[Vllad]

[

Taking that idea into an RPG, I could see things like...

* As you increase your Aiming skill, your reticules get closer together allowing for more accurate shots at longer ranges.
* As you increase your Reaction skill, your reticules snap closed faster
* As you increase your Stability skill, your reticules snap open slower

Exactly.

On the Melee side of things a duel wielder would see fast reticules but if he attacked before the reticules closed by being impatient he increases his chance of missing. This means instead of just clicking as fast as you can you actually have to time your attacks. This removes the twitch piece out of it.

The skills the melee guy puts his points in could effect the reticule just like your examples above.

Weopons can impact the reticules as well as the effects of hits.

This means you can also institute things like dodge, parry and block skills that actually mean something to the defender. For example: A warrior with a big shield can cover himself while charging. Hitting the shield with weopon or spell fire reduces or negates damage while he tries to close. However if someone gets a side shot on him with out a shield facing now does full damage etc.

Games today can impliment proper facing modifyers because of the auto target feature. By simplifying the math you can actually end up with better combat results.

Aim based games simplify the math and therefore reduce the lag. Today with auto target games the final results of a hit and its damage is a combination of algorythyms between the attacker and defender combined. With aim games you can simplify it by removing the combination. The attackers has his own modifiers based on his skills however the end result is either hit or a miss. The defenders mods pay no roll unless their is a hit. One a hit is made then the defenders mods play their roll.

By eliminating the auto target features you actually remove an even greater advantage of twitch styles that ruin pvp. i.g., The wizard who runs in circles while casting instant bombs, kiting and LoS abuses.

Vllad

[Kakarat]

[

Taking that idea into an RPG, I could see things like...

* As you increase your Aiming skill, your reticules get closer together allowing for more accurate shots at longer ranges.
* As you increase your Reaction skill, your reticules snap closed faster
* As you increase your Stability skill, your reticules snap open slower

Exactly.

On the Melee side of things a duel wielder would see fast reticules but if he attacked before the reticules closed by being impatient he increases his chance of missing. This means instead of just clicking as fast as you can you actually have to time your attacks. This removes the twitch piece out of it.

The skills the melee guy puts his points in could effect the reticule just like your examples above.

Weopons can impact the reticules as well as the effects of hits.

This means you can also institute things like dodge, parry and block skills that actually mean something to the defender. For example: A warrior with a big shield can cover himself while charging. Hitting the shield with weopon or spell fire reduces or negates damage while he tries to close. However if someone gets a side shot on him with out a shield facing now does full damage etc.

Games today can impliment proper facing modifyers because of the auto target feature. By simplifying the math you can actually end up with better combat results.

Aim based games simplify the math and therefore reduce the lag. Today with auto target games the final results of a hit and its damage is a combination of algorythyms between the attacker and defender combined. With aim games you can simplify it by removing the combination. The attackers has his own modifiers based on his skills however the end result is either hit or a miss. The defenders mods pay no roll unless their is a hit. One a hit is made then the defenders mods play their roll.

By eliminating the auto target features you actually remove an even greater advantage of twitch styles that ruin pvp. i.g., The wizard who runs in circles while casting instant bombs, kiting and LoS abuses.

Vllad

So you mean something kinda sorta like Zelda on the Wii?...mind you it does have a targeting system. But take that system away and use the mechanics of the game. Link has the ability to swing a sword, block with a shield, switch weapons. Now that would be fun. A RPG pvp game, using Wii remotes in the MMO world.

Something like a gladiator setting, battles infront of a huge crowd.

[Dustie]

...

I'm pondering some kind of "preparation" mechanic. Like something you can do beforehand to prepare for a battle and that preparation has a big impact on how you can fight, perhaps not unlike deck building for a strategy card game. So maybe the fight itself is over in 5 seconds but somewhere beforehand you spent a lot of time thinking about what all you wanted lined up and ready to go.
..
Perhaps not unlike what I originally thought the Warhammer "tactics" were going to do. Like if you knew what was coming, you could prepare in a very specific way and give yourself a tremendous advantage. Of course, Warhammer's "tactics" skills were kind of diluted and didn't achieve this goal as I had envisioned it, but maybe that's an idea that can be built on.

..
Is there potential in something like that to work and make for a fun game?

I think the game your talking about would be a combination of Planetside, a locational or situational augmentation of abilities, and some other limiting element whereby a massive amount of output could be unleashed under very specific conditions (conditions which you had to plan ahead for). In other words, if you can plan, scheme, trick, entrap or create the conditions for such an event to occur via massive preparation, then perhaps you could add such an element to a game without pissing off 95% of the game population. The key, to use your example, is to allow for such rare events to occur (i.e. winning a 5 v 1) without causing the majority of the game population to cry foul. Rather, you need to majority of the game population to say: "yeah, that makes sense, that guy owned us because we fell directly into his Rambo style trap."

Games have started along this path. Think of spending hours camping an item, spending days creating "utility belts", re-running potion quests etc. I know you're talking about something more then that but this is not totally unlike what you're suggesting.

[Slamz]

We definitely need better controls for PC games, and the Wii Remote is a great concept. I understand there's a new version of it in the works that's supposed to be more accurate / less twitchy.

In WW2O, I often think about how unnatural it is to use a mouse to control a gun. Ideally, you should just be holding a gun and using a projector to display the game image on your wall, however big that wall is. Even if you have to use a keypad and buttons on the gun for moving and other activities, at least the aiming and shooting part should feel natural.

And there's no reason we can't do that today. Wii type controllers should become a new standard for PC gaming. The mouse would still be superior for some games, I think, but you could do a lot with a Wii style controller backed by a PC gaming rig.