This thought came to mind when I was playing Ghost Recon. Should Bethesda make combat more realistic or unrealistic in The Elder Scrolls V? Realistic would be swords killing you in 1-3 shots and unrealistic would be Oblivion combat mechanics. I think it would be better realistic, but that's just me. Open discussion

I vote realistic combat, I think realistic combat and RPG skill systems can still mesh, possibly as new moves and techniques gained with skill increases, instead of damage boosts.

I voted in between, it should be more realistic, feature a actually realistic injure and health system with, of course, locational damage and effects and weapons being realistically used and deflected by parrys, blocks and armoring but not 100% realistic either.
I could dig up my old notes on combat but that also includes the injure system which HAS to be improved as well.

I don't believe that overtly realistic combat meshes very well with RPG mechanics. For the "gain new moves and techniques as you raise in skill" concept, I think such an implementation would feel just as awkward as the combat perks in Oblivion, where the character inexplicably learns how to perform an action by increasing 1% of their skill's efficiency. Before that 1% increase, the player has no knowledge whatsoever of that technique. After that 1% increase, the character can use it flawlessly. Doing that perk-style technique inclusion more often would, IMO, make the whole situation worse and detract from the more natural progression of skill that is represented by both Oblivion's damage-nerfing, and Morrowind's chance-to-hit (though I'm not saying they should fully return to either of those systems). Damage-nerfing, while I feel it was vastly overused in Oblivion, is a necessary part of skill progression, as is increasing the odds to hit via some form of skill-and-attribute-related chance-to-hit algorithm (and no, chance-to-hit doesn't have to mean inexplicable "swing and miss;" I've proposed ideas in the past that represent chance-to-hit dicerolls with complex AI packages).

Further, if we're talking realistic combat, we'd better get rid of hitpoints. After all, how realistic is it that I have 1 hitpoint left, yet am still swinging and fighting just fine? I should be an inch from death in the fullest sense of that statement. But how would that work? Hitpoints are a staple of not only TES, but pretty much any RPG that traces its lineage to DnD or pen-and-paper tabletop games (pretty much all RPGs, then). Perhaps locational damage should be added, but what does that mean? If I cripple someone's head, shouldn't they die? If my skill level in bows is 5, yet I shoot someone point blank in the skull, shouldn't they die? Or should somewhat-unrealistic combat mechanics prevent that because I am playing a game which places far more emphasis on character skill than player skill?

Truly realistic combat is something that I would never want to see for TES:V. There are things that can be added to give it more of a sense of realism, to be sure, but as long as combat is skill-based and as long as things are measured in HP, it will always be unrealistic in nature. And I'm fine with that. If I want to play realism, I'll play an FPS.

I think something "in between" would be most appropriate for TES. If combat were too realistic, then it would more than likely make the game frustrating. However, the current system is definitely lacking something... realistic.

Personally, I thought Morrowind's system worked well. The only things that were lacking were dodge and parry animations. Add those, some well-implemented locational damage mechanics, Oblivion's player-controlled blocking (which should be affected in some way by your character's skills), and you have a pretty decent combat system, IMO. Other than that, the only thing that could make it even better would be to give stealth characters the chance/ability to one-shot enemy NPCs with a dagger (to simulate slitting someone's throat from behind). Also, perhaps marksmen could have a chance (0-25%, depending on level of skill) of killing an NPC with one shot, provided locational damage is implemented and they hit the NPC in the head or heart.

Oh, and one more thing; you should never be able to block a claymore with a dagger. Ever.

I voted for somewhere in between
Theres been plenty of PnP RPGs that have had more realistic combat than D&D-style I''ve got 500 hit points so I laugh when a fireball hits me

Lots of good ideas like wounds adversely affecting your skill, locational damage etc have been mentioned in various threads
A SP RPG will never be a good place for entirely realistic combat, no party members to save your bacon when you are just plain unlucky, but it could be made to feel more realistic than it does at present

i voted unrealistic...my take on this is that its a game made to be enjoyed with weapons n magic...eh magic not real so.....i always liked the way bethesda balanced the combat in their games...its suppose to be rpg not some realistic shooter (sword) game

I'd have to go with something in the middle. Too realistic and you've got your character essentially helpless after one unlucky instant, with no real chance for recovery before being spitted, sliced, hammered, or otherwise reduced to worm food. Not realistic enough and the game loses its "excitement".

In any "real" combat, the victory almost always goes to whoever puts in the first "solid" hit. The main purpose of armor was to deflect the various little jabs, pokes, and other "cheap" shots which would reduce your fighting ability to the point where the opponent could deliver that "telling" blow, effectively ending the fight. It seldom was effective enough to stop a hard swing, otherwise it would be better to reduce it to improve your mobility. Trying to realistically model the complex relationship between weapons and armor, and the effects of injury, would be a difficult task at best. It probably wouldn't be all that fun, either, when your character gets "one shotted" a couple dozen times in a row and you spend half your evening staring at the loading screen....

In the traditional "pen and paper" RPG, combat goes by "rounds", and the opponents take turns swinging at each other with no apparent effect until one runs out of hitpoints and suddenly falls over. This is easy to program, and was adequate to "resolve combat" in the past, but not very appealing (witness the hostility toward the Morrowind combat engine in general, and to the "20 hits to kill" aspect of combat in Oblivion).

If it pretty much comes down to in between and realistic, I suppose. In that case, realistic combat would be just like today's combat. 1-3 sword stabs you're dead. In between would be more like 5-7 stabs before you die. Of course as Daniel_Kay said, locational damage would of course help with both. And as Rhemaius said, there should be a chance that you could kill something in one stab or bow shot, or whatever.

Actually with a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sai_%28weapon%29, which still is quite close to a dagger, you probably could, it just takes a damn lot of strength to capture the impact.

Well, I voted unrealistic. I think taht even with the technology we have nowadays it is impossible to simulate all the factors that take place during a melee cobat. And even if it was, I do not think that an RPG is the right place to try. Having the combast as close to real one as realistic as the engine and contols allow should be reserved for fencing simulators and to a lesser degree for action games. The RPGs should always show that combat is only a part of them, albeit important it is not the most important one. Comat system in next TES should definitely be entertaining. It should be simple to grasp and use (no pressing ten different deys at a precise time to get the effect you need) and dfinitely mostly depending on the character skills while allowing the player to choose the overall strategy. Also yet again, the skill should be more important then the weapon used. Even if you have the most super uber weapon and no skill in using it, the weapon should be next to useless, while a person wth great skill should be deadly even with a rusty dagger.

When it commes to damage, wellthe game can hardly simulate life and even if it could, such game would be quite boring IMHO. The game is fun because it gives us, the players something that does not work in the real life. Thus making the game too realistic just removes its purpose. In combat more then anywehere else the fun factor should be more important then realisticness.

Unrealistic. It's a game, and a role-playing one at that.

I vote Mount&Blade-realistic, but with magic of course...and btw M&B is also an RPG and yet they could do it realistic, couldn't they?

as for the topic's title: what in the name of hell is "Realisticness"??? if you're not sure, use a dictionary!!

Edit: unless that was pun, sorry then:P

Swords do not work that way!!!!!

:P

Anyways, I prefer unrealistic as this is an RPG we're talking about. Combat should be determined by char skill not your own skill.

It can very well be both, controlled by player AND character skills equally.

And sorry but to everyone saying "It's a RPG", that's NO excuse for a less realistic combat system, in fact being a RPG with tons of stats it follws it would actually scream for MORE depth.

Well my opinon is Bethesda needs to make it more realistic than it is but to a certin extent. my choice was sort of.

I voted "kind of in between". I think it should be possible to kill someone in a few hits, not due to the realism of injury or even higher stats, but rather more because of the realism of the enemy's AI behavior as well as animation. A stupid (or arrogant) enemy would lower his defenses or perhaps even turn his back to you, leaving himself open to a critical hit. A smart enemy would always have his shield raised and never allow you to get around to his side or back. On the animation side of things I could imagine a large barbarian taking a huge swing with his axe and missing and getting it stuck in the ground for a few seconds or something.

I would like to take a moment and say something I've said many times before; It seems many of you aren't very interested in RPGs at all and instead want some kind of bizarre fantasy simulator. Perhaps you should find a new game series. Or maybe try out LARPing.

In between.
The devs can't squeeze every little ounce out of reality into the game just to please the ever-whining realists.

I don't think realistic would fit.
That's where mods come in (I'd be the first to download).
To create a combat system that works is inimaginable.
However, I'd like to see an experiment, at best, in which it's an RPG, based on player skill (resulting in uber characters YOU have to nerf).
RPGs don't all have to be stat-based. Seriously. Perks, while unrealistic, may help. Especially for things like jumping (backflips, longer jumps and such).
Wattcha tinks?

More realistic. Anything to change the fact that I can stab a completely unarmored goblin in the heart 4 times and he still doesn't die.

And when I say more realistic, I would mean like a real-life battle, where combat isn't a flurry of attacks and blocking, rather a series of feints, parries, and dodging until you can expose a weak point in your enemy's defenses, at which point you would make a quick strike to seriously wound or kill your target. As a result, the smarter (humanoid) enemies would be much stronger in a face to face fight, due to their better mental reasoning skills, while a wolf or mountain lion would only have a basic attacking method with some minuscule dodging ability, making them easier to kill as they cannot adapt to your combat style. So I guess I really want better AI more than anything else :shrug:

If you are skilled with a sai, then yes, I suppose you could. But the sai is not exactly a dagger, either. It has prongs where the hilt or blade of a weapon could be 'caught'. The best that someone armed with a dagger could hope for against the crushing blow of a claymore/warhammer/mace/longsword, would be to parry the blow, or move in so close that the blow becomes ineffective.

I vote kind of in between.

I voted for more realistic combat! Like cuts on NPC's when you swing your sword. Fallout 3 had good damage on NPC's when you shot at them. I would like to see something like that for the next TES V game.


thanks
eric

I think some people are misinterpreting the meaning of "unrealistic". That or we just have different definitions. To me, unrealistic would be like Fallout 3. I tap somebody with a stick and they explode. Realistic would be something like one arrow shot to the head is an automatic kill. So, I'd say probably somewhere in between.

Depends on the stick.....hit me with a stick made of anti-matter and I'd explode too.

If I shoot someone from ambush with a BB gun in FO3, body parts go flying, their head sometimes explodes, and there's a huge mess. If I'm spotted first, and using a 9mm handgun, the bullets just make little red puffs when they hit and do next to nothing. Eventually, the shot that takes away that last bit of health suddenly causes them to tear apart and scatter limbs all over the place. For some unexplainable reason, people are calling this "realistic" damage. Huh?