Not intending to be rude, but this is a textbook example of reasoning that I call the liberal-arts fallacy. It goes something like this: If I can describe X in a very vague way, then it must be very simple to build Y. It's just details.

For example: There are very tall buildings in many cities in modern times. In the old days, buildings were only a couple of stories tall. Modern engineering has allowed us to make them much taller. Adding more height is just putting one story on top of another, right? So I expect to see million-story buildings tomorrow. (And if I don't it's because people are too lazy. -- You didn't say this, but this is often included in the argument.)

Also, your hockey comparison is a bad example, because the collision calculations in that example would be relatively simple compared to what (I think) would be required for satisfactory combat. Combat would require a system that involves angles, surfaces, many different types of micro-movements, sway, balance, and probably many more dimensions. And the calculations would also have to factor in many different elements related to particular weapons.

I'm not sure where you would draw the line at approximating all of the above, and I'm sure that different people would have different opinions on what would be good enough. But you wouldn't have to go very deep to end up with a system that would be more complicated and compute-intensive than the physics engines we're seeing in games right now.

Exactly. The only thing that should change the power of your strike is the amount of strength you put into your swing, the angle, and your stamina. All those things were covered in Oblivions system with the power moves.

Pretty much. I'm all for stats and such having a direct influence on what happens when you hit, when you make contact with the enemy, but hitting by itself needs to be governed by the physics, and as such by the player, because of the perspective of the game.

Why "no"? one of the main differences in RPGs is that you craft a character.
That character is not the player, and has a different personal history. They may have grown up in a monastery, or a vault, and never had experience with melee fighting, or guns. Those 'random' probability rolls are the heart of what makes the system impartial. Not having probability rolls makes the PC merely a digital costume, like in Doom or Unreal; a body to be possessed by the player ~ [IMO] that's not role playing, that's 'lets pretend I'm this, or that'.

That's a kind of Chance to hit scheme; and serves the same purpose.

Take your dice elsewhere please.

RNG stuff works with some games, but not with a game like this. RPG's are not based on dice-rolls, it's just a mechanical tool that has been used to play them.

Times, they are a-changin' bro. Skyrim (and Oblivion for that matter) is labeled as an "action" RPG. Combat is supposed to be realistic (so much as attacking a dragon can be anyhow) and intuitive. Dice are not intuitive. This just isn't that kind of RPG.

You won't find a dice-less computer role playing game ~except perhaps http://www.doomrpg.com/n.x/Doom%20RPG/Home.

I would say that its impossible to have a character based cRPG without dice ~though there are dice-less PnP RPGs. Any 'RPG' without virtual dice doesn't qualify as much of an RPG to me.

I would not mind if the games depict those 'dice rolls' as animated actions (like missing, and tripping ~as Fallout did... meaning Fallout 1 or 2 of course); but I don't need it to to be so, as the acts are assumed anyway.

That's exactly my point. How it was done in Morrowind was bad. I found using bows in Morrowind extremely annoying, not only you had to aim for the enemy yourself, you also had to win the skill challenge so even though the arrow toughed the target, it didn't actually hit it because you're not skilled enough. How it should work, is with low skill your arrow wouldn't go trough the intended arc, possibly missing the target, but it still should anything that gets in its way, for example another enemy, or the intended target itself who dodged to the wrong way. The same thing with melee combat, lack of skill shouldn't lower your overall chance to hit, but it should make the usage of the weapon harder, like it should be slower and do lower damage.
Oh and the enemy's AC shouldn't matter in this... at all. It always annoyed me that ever since D&D dodging an attack is considered the same as blocking an attack with a shield. Thankfully newer games tend to differentiate the two, but AC given by armor should only absorb some of the damage that was caused on you.

Wow. That definitely takes the cake.
:laugh:

In Morrowind, and others (even in Fallout 3 to an extent), the act of aiming is just a 3D means of selecting a target. In Fallout 1 you clicked on a target (anywhere), and the game accepted that entity as your target, and then had the PC try to attack them ~and they could fail at it or succeed. In Fallout 3 ~VATS: You select a target and the PC tries to hit it (using the percentages); and while its all screwed up as it relates to the series gameplay, its still attempting the same thing conceptually. In regular [free] play the player aims at the target, and the game effectively has the PC shoot for it, only it attenuates the player's aim based on the PC's skill with a gun.

*Personally, I don't particularly care for this and would rather it just make an attack roll based on the PC's skill at the selected target (like the rest of the entire series does), and fire the bullet to hit or to miss.

I don't see a good distinction, or think that there needs to be one ~really. IMO an opponents Armor Class must always be taken into account. And Ideally its a derived value, based on the armor and the wearer's active behavior. A catch-all that allows for the opponent to dodge, or be hit and protected by the armor, or be hit in a weak spot ~and hurt.

Have you heard of Backbreaker? It's an American football game that advertises "no two tackles ever the same" and it comes through pretty closely on the tag line. It's collision physics engine is astounding (even if it's actual football is lackluster- made by guys who live in a soccer = football nation, they dropped the ball on playbooks, football strategy, balancing of player skills, etc).

Backbreaker, in fact, "involves angles, micro-movements, sway, balance" etc. Believe him, there is great technology that could be implemented here.

Yes, lets' produce a game with absolutely no RNG interaction (Random Number Generator = electronic die rolls). That way, the player ALWAYS hits, regardless of the character's skill, and the NPC ALWAYS blocks it, regardless of skill. Gee, that would be real fun, wouldn't it?

With obvious "die rolls" it's no fun for the FPS players, but works "adequately" for the RPG players. Without invisible die rolls going on in the background, it isn't a game, just a "puzzle", and almost nobody will play it. The trick is to make the results of the rolls, and the reasons for the actions, feel natural. MW didn't feel natural, because both the conditions and the results were too simplistic. OB "worked" because the rolls were still there, but hidden better, and mainly used for the NPC actions instead of both NPC and player chars

But the two is completely different. In Morrowind everything goes real time, you can't pause the game and choose targets. While Fallout 1 is turn based and you can easily choose your targets. So this hit-chance won't work on TES games unless they include a top down view and a pause game feature, which is unlikely as TES games aren't about that.


Yes, that means that the skills and attributes still matter, it's not just all about the player like in an FPS, so I don't know how it looses the "roleplaying element"


There should be a distinction because the two is completely different. While you dodge a blow, you won't feel anything from it, but if you get hit by it and you're protected by your armor, you'll still feel it but not as strong when you wouldn't be wearing any armor at all.

EDIT:

Following this logic, every FPS game should be incredibly easy, and impossible to lose.

They're not...

their the same actually. because OB's was a flat damage rate system. as your skill with that weapon increased so did the damage of the weapon. the difference was that MW gave the min and max damages possible as a visable stat on the weapons. that did not mean that you randomly did a damage in between.

Either impossible to win, or impossible to lose, depending on the AI's "script", which is why there are "die rolls" to make it challenging but not impossible.

That's because the NPC actions (and shots) are partially RNG controlled, and a lot of them are either less-than-optimal, or miss. Either the NPC actions are totally scripted (which is possible in a linear game, not a "sandbox" one), and the game is exactly the same every time except for your actions, or else there are random variables. Checkers is totally without "die-rolls", unless you play against the AI, where even that probably has a random element to it.

You mean hitting a mudcrab with a Claymore with 2 hits after stabbing it 6 times?
No thanks
Stabbing and Punching Live dummies?
No thanks

Skyrim will have unique damage handling and combat

well, that happens if you are using a claymore when your skill is in axes. so if you miss loads and loads its your fault not the games.

id rather have where you hit someone at count more toward damage, and what armor there wearing where you hit,

Min maxing seems silly, i mean i saw it hit

if i stagger or stun someone the next hit should do more damage

I'll try to check it out this weekend, and see if I have to eat my words.
I think combat for multiple weapon types requires more sophistication, but I may be way off on how far the tech has advanced.

Fallout 1 and 3 were different, but that wasn't the point... Conceptually they both do the same thing; (The player selects a target and the PC attacks).
RT or TB, it doesn't really matter.

I wasn't mentioning it as being a good thing, its just how Fallout 3 works. (I'd rather it didn't work that way.)

But how does this affect or significantly matter to the gameplay? Are you suggesting that a dodge means zero damage, while a blocked hit means minor damage and a direct hit means major? If so... that's not how I'd want it... I've been hit with Nun-chucks while wearing a life vest of all things, and if it hits the vest, you don't feel a thing.

My ideal system would allow for direct hits to be fully protected by a DT, and a DR, and an Armorclass. Where the armor class determines the hit, and the damage is filtered past the DT, and potentially the DR (depending on the severity & accuracy of the attack). This could play out as, a knife wielding opponent swings the knife, and hits, and the knife point strikes ? steel plate, and is stopped cold ~doing zero damage; OR... The knife hit reinforced canvas/Kevlar and was stopped, but still cut the skin; OR, the knife hit a previous hole in the canvas and went in to the hilt.

Until a CRPG can render these events in real time ~visually; I would want (and prefer) for a Dice/RNG based combat system with Armor class and weighted chances to hit and for damages.


I take it this refers to Turn based combat systems? Its not apt IMO, that's not what is occurring in most systems, and is really just an out of context jest.

Min-max is lame. Its an outdated concept that was realistic for games such as D&D, but it does not belong in such an environment that's being made to be realistic, which would be many, many games. Including Skyrim. A people are blowing this all out of proportion, of course RNGs are necessary for AI, but NOT for weapons. What should matter is that it does a flat rate of damage. Your skills are multipliers, not things that automatically make weapons min-max.
If you shoot a guy in the head with a bow IRL, you won't have missed. That's a hit. There is nothing more annoying for any gamer than being cheated by dice. If you're fighting some guy taking up half a room, a random miss with the big ol' sword in your hand is NOT realistic AT ALL. EVAR.

I think angles SHOULD factor in to how much damage is done, but that is not min-max. That is all calculation. A glancing blow by a person not skilled with the bow but X strength is just as damaging as a glancing blow by a person skilled in the bow with X strength. Its logical and should be that way.

I said this earlier, but I'll say it again. OB did not have a flat damage rate. it had a min and a max as well, it just did not show what the max damage is when you look at it. the weapons in OB did more damage as your skill in that weapon increased. it was the same for MW. so there is no difference.

Yep, and the Min/Max reflects whether that hit strikes the eye, the ear cartilage, or their sideburns.
(All would count as a hit to the head; but the hit would do different damage for each.)

There is no such thing. :shrug:

I don't believe that. One can always miss. Though its less likely for an expert.

I could never agree with that. A skilled fighter knows where to strike, and how best to strike with their weapon, (and besides... Strength does not apply to bow attacks).

**I would not be opposed to the games detecting collision speed, mass, and penetration, as a means of calculating damages; but it would still have to take armor into consideration.

I'm not entirely sure, but I think what you refer to is the Luck factor, as in the actual skill itself. Am I right?

Yet, you can aim for particular body parts, and hit him in the ear despite the sword clearly connecting to the leg?

Cheated by dice as in you clearly hit them, but its called a miss, and nothing happens to the enemy. Even if you had animations for it.

I think even the most unskilled fighter could hit someone. Missing with a sword on the giant fat dude? Srsly?

A glancing blow is a glancing blow. And strength has a lot to do with bows IRL. You need to be reeeeaaaally strong to use em effectively. If these guys use the same bow, have the same strength and hit the same area, does skill actually venture into it?

no, your weapon skill (like blade) would increase the damage of all swords by a little bit around every 10 levels upward. thats how it worked in MW as well. the max damage of a weapon in MW was saying how much damage the weapon would do if your skill for that weapon was 100 or higher.