Zallafar2009-09-18 23:04:39
In this thread there wasn't any agreement on what "streamlining combat" was. Maybe it would be better to start with what the purpose of streamlining is. Is it:
o To lower the barrier of entry to combat for new people?
o To make combat more comprehensible for everyone?
o To make combat more fair for everyone?
o To make it easier for system builders? (Not being facetious, as many people consider having a system an absolute requirement.)
o To make lower skilled people more useful in combat?
o Something else?
o To lower the barrier of entry to combat for new people?
o To make combat more comprehensible for everyone?
o To make combat more fair for everyone?
o To make it easier for system builders? (Not being facetious, as many people consider having a system an absolute requirement.)
o To make lower skilled people more useful in combat?
o Something else?
Xenthos2009-09-18 23:06:47
They could have someone write a system for zMud / cMud! What better way to figure out the complexities of the combat system than producing a system for the playerbase to use?
Aerotan2009-09-18 23:08:19
Personally, I think the focus should be on the first two, since the third is already taken quite seriously, in spite of the bellyaching going on.
Daganev2009-09-18 23:15:37
To me, streamlining the combat system is all about making systems easier to build.
If you need a degree in computer science to write a good system, then it's too complicated in my mind.
I say this because people with computer science degrees exist, and they will write systems. It's a needless barrier to entry. And everybody knows that making your own system helps you be a better combatant. (i.e. the process of making one makes you better. It's not just that people who are able are also good at combat)
I think what should be focused on is the following:
* removing reduntant "trigger lines".
Don't have a separate trigger line for something, unless it is actually a different situation. If you need random lines for cool flavor, then put those as an addition to the required trigger line. Not a replacement of it.
* remove poisons and afflictions and cures that are only used for novelty or trivia questions.
* remove afflictions/attacks/etc that only apply to low level people (or become obsolete).
It always annoyed me that the first affliction is always fear, and then one of your first defenses is "immunity to fear." The way skills work, I think the concept of "level 1 spells" that people just have as part of "character development" and become useless later on is a bad idea. (the worst case of this was monks in the other IRE games, where every attack you learned made the previous attack obsolete)
If you need a degree in computer science to write a good system, then it's too complicated in my mind.
I say this because people with computer science degrees exist, and they will write systems. It's a needless barrier to entry. And everybody knows that making your own system helps you be a better combatant. (i.e. the process of making one makes you better. It's not just that people who are able are also good at combat)
I think what should be focused on is the following:
* removing reduntant "trigger lines".
Don't have a separate trigger line for something, unless it is actually a different situation. If you need random lines for cool flavor, then put those as an addition to the required trigger line. Not a replacement of it.
* remove poisons and afflictions and cures that are only used for novelty or trivia questions.
* remove afflictions/attacks/etc that only apply to low level people (or become obsolete).
It always annoyed me that the first affliction is always fear, and then one of your first defenses is "immunity to fear." The way skills work, I think the concept of "level 1 spells" that people just have as part of "character development" and become useless later on is a bad idea. (the worst case of this was monks in the other IRE games, where every attack you learned made the previous attack obsolete)
Daganev2009-09-18 23:16:25
QUOTE (Aerotan @ Sep 18 2009, 04:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Personally, I think the focus should be on the first two, since the third is already taken quite seriously, in spite of the bellyaching going on.
in my view, 1,2 and 4 are really all the same thing.
Gregori2009-09-18 23:26:32
CODE
function main_damage
local target_health = target_max_health / 4
  if damage_output > target_health then
    damage_output = target_health
    do damage now
  else
    do damage now
  end
end
local target_health = target_max_health / 4
  if damage_output > target_health then
    damage_output = target_health
    do damage now
  else
    do damage now
  end
end
Tada! almost all damage in all classes fixed now.
Oh, for those one handers, so their damage per hand isn't ending up being 25%, for a total of 50% per combo...
CODE
function onehand_damage
local target_health = target_max_health / 8
  if damage_output > target_health then
    damage_output = target_health
    do damage now
  else
    do damage now
  end
end
local target_health = target_max_health / 8
  if damage_output > target_health then
    damage_output = target_health
    do damage now
  else
    do damage now
  end
end
Now I am sure the code will require slight alterations to make those work, but I can probably bet that IRE uses a C based language meaning it isn't that far off.
Merik2009-09-19 00:38:55
QUOTE (daganev @ Sep 18 2009, 04:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
To me, streamlining the combat system is all about making systems easier to build.
If you need a degree in computer science to write a good system, then it's too complicated in my mind.
I say this because people with computer science degrees exist, and they will write systems. It's a needless barrier to entry. And everybody knows that making your own system helps you be a better combatant. (i.e. the process of making one makes you better. It's not just that people who are able are also good at combat)
While I kind of agree that there are a fair few redundant afflictions that I can see, it's really not as hard to create a system. I'm quite seriously one of the most ignorant people when it comes to coding, and even I'm capable of writing a system that is functional. It won't keep me alive if it just sits there and runs, but it should keep me alive long enough to get my offense going, which is all I need.
I think what should be focused on is the following:
* removing reduntant "trigger lines".
Don't have a separate trigger line for something, unless it is actually a different situation. If you need random lines for cool flavor, then put those as an addition to the required trigger line. Not a replacement of it.
* remove poisons and afflictions and cures that are only used for novelty or trivia questions.
* remove afflictions/attacks/etc that only apply to low level people (or become obsolete).
It always annoyed me that the first affliction is always fear, and then one of your first defenses is "immunity to fear." The way skills work, I think the concept of "level 1 spells" that people just have as part of "character development" and become useless later on is a bad idea. (the worst case of this was monks in the other IRE games, where every attack you learned made the previous attack obsolete)
I heavily disagree with this. What this suggests is basically 'You must be tri-trans to get into fighting.' There -should- be lower level things for lower level people to fight each other with. There should be mid-level things for mid-level people to compete with. And then there should be the complicated tactics for the top tier fighters. They all serve their purpose, and there being a certain tier to afflictions allows people to get started without just getting blasted away without having a clue what just happened.
If you need a degree in computer science to write a good system, then it's too complicated in my mind.
I say this because people with computer science degrees exist, and they will write systems. It's a needless barrier to entry. And everybody knows that making your own system helps you be a better combatant. (i.e. the process of making one makes you better. It's not just that people who are able are also good at combat)
While I kind of agree that there are a fair few redundant afflictions that I can see, it's really not as hard to create a system. I'm quite seriously one of the most ignorant people when it comes to coding, and even I'm capable of writing a system that is functional. It won't keep me alive if it just sits there and runs, but it should keep me alive long enough to get my offense going, which is all I need.
I think what should be focused on is the following:
* removing reduntant "trigger lines".
Don't have a separate trigger line for something, unless it is actually a different situation. If you need random lines for cool flavor, then put those as an addition to the required trigger line. Not a replacement of it.
* remove poisons and afflictions and cures that are only used for novelty or trivia questions.
* remove afflictions/attacks/etc that only apply to low level people (or become obsolete).
It always annoyed me that the first affliction is always fear, and then one of your first defenses is "immunity to fear." The way skills work, I think the concept of "level 1 spells" that people just have as part of "character development" and become useless later on is a bad idea. (the worst case of this was monks in the other IRE games, where every attack you learned made the previous attack obsolete)
I heavily disagree with this. What this suggests is basically 'You must be tri-trans to get into fighting.' There -should- be lower level things for lower level people to fight each other with. There should be mid-level things for mid-level people to compete with. And then there should be the complicated tactics for the top tier fighters. They all serve their purpose, and there being a certain tier to afflictions allows people to get started without just getting blasted away without having a clue what just happened.
Janalon2009-09-19 01:25:39
QUOTE (Xenthos @ Sep 18 2009, 07:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
They could have someone write a system for zMud / cMud! What better way to figure out the complexities of the combat system than producing a system for the playerbase to use?
Other than Zmud and Cmud excludes the Mac crowd. And there are a few of us out there. Would love to see a true cross-platform system. Would also be fun if you could tweak the queue like the system on Final Fantasy 12 for those who are familiar.
Charune2009-09-19 01:52:57
QUOTE (Janalon @ Sep 18 2009, 09:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Other than Zmud and Cmud excludes the Mac crowd. And there are a few of us out there. Would love to see a true cross-platform system. Would also be fun if you could tweak the queue like the system on Final Fantasy 12 for those who are familiar.
A less client-based system was mentioned as an idea. What's the queue in Final Fantasy 12? (Last FF game I played was FF7!!)
Some of us here in havens are quite familiar with TinyFugue by the way, Janalon!
Jozen2009-09-19 01:53:10
Let's try to stay focused and not try to advertise for somebody to code a system for you.
We would all love the perfect curing system. However, making it an easy thing shouldn't be the case. Difficult afflictions like choke, aeon and sap--should be difficult to cure. Estarra said it herself--Lusty's combat should have a high learning curve and be complex!
I get frustrated with it, I'm sure we all do. But, if you think about it, the challenge is wonderful.
Iasmos has provided an awesome basic curing system for everybody to build off of. It is a very stable and well-coded foundation that most players build off. He has provided this for FREE. It's not going to be perfect curing, but that's why you need to learn what needs to be fixed and do it YOURSELF.
Streamlining should be reducing redundancies, simplying commands. Leave the balancing process to the envoy system. This is about reducing garbage afflictions that do nothing, or afflictions that do the same thing.
I think what people are looking for is getting into combat and expecting to succeed right off the bat. It takes awhile to be good at it, and that's what makes the success taste so much sweeter.
All of the top tier combatants have died as noobs. And you know what? They still continue to die, although less frequently. There is no easy way to learn combat. You have to jump in, get experience, learn from mistakes, and keep practicing.
Do systems require a bit of programming know-how? Sure they do. But, you can either make it really well-coded like Iasmos or have a crap-ton of if-then statements like Ceren's or Thoros.
Simple coding works just fine--if not better.
Perhaps it's not necessarily the coding that bothers people, they just don't want to take the time to be super anal and account for every possible affliction combination. This is perhaps where reducing redundancy or garbage afflictions would help out, but ultimately we have to keep the integrity of the system.
It takes a long time to build a good system. Again, this is rewarding because it's not easy.
Can you participate in raids without a super awesome system? You sure can. Zergs work off teamwork a lot, and praying that not everybody targets you.
We would all love the perfect curing system. However, making it an easy thing shouldn't be the case. Difficult afflictions like choke, aeon and sap--should be difficult to cure. Estarra said it herself--Lusty's combat should have a high learning curve and be complex!
I get frustrated with it, I'm sure we all do. But, if you think about it, the challenge is wonderful.
Iasmos has provided an awesome basic curing system for everybody to build off of. It is a very stable and well-coded foundation that most players build off. He has provided this for FREE. It's not going to be perfect curing, but that's why you need to learn what needs to be fixed and do it YOURSELF.
Streamlining should be reducing redundancies, simplying commands. Leave the balancing process to the envoy system. This is about reducing garbage afflictions that do nothing, or afflictions that do the same thing.
I think what people are looking for is getting into combat and expecting to succeed right off the bat. It takes awhile to be good at it, and that's what makes the success taste so much sweeter.
All of the top tier combatants have died as noobs. And you know what? They still continue to die, although less frequently. There is no easy way to learn combat. You have to jump in, get experience, learn from mistakes, and keep practicing.
Do systems require a bit of programming know-how? Sure they do. But, you can either make it really well-coded like Iasmos or have a crap-ton of if-then statements like Ceren's or Thoros.
Simple coding works just fine--if not better.
Perhaps it's not necessarily the coding that bothers people, they just don't want to take the time to be super anal and account for every possible affliction combination. This is perhaps where reducing redundancy or garbage afflictions would help out, but ultimately we have to keep the integrity of the system.
It takes a long time to build a good system. Again, this is rewarding because it's not easy.
Can you participate in raids without a super awesome system? You sure can. Zergs work off teamwork a lot, and praying that not everybody targets you.
Simimi2009-09-19 02:17:31
I started writing a mud client in C# for class and I got pretty far (in my opinion as a first real project.) I am at a turning point now where I don't have a lot of time for Lusternia (but want to be playing) because of work and school. I did my best to write it in such a way as to be platform-independent (via MONO) but a lot of functionality is missing still. I also have no way to test a Mac port. My main dev system for everything is Open Solaris (which I have fallen in love with recently). I -want- to finish the project, but any free time I have goes into studying, and what minuscule truly free time I have goes into Monster Hunter Unite.
Not to derail this thread, but I felt I should let the Mac people know that there are those of us who have tried/are trying (tough we could try harder methinks.) Furthermore, one day, I might change to C or C++ Boost or something else and try again when I have some time to brood. I for one owe Lusternia my livelihood. I wrote some simple Lua script plugins and such, and now I have a job thanks to those very plugins. The experience I got working on system after unfinished system for Lusternia actually improved my creativity for algorithms, and like I said, recently landed me a job doing scripting for a local company.
Not to derail this thread, but I felt I should let the Mac people know that there are those of us who have tried/are trying (tough we could try harder methinks.) Furthermore, one day, I might change to C or C++ Boost or something else and try again when I have some time to brood. I for one owe Lusternia my livelihood. I wrote some simple Lua script plugins and such, and now I have a job thanks to those very plugins. The experience I got working on system after unfinished system for Lusternia actually improved my creativity for algorithms, and like I said, recently landed me a job doing scripting for a local company.
Shiri2009-09-19 03:41:36
If we're going with this phantom Estarra quote of "should have a high learning curve" nothing is happening.
Something that's been true about this game for a while with the way everyone uses everyone else's system or a modified version of it is that the "real game" of strategic Lusternia combat, dubious though it may be, is heavily obscured by the arbitrary barrier of entry - something that isn't related to the skills Lusternia combat ostensibly tests, but is instead heavily reliant on the functionality of the systems involved.
Removing redundant afflictions does next to nothing for this reason. It's not a bad goal in and of itself, certainly, but it just isn't going to achieve the stated goal. We even have people trying to defend spending eons doing the equivalent of grinding up your pokemon so you can access the strategic metagame.
I am interested in whether combat can ever have real tactical or strategic value outside of the automated nonsense. Some people will tell you no because those who -can- code systems are able to make them account for basically everything, invalidating everyone else's attempts at elevating it all beyond that stuff. Maybe they're right.
EDIT: Ok, I see it's not a phantom quote now. There goes this month's "fix stuff" suggestion then. Feel free to ignore post.
EDIT: And the next six months.
Something that's been true about this game for a while with the way everyone uses everyone else's system or a modified version of it is that the "real game" of strategic Lusternia combat, dubious though it may be, is heavily obscured by the arbitrary barrier of entry - something that isn't related to the skills Lusternia combat ostensibly tests, but is instead heavily reliant on the functionality of the systems involved.
Removing redundant afflictions does next to nothing for this reason. It's not a bad goal in and of itself, certainly, but it just isn't going to achieve the stated goal. We even have people trying to defend spending eons doing the equivalent of grinding up your pokemon so you can access the strategic metagame.
I am interested in whether combat can ever have real tactical or strategic value outside of the automated nonsense. Some people will tell you no because those who -can- code systems are able to make them account for basically everything, invalidating everyone else's attempts at elevating it all beyond that stuff. Maybe they're right.
EDIT: Ok, I see it's not a phantom quote now. There goes this month's "fix stuff" suggestion then. Feel free to ignore post.
EDIT: And the next six months.
Unknown2009-09-19 04:16:33
QUOTE (Shiri @ Sep 18 2009, 11:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
If we're going with this phantom Estarra quote of "should have a high learning curve" nothing is happening.
Something that's been true about this game for a while with the way everyone uses everyone else's system or a modified version of it is that the "real game" of strategic Lusternia combat, dubious though it may be, is heavily obscured by the arbitrary barrier of entry - something that isn't related to the skills Lusternia combat ostensibly tests, but is instead heavily reliant on the functionality of the systems involved.
Removing redundant afflictions does next to nothing for this reason. It's not a bad goal in and of itself, certainly, but it just isn't going to achieve the stated goal. We even have people trying to defend spending eons doing the equivalent of grinding up your pokemon so you can access the strategic metagame.
I am interested in whether combat can ever have real tactical or strategic value outside of the automated nonsense. Some people will tell you no because those who -can- code systems are able to make them account for basically everything, invalidating everyone else's attempts at elevating it all beyond that stuff. Maybe they're right.
EDIT: Ok, I see it's not a phantom quote now. There goes this month's "fix stuff" suggestion then. Feel free to ignore post.
EDIT: And the next six months.
Something that's been true about this game for a while with the way everyone uses everyone else's system or a modified version of it is that the "real game" of strategic Lusternia combat, dubious though it may be, is heavily obscured by the arbitrary barrier of entry - something that isn't related to the skills Lusternia combat ostensibly tests, but is instead heavily reliant on the functionality of the systems involved.
Removing redundant afflictions does next to nothing for this reason. It's not a bad goal in and of itself, certainly, but it just isn't going to achieve the stated goal. We even have people trying to defend spending eons doing the equivalent of grinding up your pokemon so you can access the strategic metagame.
I am interested in whether combat can ever have real tactical or strategic value outside of the automated nonsense. Some people will tell you no because those who -can- code systems are able to make them account for basically everything, invalidating everyone else's attempts at elevating it all beyond that stuff. Maybe they're right.
EDIT: Ok, I see it's not a phantom quote now. There goes this month's "fix stuff" suggestion then. Feel free to ignore post.
EDIT: And the next six months.
Wasn't the purpose of steamlining combat lowering the learning curve?
I see no reason why we would want to make like harder for everyone. It's bad from a business perspective too. Harder game means more dropouts, menas less money.
Charune2009-09-19 04:25:33
QUOTE (Shiri @ Sep 18 2009, 11:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I am interested in whether combat can ever have real tactical or strategic value outside of the automated nonsense. Some people will tell you no because those who -can- code systems are able to make them account for basically everything, invalidating everyone else's attempts at elevating it all beyond that stuff. Maybe they're right.
EDIT: Ok, I see it's not a phantom quote now. There goes this month's "fix stuff" suggestion then. Feel free to ignore post.
EDIT: And the next six months.
EDIT: Ok, I see it's not a phantom quote now. There goes this month's "fix stuff" suggestion then. Feel free to ignore post.
EDIT: And the next six months.
She means we aren't going to dumb down combat so it takes no skill at all, everything's easy, etc. We aren't getting rid of things like aeon, etc.
We are, however, looking to make combat more accessible.
Shiri2009-09-19 04:31:13
QUOTE (Charune @ Sep 19 2009, 05:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
She means we aren't going to dumb down combat so it takes no skill at all, everything's easy, etc. We aren't getting rid of things like aeon, etc.
We are, however, looking to make combat more accessible.
We are, however, looking to make combat more accessible.
I understand that. It's a good intention. But I think the fact you're not doing anything about the former precludes any significant changes from occuring in the latter. (I agree that the first is worth preserving, though.)
Anyway, the post was mainly for dissuading the idea, if it's already been decided on I'll just shut up and let you get on with it. Good luck!
Charune2009-09-19 04:32:29
QUOTE (Shiri @ Sep 19 2009, 12:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
about the former precludes any significant changes from occuring in the latter.
Not sure what you mean.
Shiri2009-09-19 04:36:05
I mean, because of the way combat here is so system-orientated, the things that make the real strategic game inaccessibly complex also are by necessity the things that require the greatest amount of stupid system hoops to jump through to get around in the first place. I'm told they were once designed as ways to make player skill have to account for something systems couldn't do, but then people, uh, built systems that could do it, necessitating that everyone have such a system, and then the combat of (say) aeon classes be expanded so they can beat people with systems that can deal with it even if they suck anyway.
Jozen2009-09-19 04:40:26
QUOTE (Kialkarkea @ Sep 18 2009, 11:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Wasn't the purpose of steamlining combat lowering the learning curve?
I see no reason why we would want to make like harder for everyone. It's bad from a business perspective too. Harder game means more dropouts, menas less money.
I see no reason why we would want to make like harder for everyone. It's bad from a business perspective too. Harder game means more dropouts, menas less money.
The learning curve should be steep. Think about it. We're talking about 5 guilds in 4 different organizations. Each with alternative skillsets. You have to consider the individual, then on top of that you have to consider possible synergy with other guilds.
Unknown2009-09-19 04:44:27
QUOTE (Jozen @ Sep 19 2009, 12:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The learning curve should be steep. Think about it. We're talking about 5 guilds in 4 different organizations. Each with alternative skillsets. You have to consider the individual, then on top of that you have to consider possible synergy with other guilds.
Your point? I've played games with 3 times the amount of class variation that Lusternia has(No joke.), and they aren't excessively compex. There is a difference between diversity and difficulty.
Jozen2009-09-19 04:47:25
I just started a few months ago. I have had no problem jumping in. I had to get beat down a lot, and I still have a ways to go.
Most of your complaints are founded on expectations of success upon entry into combat. Rather than on your unwillingness to get trashed and figure out why you got trashed.
Most of your complaints are founded on expectations of success upon entry into combat. Rather than on your unwillingness to get trashed and figure out why you got trashed.
