Can you name a game without a clear focus in gameplay leading to a numerical right answer? I've yet to see one
The focus though should be on trying to create complimentary weapon sets and not trying to place those two things at odds. When you make people choose directly between speed and health, you force that scenario with a clear numerical advantage.
Something like Tribes' light medium heavy or Wolf:ET's necessary classes are two possible solutions to the problem, but the gameplay needs to be explicitly built around whatever the solution is, which will take a lot of time and effort
The focus though should be on trying to create complimentary weapon sets and not trying to place those two things at odds. When you make people choose directly between speed and health, you force that scenario with a clear numerical advantage.
Something like Tribes' light medium heavy or Wolf:ET's necessary classes are two possible solutions to the problem, but the gameplay needs to be explicitly built around whatever the solution is, which will take a lot of time and effort
My point was that the whole discussion is still centered around the concept of maximum damage in the minimum time, rather than any other physical function that a mechanized suit of armor might fulfill. I try very hard to get people to think outside the DPS box, but it seems my attempts fall on deaf ears (or very selectively blind eyes, in this case...)
Well no, the issue is one of exposure vs damage, and kill efficiency. It's not simply what does the highest number, but it is a mathematical formula that seeks to minimize risk and maximize output. I just think that the game should be explicitly designed so that the right answer is either as broad as possible, or only a small margin ahead of the wrong answers. This is simply easier to do with a smaller sample of options
It's one of my few examples of a game that does class-based and objective focused gameplay well. It's a pity that it's still probably the best game that Splash Damage worked on, but I also have a soft spot for strafejumping so maybe that's just me
It's one of my few examples of a game that does class-based and objective focused gameplay well. It's a pity that it's still probably the best game that Splash Damage worked on, but I also have a soft spot for strafejumping so maybe that's just me
Likes:
Silv3r Shadow
Read the first sentence in that quote. Now read it again, slowly, aloud. Now read the rest of it. This demonstrating my point perfectly. Your entire focus is on damage per second and all variations of it. This is what I'm talking about when I say "DPS box." If everything boils down to a DPS-centric shooter, we'll never get anything but the same game experience we've always gotten. That's what I hope to steer the conversation away from for once, but it's all people seem to be able to frame the discussion with.
"Damnit, MMO's...look what you've done to these poor people!"
"Damnit, MMO's...look what you've done to these poor people!"
You're now expanding DPS to mean basically all the facets of combat. What's more, these are factors in shooters. I'm actually not a tremendously large fan of MMOs.
Let's use Quake as an example (because it's my favourite one). Let's actually go a little further and compare VQ3/QLive to Xonotic
In both games you have hitscan and projectile weapons. In both games you have burst and sustain weapons. The efficacy of each weapon depends on its overall utility and this is dependent on those properties, as well as the properties of the game
With VQ3 movement you are actually not that manoeuvrable. You can go quite fast in a straight line, but your lateral movement and turning radius are lacking at higher speeds. This leads to a scenario where the LG can really shine. The LG (Lightning Gun, known as the Thunderbolt in Q1/QWorld) for those who don't play Quake, is a high ROF range limited hitscan beam. It has a considerable amount of knockback, and if used well can actually pin people in the air. In QLive this weapon is immensely effective, even despite the drop it took in damage from the Q1 Thunderbolt, because exposure is often a guarantee and you can be sure that there are scenarios where you can get enough time in to drop someone's stack or secure a kill
Now let's look at Xonotic
Your LG equivalents are the MG and the Arc. The MG has no range cap but cannot be used to pin. The Arc has to be led, and will not pin either. Both do pretty decent damage per second, and burst values in Xonotic are actually lower than they are in QLive (Rockets are 80, nades are 55) though it is easier to direct hit with them.
In addition though, Xonotic has more CPM-esque movement. You can turn fairly well using the strafekeys or just forward while in the air. You can gain quite a bit of speed in a short amount of time as well. Because of this, and because Xonotic's most played maps tend to be smaller than QL maps (again, a function of the movement and weapon balance) your sustained fire weapons are more situational. It's more beneficial to hit someone with the Devastator or Mortar (Rocket and grenade launchers respectively) despite those being slower projectile weapons because it requires minimal exposure to do maximum damage.
However in both weapons the Railgun/Vortex, a hitscan burst weapon, is quite strong. You still don't need much exposure to do damage, and the weapon only requires direct line of sight of a single pixel of your opponent to get the job done. You don't need to sit out in the open, you just need one good angle.
I could go on with these comparisons, bringing on the hagar and plasma, the crylink and shotgun, the Q3 MG and how it becomes a bit much in team-based modes, but I think you get what I'm saying already.
It's simply a factor of exposure (when can I use this) vs efficacy (what is the payoff for using it/using it well)
Let's use Quake as an example (because it's my favourite one). Let's actually go a little further and compare VQ3/QLive to Xonotic
In both games you have hitscan and projectile weapons. In both games you have burst and sustain weapons. The efficacy of each weapon depends on its overall utility and this is dependent on those properties, as well as the properties of the game
With VQ3 movement you are actually not that manoeuvrable. You can go quite fast in a straight line, but your lateral movement and turning radius are lacking at higher speeds. This leads to a scenario where the LG can really shine. The LG (Lightning Gun, known as the Thunderbolt in Q1/QWorld) for those who don't play Quake, is a high ROF range limited hitscan beam. It has a considerable amount of knockback, and if used well can actually pin people in the air. In QLive this weapon is immensely effective, even despite the drop it took in damage from the Q1 Thunderbolt, because exposure is often a guarantee and you can be sure that there are scenarios where you can get enough time in to drop someone's stack or secure a kill
Now let's look at Xonotic
Your LG equivalents are the MG and the Arc. The MG has no range cap but cannot be used to pin. The Arc has to be led, and will not pin either. Both do pretty decent damage per second, and burst values in Xonotic are actually lower than they are in QLive (Rockets are 80, nades are 55) though it is easier to direct hit with them.
In addition though, Xonotic has more CPM-esque movement. You can turn fairly well using the strafekeys or just forward while in the air. You can gain quite a bit of speed in a short amount of time as well. Because of this, and because Xonotic's most played maps tend to be smaller than QL maps (again, a function of the movement and weapon balance) your sustained fire weapons are more situational. It's more beneficial to hit someone with the Devastator or Mortar (Rocket and grenade launchers respectively) despite those being slower projectile weapons because it requires minimal exposure to do maximum damage.
However in both weapons the Railgun/Vortex, a hitscan burst weapon, is quite strong. You still don't need much exposure to do damage, and the weapon only requires direct line of sight of a single pixel of your opponent to get the job done. You don't need to sit out in the open, you just need one good angle.
I could go on with these comparisons, bringing on the hagar and plasma, the crylink and shotgun, the Q3 MG and how it becomes a bit much in team-based modes, but I think you get what I'm saying already.
It's simply a factor of exposure (when can I use this) vs efficacy (what is the payoff for using it/using it well)
Noooooooo, nonono, see this is what I'm talking about. I don't want to "expand DPS to mean all facets of combat." Just the opposite--I want to REDUCE it's role in our vision of the game. For years, DPS has been the be-all, end-all number that dominates the strategy and planning of hundreds of games, reducing all other options, styles, and specialties to support roles designed to keep the most damaging player alive as long as possible. Is it basic strategic sense? Sure. Should it be the first and last thing anyone cares about? Nope.
Your thinking is going in precisely the opposite direction of mine here. You're going even deeper into weapon types and their damage outputs and performances, while I'm trying to say "pull back a bit and look at the bigger picture." When you think of Ember, the word "shooter" pops into your head and DPS calculations and weapon stats completely take over your thinking. When I think of Ember, I think of a world where we're facing a foe we don't understand on an alien world (or a dozen.) More implications come with that than just damage per second; I think we're doing ourselves a disservice if weapon stats are the only thing we discuss. DPS needs to take a back seat for once and let the game become more alive for it. So many games have got people so trained on damage calculations and ability rotations that so many of us can't seem to remember what else a video game can do or why we find the idea exciting. I promise you this, though: If Ember becomes just another mech shooter with flavor of the month builds, top DPS charts and spawn timers, people are going to get bored of it VERY quickly, just like every other online game on the market.
We need to expect more.
Your thinking is going in precisely the opposite direction of mine here. You're going even deeper into weapon types and their damage outputs and performances, while I'm trying to say "pull back a bit and look at the bigger picture." When you think of Ember, the word "shooter" pops into your head and DPS calculations and weapon stats completely take over your thinking. When I think of Ember, I think of a world where we're facing a foe we don't understand on an alien world (or a dozen.) More implications come with that than just damage per second; I think we're doing ourselves a disservice if weapon stats are the only thing we discuss. DPS needs to take a back seat for once and let the game become more alive for it. So many games have got people so trained on damage calculations and ability rotations that so many of us can't seem to remember what else a video game can do or why we find the idea exciting. I promise you this, though: If Ember becomes just another mech shooter with flavor of the month builds, top DPS charts and spawn timers, people are going to get bored of it VERY quickly, just like every other online game on the market.
We need to expect more.
I believe i can bring a more creative view on the topic of customized Frames, and their possible potential. Based on what i have read, or been told, about the story, i would like to focus on the Shell of the frames. The suggestions i am thinking of may also affect the possible customization's to the Biomesh as well, but first i should actually get to the core of my idea.
As the story was told to me, i was told about both the Frames and a little about the main enemies attacking the player characters. Without any hesitation, my first thoughts on what i wanted to know about the frames went to how it could be customized. I did not care much about the elemental damage, or whether certain weapons would have splash damage, to start. I cared about the design and play style customization opportunities of a Mech Framed around your body.
-Can my Frame have Grasshopper legs (which may adjust how fast you jump, how high, and how quickly you can jump again)?
-Is there a possibility for a Mechanized-Centipede for the lower body instead of legs(Maybe taking away jumping while focusing on ground movement, and changing your actual walking animation or movement path)?
-Could my Frame have Four arms instead of two(With weight limitations for each hand)?
-Would it be possible for a Chest piece to have an ability to curl up and roll around (Obviously stopping you from shooting, but temporarily increasing your movement a lot)
-What if Wings were an option, and they allowed a player more aerial based combat at the cost of more energy consumption.(Maybe by adding two or three more boosts while in the air, or maybe by taking away the arms and lightening the overall weight)
-Might it be possible for an option for arms that does not let you equip a weapon, but instead has drills on the end (for enhanced melee) and allows one to burrow into the ground for a short time?
While these ideas do have some effect on a players ability to deal damage they focus more on play style, movement, and how you customize your personal Frame. Some people prefer being able to create a somewhat unique style of playing, even if there is already specified paths, such as what is usually seen in skill trees. You might have wings that leave behind health pods when you fly for anyone to pick up, but that does not mean your a healer because you are also darting into and out of combat with daggers. These are just some ideas for the potential of the Frames, but these ideas are not perfect and could probably use a lot of fine tuning. Hope this helped give people ideas.
As the story was told to me, i was told about both the Frames and a little about the main enemies attacking the player characters. Without any hesitation, my first thoughts on what i wanted to know about the frames went to how it could be customized. I did not care much about the elemental damage, or whether certain weapons would have splash damage, to start. I cared about the design and play style customization opportunities of a Mech Framed around your body.
-Can my Frame have Grasshopper legs (which may adjust how fast you jump, how high, and how quickly you can jump again)?
-Is there a possibility for a Mechanized-Centipede for the lower body instead of legs(Maybe taking away jumping while focusing on ground movement, and changing your actual walking animation or movement path)?
-Could my Frame have Four arms instead of two(With weight limitations for each hand)?
-Would it be possible for a Chest piece to have an ability to curl up and roll around (Obviously stopping you from shooting, but temporarily increasing your movement a lot)
-What if Wings were an option, and they allowed a player more aerial based combat at the cost of more energy consumption.(Maybe by adding two or three more boosts while in the air, or maybe by taking away the arms and lightening the overall weight)
-Might it be possible for an option for arms that does not let you equip a weapon, but instead has drills on the end (for enhanced melee) and allows one to burrow into the ground for a short time?
While these ideas do have some effect on a players ability to deal damage they focus more on play style, movement, and how you customize your personal Frame. Some people prefer being able to create a somewhat unique style of playing, even if there is already specified paths, such as what is usually seen in skill trees. You might have wings that leave behind health pods when you fly for anyone to pick up, but that does not mean your a healer because you are also darting into and out of combat with daggers. These are just some ideas for the potential of the Frames, but these ideas are not perfect and could probably use a lot of fine tuning. Hope this helped give people ideas.
Last edited:
Likes:
Pandagnome
We're ultimately talking about combat, not the whole of the game, and we're talking about damage in to damage out and sustainability of such a model. That, at its core, is all combat boils down to. The trick though is to add depth to such a system. If you add buffs/debuffs, healing and CC those all fit into damage taken or damage dealt. They are not necessarily direct flat contributions (CC is additive if used correctly but if used incorrectly from a player or design standpoint it can be basically useless, buffs are multiplicative if used well, etc). You're getting bent out of shape over a damage ratio, and incorrectly labeling it DPS, when the trick isn't to eliminate people thinking about efficiency, it's to create a game where the most efficient path is difficult or unclear. For things outside or combat, we still have crafting, base building, potentially racing etc.
I disagree with this statement about what combat boils down to. I find that to be, at best, an oversimplification of terms. However it is possibly even a gross miscatagorization of the factors at play in combat. Particularly when applied to the wide variety of what a mission objective may consist of.
I think it's fairly accurate to say combat always involves that and tends to revolve around that, but not to say that is all it boils down to.
Though I do agree that calling all factors of damage in and out dps is a hard mislabling. Also, I agree with the end point that the goal is not to stop people from thinking about the efficiency of it but to make that path varied ,mysterious or challenging.
I think it's fairly accurate to say combat always involves that and tends to revolve around that, but not to say that is all it boils down to.
Though I do agree that calling all factors of damage in and out dps is a hard mislabling. Also, I agree with the end point that the goal is not to stop people from thinking about the efficiency of it but to make that path varied ,mysterious or challenging.
^He gets it. The oversimplification of "combat" is what's led us to the gross homogenization of so many games over the past decade; it's why so many games feel like 'WoW-clones.' I simply recognize the direction of a discussion which leads right back to that gameplay formula sooner or later and am trying to encourage others to broaden their thinking so we start imagining greater things, rather than just accepting the constraints placed on games by limited design scope and outdated technology. It's the pigeonholing of "combat" into "a DPS formula" that's so rigidly compartmentalized the way we think about games.
We don't have to do that to ourselves anymore.
Tab-targeting, the forefather of MMO combat, was made to help compensate for the slow response time of dial-up internet. Why limit ourselves to something that barely worked, to compensate for something that also barely worked, when we have so much more room to grow now?
I had the urge to drop a "free your mind" joke here, but that would probably undercut my tone, so...just give it some real thought.
We don't have to do that to ourselves anymore.
Tab-targeting, the forefather of MMO combat, was made to help compensate for the slow response time of dial-up internet. Why limit ourselves to something that barely worked, to compensate for something that also barely worked, when we have so much more room to grow now?
I had the urge to drop a "free your mind" joke here, but that would probably undercut my tone, so...just give it some real thought.
Mission objectives simply change priority. Essentially, your combat scenario is going to boil down to the following
How long can you stay alive for, while still completing the objective
The easiest way to not be eliminated is to eliminate damage sources. This needn't always result in a frag, but is regardless a factor or damage out
CC, heals, buffs and debuffs change one side of the ratio or the other. Ease of use and skill determine their efficacy, but there will still be a range in which they can affect combat. CC reduces enemy efficacy, leasing to less damage taken or easier damage given out (through ease of landing hits), healing subtracts directly from damage taken, buffs and debuffs directly affect the stats of one side or the other, reducing their ability to add to their side of the ratio
Your objective is ultimately going to boil down to you or the enemy needing to keep or take something. In CTF you need to clear a path for your FC, in an attack/defense mode one side needs to eliminate point capturers while the other needs to eliminate defenders. Combatants must be moved to a state where they cannot combat to progress, whether this means they run away to heal up or restock their ammo, or that they simply get eliminated.
There's more subtleties involved, and obviously your strategy is going to base itself around the style of the game and how you fit in to it, as well as how the weapons and resources function, but that's why I'm talking about the *core* of a combat system
It's not an oversimplification though, it's simply a function of the way in which conflict is handled. If conflict was dialogue based, or scoring based and not based around health pools, or was scored by a panel of judges, the ratio would be different. It might include things like the ability to empathize, or around scoring chances/chance to goal ratios, or the ability to surprise or pander to a portion of the judges. What we have though is a system that is built around shooting targets. When you're exchanging damage and have finite health pools, the goal is to have that ratio go on your favour until the threshold where the other combatant cannot fight. This is an easily understood concept and can have near infinite variety in how it is handled. You then, though, must remember that this is not a one-and-done affair. You have other combatants closing in. You have the factor of damage taken. Some enemies have higher health or damage, and you need to adjust your play style correctly so that you are taking out a larger % of their health pool than they are yours (health pools being a function of all of your survival options, not just health)
Movement determines the damage you take, and the ease with which you can hit back. You can dodge attacks and move in ways that make consistent accuracy easier
Positioning and weapon usage do the same. If you have the right weapon and the right spot, your damage efficiency increases. If you pick a good defensive position your incoming damage decreases
Accuracy determines your need to use the other tools at your disposal and increases or decreases the efficacy of your output
Resource management is a function of the damage you take, and the accuracy you have, but ultimately determines how sustainable you are
WoW's combat system isn't every combat system, nor did it invent this ratio. Why do you think DOOM maps have ammo and health where they do? Why do you think they can make later levels harder while also giving you more powerful guns? It's because id used to be keenly aware of how these things worked from a mechanical perspective, and they were goddamn wizards when it came to fixing that system to a series of levels and set assets that evoked the mood they were going for
I'd say rather than try to construct a weird sort of moral high ground where there isn't one, you should use an example of what it is you want
How long can you stay alive for, while still completing the objective
The easiest way to not be eliminated is to eliminate damage sources. This needn't always result in a frag, but is regardless a factor or damage out
CC, heals, buffs and debuffs change one side of the ratio or the other. Ease of use and skill determine their efficacy, but there will still be a range in which they can affect combat. CC reduces enemy efficacy, leasing to less damage taken or easier damage given out (through ease of landing hits), healing subtracts directly from damage taken, buffs and debuffs directly affect the stats of one side or the other, reducing their ability to add to their side of the ratio
Your objective is ultimately going to boil down to you or the enemy needing to keep or take something. In CTF you need to clear a path for your FC, in an attack/defense mode one side needs to eliminate point capturers while the other needs to eliminate defenders. Combatants must be moved to a state where they cannot combat to progress, whether this means they run away to heal up or restock their ammo, or that they simply get eliminated.
There's more subtleties involved, and obviously your strategy is going to base itself around the style of the game and how you fit in to it, as well as how the weapons and resources function, but that's why I'm talking about the *core* of a combat system
It's not an oversimplification though, it's simply a function of the way in which conflict is handled. If conflict was dialogue based, or scoring based and not based around health pools, or was scored by a panel of judges, the ratio would be different. It might include things like the ability to empathize, or around scoring chances/chance to goal ratios, or the ability to surprise or pander to a portion of the judges. What we have though is a system that is built around shooting targets. When you're exchanging damage and have finite health pools, the goal is to have that ratio go on your favour until the threshold where the other combatant cannot fight. This is an easily understood concept and can have near infinite variety in how it is handled. You then, though, must remember that this is not a one-and-done affair. You have other combatants closing in. You have the factor of damage taken. Some enemies have higher health or damage, and you need to adjust your play style correctly so that you are taking out a larger % of their health pool than they are yours (health pools being a function of all of your survival options, not just health)
Movement determines the damage you take, and the ease with which you can hit back. You can dodge attacks and move in ways that make consistent accuracy easier
Positioning and weapon usage do the same. If you have the right weapon and the right spot, your damage efficiency increases. If you pick a good defensive position your incoming damage decreases
Accuracy determines your need to use the other tools at your disposal and increases or decreases the efficacy of your output
Resource management is a function of the damage you take, and the accuracy you have, but ultimately determines how sustainable you are
WoW's combat system isn't every combat system, nor did it invent this ratio. Why do you think DOOM maps have ammo and health where they do? Why do you think they can make later levels harder while also giving you more powerful guns? It's because id used to be keenly aware of how these things worked from a mechanical perspective, and they were goddamn wizards when it came to fixing that system to a series of levels and set assets that evoked the mood they were going for
I'd say rather than try to construct a weird sort of moral high ground where there isn't one, you should use an example of what it is you want
Likes:
Mk_6
This is probably an issue of how we choose to describe a thing rather than any disagreement of what is actually involved.
I would not use the statement that combat "boils down" to the following: "How long can you stay alive for, while still completing the objective."
As I said before, I would say that combat always involves it and tends to revolve around it. Which, in my opinion, is exactly what your examples illustrate. I'd refer to that interaction differently. This is primarily a matter of description, what we choose to emphasize in words in hopes to communicate a way to build something. What you refer to as the "subtitles" involved can be, to me, just as much the ends as they are the means to any combat system. At the end of the day I get the sense that you and I could effectively design a very similar combat model, but have made it there from a somewhat different path.
Alright, let me see if I can help here.
I think @Daynen 's underlying concern is that a lot of games showcase a limited view of combat variety, because they rely so heavily on the damage in/out aspect without adding the depth around it/to it, without bringing (what you call) the subtleties to center stage. Choice in phrasing aside, I'd argue that he is right to want that. That his concern is a valid one. So, when he reads your statement of what "combat boils down to", it may come across as you wanting to do that same thing. Though, for what it is worth, I do not think that is necessarily your intent.
To illustrate what I think Daynens concerns are, I'll use a simple example.
How many games have a "Hunter" class, that lacks a relevant tracking/finding component? (As in, they don't actually hunt)
Most commonly a games enemy and mission mechanics either lack any real need to find or track enemies so the class then has no need for such capabilities or the designer's just don't give the hunter any enhanced capability to find and track the enemies that do.
All the "hunter" class is really made to be is a ranged damage dealer with a certain look and theme. Of course simply doing ranged damage does not properly capture what a "hunter" is by definition. A lot of times we might get a trap, a pet, or some cool ammunition types, but the most core aspects of a "Hunter", the ability to hunt something down, is missing. The "hunter" may fit on a damage in/out model just fine, and that is definitely an integral part of the class. The problem is the designer might think they have a solid version of a "hunter" simply because of that damage model. But I would argue that capturing what makes a hunter a hunter (the ability to hunt) is just as important, just as central to the class, as anything else could be.
Now, who sounds more likely to make sure the hunter can hunt and not just do damage- The designer saying "combat boils down to damage in/out" or the designer saying "damage in/out is only part of combat""?. Again, it's not to say that both designers couldn't end up making a hunter who can hunt, but one sounds more like they are actively looking for it. Actively looking for it is the key. That is, I think, what Daynen is asking for.
Hopefully you see what I mean.
I'm half afraid you'll say something like "The faster you can find the enemy the faster you can do damage to them, therefore it still boils down to damage in/out".
Which would be both true in a certain regard and essentially missing the whole point in another regard.
I would not use the statement that combat "boils down" to the following: "How long can you stay alive for, while still completing the objective."
As I said before, I would say that combat always involves it and tends to revolve around it. Which, in my opinion, is exactly what your examples illustrate. I'd refer to that interaction differently. This is primarily a matter of description, what we choose to emphasize in words in hopes to communicate a way to build something. What you refer to as the "subtitles" involved can be, to me, just as much the ends as they are the means to any combat system. At the end of the day I get the sense that you and I could effectively design a very similar combat model, but have made it there from a somewhat different path.
Alright, let me see if I can help here.
I think @Daynen 's underlying concern is that a lot of games showcase a limited view of combat variety, because they rely so heavily on the damage in/out aspect without adding the depth around it/to it, without bringing (what you call) the subtleties to center stage. Choice in phrasing aside, I'd argue that he is right to want that. That his concern is a valid one. So, when he reads your statement of what "combat boils down to", it may come across as you wanting to do that same thing. Though, for what it is worth, I do not think that is necessarily your intent.
To illustrate what I think Daynens concerns are, I'll use a simple example.
How many games have a "Hunter" class, that lacks a relevant tracking/finding component? (As in, they don't actually hunt)
Most commonly a games enemy and mission mechanics either lack any real need to find or track enemies so the class then has no need for such capabilities or the designer's just don't give the hunter any enhanced capability to find and track the enemies that do.
All the "hunter" class is really made to be is a ranged damage dealer with a certain look and theme. Of course simply doing ranged damage does not properly capture what a "hunter" is by definition. A lot of times we might get a trap, a pet, or some cool ammunition types, but the most core aspects of a "Hunter", the ability to hunt something down, is missing. The "hunter" may fit on a damage in/out model just fine, and that is definitely an integral part of the class. The problem is the designer might think they have a solid version of a "hunter" simply because of that damage model. But I would argue that capturing what makes a hunter a hunter (the ability to hunt) is just as important, just as central to the class, as anything else could be.
Now, who sounds more likely to make sure the hunter can hunt and not just do damage- The designer saying "combat boils down to damage in/out" or the designer saying "damage in/out is only part of combat""?. Again, it's not to say that both designers couldn't end up making a hunter who can hunt, but one sounds more like they are actively looking for it. Actively looking for it is the key. That is, I think, what Daynen is asking for.
Hopefully you see what I mean.
I'm half afraid you'll say something like "The faster you can find the enemy the faster you can do damage to them, therefore it still boils down to damage in/out".
Which would be both true in a certain regard and essentially missing the whole point in another regard.
Likes:
Pandagnome
@Ronyn
Either way, both you and @Daynen are free to add your examples of the elusive non-combat combat that you'd like to see specifically in Ember.
And while in this topic, I'll address some things that were mentioned before, mainly weapon customization and horizontal progression.
Honestly though, I'd like some clarification on what you mean when you say "horizontal progression". Does that mean there will be, for example, only one rocket launcher unlocked at start, and the player may unlock different types later on, but they won't necessarily be better? Will there be any vertical progression, and if so what will it be tied to? If the weapons won't provide vertical progression, does that mean the threat from the AI will be more or less consistent no matter where you go? Will new players be able to fight alongside veterans at almost the same performance level?
But most of all: what do you plan the long-term goals of the players to be? Will end-game content differ in any way from the content people see 1h after launch? Do you plan for players to have long-term goals at all (the equivalent of getting to max level in an MMO) or do you want the game to just be a fun experience on its own (like Q3)? Because if it's the latter, maybe you don't need progression at all, just customization (by that I mean you should avoid the term "horizontal progression" or "progression" altogether, as it'd be a bit misleading), in which case you'd only need a small number of weapons with a moderate ammount of mods that change the weapon on a fundamental level, essentially making each weapon a class.
If answers for these questions don't exist - that's fine, but I think these are some of the most important questions that need answers when deciding on a progression system. Since horizontal progression has apparently already been decided on, I'd hope some though went into the decision as well, and it wasn't just waved off with a "we'll figure it out later".
At this point you're getting into more technical and general aspects of development. By that, I mean the resources needed to develop such a system, and the way it interacts with all other systems.
If we follow your example, the developer would pretty much have to have the idea that hunters should be able to hunt/track enemies before designing any other aspect of the game - enemy placement, area size, UI mission-tracking assistance, etc.. Then, once you get over that, all other classes would have to rely on the hunter to do the hunting, and gameplay would be either hard or near-impossible without one (An alternative, that is IMO worse, would be hunter-specific missions). In most games it would be either impossible or impractical to add such a feature after having a working prototype of the final game.
I wouldn't even consider the ability to track enemies a combat ability, really. It's more of a time-saving ability, like a mount - get to your destination faster. It's a non-combat ability the whole game would have to be designed around, or you'd need a part of the game designed specifically for a small portion of the players (who want to play an actual hunter) that would provide a fundamentally different experience than everyone else would get, but would have to be balanced alongside them. If we're talking about a game with many classes, that hunter idea couldn't be the only unique one - every class would want their own class-specific mechanic that would provide a different experience to the normal combat scenario. Then they'd have to be either optional or self-contained (possibly adding to some unifying goal to pull them all together), and in the end you're developing ~6 different games in one world rather than one complex game.
What I'm trying to get at here, is that apparently the things you and @Daynen are talking about are things that serve as the basis/core mechanic of a new game, and not something that can easily be implemented to an already existing/developing idea. It sounds more like something that would fit a single-player game with one strong focus, but that's getting away from Ember.
What we have is apparently a combat-oriented multiplayer game with an ongoing war, base building, mining and dynamic events. Kinda hard to come up with non-combat mechanics that would actually aid in combat, be a part of the core experience and be interesting at the same time. I guess maybe some exploration or stealth/recon missions could fit in, but that's still disconnected from combat.
If we follow your example, the developer would pretty much have to have the idea that hunters should be able to hunt/track enemies before designing any other aspect of the game - enemy placement, area size, UI mission-tracking assistance, etc.. Then, once you get over that, all other classes would have to rely on the hunter to do the hunting, and gameplay would be either hard or near-impossible without one (An alternative, that is IMO worse, would be hunter-specific missions). In most games it would be either impossible or impractical to add such a feature after having a working prototype of the final game.
I wouldn't even consider the ability to track enemies a combat ability, really. It's more of a time-saving ability, like a mount - get to your destination faster. It's a non-combat ability the whole game would have to be designed around, or you'd need a part of the game designed specifically for a small portion of the players (who want to play an actual hunter) that would provide a fundamentally different experience than everyone else would get, but would have to be balanced alongside them. If we're talking about a game with many classes, that hunter idea couldn't be the only unique one - every class would want their own class-specific mechanic that would provide a different experience to the normal combat scenario. Then they'd have to be either optional or self-contained (possibly adding to some unifying goal to pull them all together), and in the end you're developing ~6 different games in one world rather than one complex game.
What I'm trying to get at here, is that apparently the things you and @Daynen are talking about are things that serve as the basis/core mechanic of a new game, and not something that can easily be implemented to an already existing/developing idea. It sounds more like something that would fit a single-player game with one strong focus, but that's getting away from Ember.
What we have is apparently a combat-oriented multiplayer game with an ongoing war, base building, mining and dynamic events. Kinda hard to come up with non-combat mechanics that would actually aid in combat, be a part of the core experience and be interesting at the same time. I guess maybe some exploration or stealth/recon missions could fit in, but that's still disconnected from combat.
Either way, both you and @Daynen are free to add your examples of the elusive non-combat combat that you'd like to see specifically in Ember.
And while in this topic, I'll address some things that were mentioned before, mainly weapon customization and horizontal progression.
From what I've read so far, Ember is pretty much like Planetside 2, only PvE and with procedural terrain. PS2 also has a war scenario, vehicles, bases (permanent as well as player-built), mining, 'dynamic events made by an AI general' (controlled by squad leaders and not AI, but the result is the same), and most of all - horizontal progression.
And by god, do those sidegrades take long to get and are full of newbie traps. Weapon progression is, in my opinion, the worst part of PS2. There are lots of weapons with slightly different stats, you can only get one weapon every couple days if you're a casual f2p player, it's never obvious what weapon is good for what situation, and with only a few exceptions they all handle in a similar manner. While there are different playstyles to choose from, the variety within each playstyle is severely limited. After that comes the min-maxing @Beemann talked about, where if you want to play class X up close, weapon A is obviously the best choice, so you might as well disregard everything else.
What keeps PS2 fun are the interactions with the enemies. Suddenly they deployed a sunderer behind us and we're in a crossfire. We're about to start capping a base we fought over for a long time, but suddenly there's a galaxy drop in the base we came from. Trying to defend a cap point from a max rush, finding a cloaked enemy sunderer, long range tank battle against a defended player base (or defending an ally player base), etc.. And then the progression doesn't bother me that much, but only because I've already put in over 200 hours unlocking stuff that should've been unlocked from the start. Stuff that's almost necessary to make the game fun and the player useful in most scenarios - c4, AT mines, lock-on launchers, proximity mines, stalker cloak - they all make the game a lot more fun, and honestly the game was almost painful without them. There's no real reason for them to be locked other than an illusion of a meaningful goal (also note - none of those are actually guns - once again, the weapon variety doesn't translate to gameplay variety, it's the extra stuff that can be considered abilities that's fun).
Individual weapon customization is a joke, with only a couple options available per weapon slot, with the weapon having up to 4 slots, the vast majority of them (with the exception of the scopes) barely affect the weapon at all and most weapons have the exact same options available.
So I guess what I'm trying to say is - look at PS2 as an example of how NOT to do horizontal progression.
And by god, do those sidegrades take long to get and are full of newbie traps. Weapon progression is, in my opinion, the worst part of PS2. There are lots of weapons with slightly different stats, you can only get one weapon every couple days if you're a casual f2p player, it's never obvious what weapon is good for what situation, and with only a few exceptions they all handle in a similar manner. While there are different playstyles to choose from, the variety within each playstyle is severely limited. After that comes the min-maxing @Beemann talked about, where if you want to play class X up close, weapon A is obviously the best choice, so you might as well disregard everything else.
What keeps PS2 fun are the interactions with the enemies. Suddenly they deployed a sunderer behind us and we're in a crossfire. We're about to start capping a base we fought over for a long time, but suddenly there's a galaxy drop in the base we came from. Trying to defend a cap point from a max rush, finding a cloaked enemy sunderer, long range tank battle against a defended player base (or defending an ally player base), etc.. And then the progression doesn't bother me that much, but only because I've already put in over 200 hours unlocking stuff that should've been unlocked from the start. Stuff that's almost necessary to make the game fun and the player useful in most scenarios - c4, AT mines, lock-on launchers, proximity mines, stalker cloak - they all make the game a lot more fun, and honestly the game was almost painful without them. There's no real reason for them to be locked other than an illusion of a meaningful goal (also note - none of those are actually guns - once again, the weapon variety doesn't translate to gameplay variety, it's the extra stuff that can be considered abilities that's fun).
Individual weapon customization is a joke, with only a couple options available per weapon slot, with the weapon having up to 4 slots, the vast majority of them (with the exception of the scopes) barely affect the weapon at all and most weapons have the exact same options available.
So I guess what I'm trying to say is - look at PS2 as an example of how NOT to do horizontal progression.
Honestly though, I'd like some clarification on what you mean when you say "horizontal progression". Does that mean there will be, for example, only one rocket launcher unlocked at start, and the player may unlock different types later on, but they won't necessarily be better? Will there be any vertical progression, and if so what will it be tied to? If the weapons won't provide vertical progression, does that mean the threat from the AI will be more or less consistent no matter where you go? Will new players be able to fight alongside veterans at almost the same performance level?
But most of all: what do you plan the long-term goals of the players to be? Will end-game content differ in any way from the content people see 1h after launch? Do you plan for players to have long-term goals at all (the equivalent of getting to max level in an MMO) or do you want the game to just be a fun experience on its own (like Q3)? Because if it's the latter, maybe you don't need progression at all, just customization (by that I mean you should avoid the term "horizontal progression" or "progression" altogether, as it'd be a bit misleading), in which case you'd only need a small number of weapons with a moderate ammount of mods that change the weapon on a fundamental level, essentially making each weapon a class.
If answers for these questions don't exist - that's fine, but I think these are some of the most important questions that need answers when deciding on a progression system. Since horizontal progression has apparently already been decided on, I'd hope some though went into the decision as well, and it wasn't just waved off with a "we'll figure it out later".
To be clear, I didn't suggest any sort of "non-combat combat", I suggested two things. The first one was a different way of communicating the idea of what is core to combat and an intent to make classes varied in more ways than just the damage they do. As I expressed to Beeman, I don't think he and I are talking about a different style of combat design just a different way to express it in words. It would be a misrepresentation to turn what I said into some sort of call for "non combat combat".
The second, was the way in which we should approach making a class what it is. I won't make any direct suggestions on what I would personally like to see in Ember as that may be misinterpreted by some as something that is actually coming. That would be irresponsible on my part. Instead I will stick with general concepts and other games that illustrate the general idea I was getting at.
Hopefully that gives you a better sense of what I was referring to.
I must say, it's very cool that folks are so interested in this stuff.
The second, was the way in which we should approach making a class what it is. I won't make any direct suggestions on what I would personally like to see in Ember as that may be misinterpreted by some as something that is actually coming. That would be irresponsible on my part. Instead I will stick with general concepts and other games that illustrate the general idea I was getting at.
On to the class Idea I referenced, the "hunter who hunts", there are a variety of ways to express that idea. Some that require larger systems to be built around it, some that more readily fit into existing systems. A game like Evolve has a rather literal version of hunting, the tracker archetype has multiple abilities for finding the enemy monster. That takes building the whole game around it.
Alternatively, we have games like Destiny, which has a nighstalker sub class of of the Hunter. It has improved search ability (it finds resources better than others) and it can effectively mark enemy targets it has hit. This gives that player a clear knowledge advantage of their targets movement for a few seconds. Subtle, but creates a sense of hunting/tracking. That was added on to an existing game something like a year after it's launch. League of legends added the character Kindred, who can select a target from anywhere on the map as their prey, creating a sort of "I am being hunted" mind game with the enemy player. That was added several years after the games release. The tactician Class in killzone 3 (I think it was 3) has an ability to gain awareness of all enemies within an area for a time. For a time some of the Recon classes in Firefall use to have ways to manipulate the S.I.N. in ways that improved their ability to provide information for allies. Etc..
As you can see, the hunting/finding/tracking concept can be expressed in many ways. Not all of which require the whole game based around it. My whole point was that the class/character designer has to look for ways to capture the sense of "hunting", and not just make the hunter a ranged-dps-class-with-no-sense-of-hunting whatsoever. The damage model being solid, by itself, is not all that is required to capture the essence of what is a hunter.
Again, it's not about any sort of "non combat combat", it's about viewing traits other than damage in/out as equally important to what makes the class what it is.
Alternatively, we have games like Destiny, which has a nighstalker sub class of of the Hunter. It has improved search ability (it finds resources better than others) and it can effectively mark enemy targets it has hit. This gives that player a clear knowledge advantage of their targets movement for a few seconds. Subtle, but creates a sense of hunting/tracking. That was added on to an existing game something like a year after it's launch. League of legends added the character Kindred, who can select a target from anywhere on the map as their prey, creating a sort of "I am being hunted" mind game with the enemy player. That was added several years after the games release. The tactician Class in killzone 3 (I think it was 3) has an ability to gain awareness of all enemies within an area for a time. For a time some of the Recon classes in Firefall use to have ways to manipulate the S.I.N. in ways that improved their ability to provide information for allies. Etc..
As you can see, the hunting/finding/tracking concept can be expressed in many ways. Not all of which require the whole game based around it. My whole point was that the class/character designer has to look for ways to capture the sense of "hunting", and not just make the hunter a ranged-dps-class-with-no-sense-of-hunting whatsoever. The damage model being solid, by itself, is not all that is required to capture the essence of what is a hunter.
Again, it's not about any sort of "non combat combat", it's about viewing traits other than damage in/out as equally important to what makes the class what it is.
First let me say I appreciate your critique on Planetside 2, I'll be sure to look into it myself.
I can tell you that Ember will have mostly horizontal progression. There will be some vertical climb but it will be rather tame compared to what we would normally expect from vertical progression. Exactly what that will mean in terms of power growth and weapon choice, I could not say at this time. Here is a little bit of info on weapon customization.
As for end game content, I can tell you two things. 1: Grummz is not a fan of wasted content. So it is highly likely that few if any areas on the map will become irrelevant to a player simply because they leveled up a lot. 2: One of the goals of progression is that the player unlocks new abilities and new gameplay over time. You can expect that "Endgame" (if that is even a term we end up using) will take advantage of those various options.
I am, of course, not allowed to share everything I might learn and there is quite a bit still being decided but, rest assured, there are some well thought out reasons for the why and how things are being approached.
I can tell you that Ember will have mostly horizontal progression. There will be some vertical climb but it will be rather tame compared to what we would normally expect from vertical progression. Exactly what that will mean in terms of power growth and weapon choice, I could not say at this time. Here is a little bit of info on weapon customization.
As for end game content, I can tell you two things. 1: Grummz is not a fan of wasted content. So it is highly likely that few if any areas on the map will become irrelevant to a player simply because they leveled up a lot. 2: One of the goals of progression is that the player unlocks new abilities and new gameplay over time. You can expect that "Endgame" (if that is even a term we end up using) will take advantage of those various options.
I am, of course, not allowed to share everything I might learn and there is quite a bit still being decided but, rest assured, there are some well thought out reasons for the why and how things are being approached.
Likes:
Fabricio21RJ
There's no arguing that combat is going to be a huge part of Ember and I'm not suggesting we create enough functionality for some of us to settle down and just become mechanics in the middle of a war. What I'm trying to get at, in a broad sense, is that there's more to war then shooting, aiming and shooting. Those are fun skills to master, sure, but we've already done that with lots of games. Ember needs to do more than that.
The game world needs to reflect the challenges of war with enemies that do more than just appear and shoot, environments that are more than just 'walkable/not walkable,' equipment that requires some thought, skill, maintenance and care to use properly and scenarios where we NEED to use that equipment properly or fail.
The game world needs to reflect the challenges of war with enemies that do more than just appear and shoot, environments that are more than just 'walkable/not walkable,' equipment that requires some thought, skill, maintenance and care to use properly and scenarios where we NEED to use that equipment properly or fail.
Like @Mk_6 has stated, I would consider tracking to be a non-combat component, much like crafting or gear tuning. It may be related to combat (we have to track down the giant base-eater) but I wouldn't consider it to be combat any more than I would the act of driving to a battlefield.
Additionally I'd argue that the subtleties just affect the ratio in less clear ways.
@Daynen
I would imagine that many of the scenarios you're thinking of would be ones I would consider non-combat. I would suggest, however, that the ones that are directly involved in combat pertain to the ratio I mentioned prior. They are the subtleties I spoke of. In Xonotic/CPM/Reflex it is important to maintain stack through map control. This leads to nigh infinite variance in combat scenarios, especially when you consider the number of maps available for any of the 3. You're not just considering things from a "did my shot hit or didn't it" perspective, you're denying movement through important areas, firing predictive shots, placing yourself in advantageous positions and guessing, based on prior opponent knowledge and in-game feedback, if now is the time to jump for that mega or not. These factors are exponentially increased when you move into team modes, and resources must be shared between the 2-4 (generally speaking) of you. Scenarios with subtle differences can have entirely different answers. If you have yellow or green armor and the red comes up, normally you'd take it, but in a team mode you may want your teammate to take it so he can increase survivability, but the opposing team might have a plan to steal it, and so footstep and pickup SFX, teammate position and the capabilities of all players must be taken into account. That's ignoring your actual health pool, weapons and ammo count
You can change the context of these factors but they still ultimately remain related to the core function I proposed
Additionally I'd argue that the subtleties just affect the ratio in less clear ways.
@Daynen
I would imagine that many of the scenarios you're thinking of would be ones I would consider non-combat. I would suggest, however, that the ones that are directly involved in combat pertain to the ratio I mentioned prior. They are the subtleties I spoke of. In Xonotic/CPM/Reflex it is important to maintain stack through map control. This leads to nigh infinite variance in combat scenarios, especially when you consider the number of maps available for any of the 3. You're not just considering things from a "did my shot hit or didn't it" perspective, you're denying movement through important areas, firing predictive shots, placing yourself in advantageous positions and guessing, based on prior opponent knowledge and in-game feedback, if now is the time to jump for that mega or not. These factors are exponentially increased when you move into team modes, and resources must be shared between the 2-4 (generally speaking) of you. Scenarios with subtle differences can have entirely different answers. If you have yellow or green armor and the red comes up, normally you'd take it, but in a team mode you may want your teammate to take it so he can increase survivability, but the opposing team might have a plan to steal it, and so footstep and pickup SFX, teammate position and the capabilities of all players must be taken into account. That's ignoring your actual health pool, weapons and ammo count
You can change the context of these factors but they still ultimately remain related to the core function I proposed
Last edited:
"Remain related to", absolutely. "Core function", well the choice in term is one way to describe it. My concern is whether or not looking at combat through the lens of " it all boils down to damage in/out" will result in missing the true potential relevance of other factors.
Case in point-
What is or isn't a combat component will very often depend on the context.
Driving to a battlefield is not combat, but driving under fire or under threat of attack in a battlefield definitely is.
Literally swerving to avoid landmines, running over enemies, putting the armored hull of the vehicle between an ally and enemy fire.
Likewise, "tracking" isn't always relegated to a pre-fight scenario(which was illustrated by my various examples in the previous post). Often the tracking component is something that happens under fire or under the threat of fire. If you're looking for a target that is also looking for you, the person who finds their target first has the advantage. There may even be other threats present during this search. In such cases, threat of harm is constant. There are many expressions of this. If an enemy is behind a wall and I get forewarning from a tracking like skill. If you have been hurt in our firefight, and are trying to escape to a safer position, being able to follow you better due to a hunter skill. Etc.
The converse of tracking would be stealth. Which, again, can have many expressions and happen in the middle of an active battle.
Beeman, bring this back to your own statements of combat being about "how long you stay alive for while completing the objective." Things like acquiring a target and evading discovery will directly affect that. It's absolutely interrelated.
Whether you refer to these things as "the subtleties", just ways to make the core function more varied... is a matter of description. The main goal is that you see their full relevance in a combat model, regardless of description.
Case in point-
What is or isn't a combat component will very often depend on the context.
Driving to a battlefield is not combat, but driving under fire or under threat of attack in a battlefield definitely is.
Literally swerving to avoid landmines, running over enemies, putting the armored hull of the vehicle between an ally and enemy fire.
Likewise, "tracking" isn't always relegated to a pre-fight scenario(which was illustrated by my various examples in the previous post). Often the tracking component is something that happens under fire or under the threat of fire. If you're looking for a target that is also looking for you, the person who finds their target first has the advantage. There may even be other threats present during this search. In such cases, threat of harm is constant. There are many expressions of this. If an enemy is behind a wall and I get forewarning from a tracking like skill. If you have been hurt in our firefight, and are trying to escape to a safer position, being able to follow you better due to a hunter skill. Etc.
The converse of tracking would be stealth. Which, again, can have many expressions and happen in the middle of an active battle.
Beeman, bring this back to your own statements of combat being about "how long you stay alive for while completing the objective." Things like acquiring a target and evading discovery will directly affect that. It's absolutely interrelated.
Whether you refer to these things as "the subtleties", just ways to make the core function more varied... is a matter of description. The main goal is that you see their full relevance in a combat model, regardless of description.