To combat any potential claims of not being specific enough, here's a bullet list aimed at adding complexity and interesting decision-making, with an eye toward realism.
- Hit placement and detection: instead of random hit/miss based on skill and fatigue, detect whether the geometry of the weapon (or fist) passes through the geometry of the target to determine hits, and track which body part is hit.
- Multiple damage types: slashing, crushing, piercing, etc.
- Wounds with effects based on hit location (body part), damage type, and damage amount
- A list of pre-defined body parts for non-bipedal enemies, and vertex groups assigned to these body parts. Expect this to be tedious if the assets don't already have conveniently-named vertex groups. This would include some of the same parts as bipeds, and also more exotic ones like wings.
- Multiple armor types: padded, flexible, rigid, etc., applied to armor items as well as creatures (so a mudcrab's top would be rigid while its face might be unarmored). This is separate from armor value, so chitin might have the same rigid type as steel plate but a lower value. This could be very broad (padded, flexible, rigid) or more granular (leather, mail, chitin, bonemold, scale, metal plate, etc.).
- Weapons with different armor piercing values for different attack types (i.e. slash vs. thrust vs. chop). A longsword slash might be good against padded armor, while its thrust would be good against padded and flexible, and a mordhau with the pommel would also be somewhat effective against rigid.
- A less interesting but much simpler approach would be to simplify it to armor skill types vs. weapon skill types, so e.g. Long Blade is good against Unarmored but bad against Heavy Armor.
Think how to implement it in OpenMW, if requires to reinvent animations and a totally new hit system my guess is that it won't happen.
Well not with that
Animations aren't all that excessively hard when compared to a lot of other things. I find them much easier than textures. We're already redoing them for the Example Suite.
I hardly believe anyone want such a complexity in the game.
It sure sounds like a lot of people in this thread want a lot more complexity than what we currently have... which is basically none at the moment. Morrowind combat is dull because of its simplicity, especially for fighters. Regardless of what you're carrying or who you're fighting, every fight is basically the same. So no, nobody wants six different kinds of parries, but some flavor, variety, and skill-based rather than number-based difficulty would be nice.
For example, about different part of the body damage I'd go for middle ground: health works as usual, but depending where you are hit you get temporary (1 minute or so) disadvantage. As long it applies also to enemies it should be fine, examples include: partially blinded if hit in the head, slowed down if hit in the legs, weaker if hit in the arms.
Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm getting at. I'm not talking about an in-depth medical simulator that tracks your character's heart rate, blood pressure, and glucose. Bandaging, splinting, suturing, shock, etc. are more suited for a hardcore survival game/mod... which I would totally
go for (I'm getting excited just thinking about it), but is beyond the scope of what I'm suggesting currently.
Similarly about the different kind of armors, of course those have different effects. But in your games do you really want different sets of armors depending on the enemy you face? Seriously?
No, you have that backward. If you're fighting a heavily-armored knight, you don't want to use a spear. If you're fighting a bear, you don't want to use a hammer. Nobody is suggesting you change your armor
depending on your opponent. You should wear the best armor you can afford.
Besides, don't forget the fantasy part; it is not medieval Europe it is Vvardenfell.
Steel is still steel. Just because there are elves and wizards doesn't mean other things should be nonsense, which they currently are.
If a powerful wizard can do all kind of nasty stuff, a powerful warrior should able to do other different nasty stuff.
Do you mean like special moves in the style of a fighting game? That's definitely a different direction than I'm proposing, but could also be fun if done well.
DestinedToDie wrote:I don´t think the aged Daggerfall attack mechanics are going to be very fun in a modern game. I would rather move forwards than backwards.
I haven't played Daggerfall, but it sounds very similar to the swinging mechanics in Arena, which I found to be surprisingly engaging. The actions of the character mirror the actions of the player, which is cool and intuitive.
Greywander wrote:You might think that, but I suspect this is largely due to video game conventions, it's just what you're used to doing. In real life you'd be a fool to leave your guard open and only raise your shield when your opponent attacks you.
From what I've seen, it seems to be a combination. Just having your shield in front of you limits where your opponent can attack, but you obviously move your shield if you see their spear coming for your face.
Maybe there'd be a way to direct your attacks (high or low, left or right) to strike where their shield isn't protecting them, and there'd be a way to protect different areas of yourself with your shield.
Well, you already have the targeting crosshairs.
Aside from that, crouching to designate a low attack would be good.
I dunno, is there anyone here that's actually studied medieval European martial arts that might be able to chime in?
My martial arts experience is in jiu-jutsu and a little kickboxing. My HEMA knowledge is very much an armchair perspective that I've gleaned from actual experts and sparring videos. While I haven't done it myself, I can usually back up what I'm saying with someone who has.
I'm on board with pretty much all of this.
First and foremost, let's do away with the random hit/miss mechanic. If an attack connects, it's a hit. What I'd suggest instead is that increasing your weapon skill allows you to attack faster, perhaps not only increasing the speed of the attack animation but also cutting off frames from the end (a less skilled fighter is going to over swing, while a more skilled fighter has better control of their weapon and can recover faster after a strike).
I'd shy away from getting a damage boost from skill, otherwise your game can suffer due to HP/damage inflation.
I think this depends on the health/damage/wound mechanics. A skilled fighter would surely land better hits than a novice, all other things being equal, because of better edge alignment, hitting with the right part of the weapon, better follow-through, etc., but it should probably increase more slowly than health/defensive abilities do, in order to make higher-level fights last longer and make them feel more epic than low-level fights.
Next, I would add an alt attack button (default to right mouse click; menu goes to tab or something). If the player does not have a shield equipped but has a melee weapon, then the alt attack becomes a parry. For bows, holding alt attack nocks an arrow and main attack shoots (release alt attack to de-nock without shooting). For crossbows, hold alt attack to reload.
I support an alt-attack button. I'm not committed to any one particular expression of it, though. Parrying seems like a good use. So does shield blocking, or various offhand uses. Maybe an alt-version of both right and left buttons, so you could have two possible options per hand. A sword-and-shield user might have attack and parry with the sword, and block and bash with the shield, while a spellsword might have attack and parry with a weapon, and two different spells in the offhand, and a mage might have three spells and a block or grab.
So here's what I suggest for armor: First of all, all armor gives full protection regardless of your skill. Armor also slows you down, but increasing your skill will reduce the speed penalty (up to almost entirely eliminating it). Increasing your skill also reduces the durability loss of your armor.
I would actually be in support of removing all armor skills completely and just have a Dodge skill, but otherwise this would be the approach I'd like.
Somehow I knew this was going to be a Skallagrim video.
Are you also a fan of Matt Easton (Schola Gladiatoria) and Ian LaSpina (Knyght Errant)? Both are nigh-endless fonts of knowledge on their chosen subjects.
Now, as for damage, I second getting rid of health entirely. Have damage come directly out of attributes, with, for example, 0 Endurance meaning death. I would also add in "wound" debuffs, like lacerations that need a dressing and bandages to stop bleeding, broken bones that impair your ability to do certain actions, or make you unable to do them at all, and organ damage that causes other nasty side effects. Magic and potions, then, instead of restoring hit points, would heal cuts, mend bones, and repair organs. This is actually something I've already put a bit of thought into, as I'd like to make my own OpenMW game that doesn't have hit points.
Most of this I agree with, except what Destined already pointed out: it just turns Endurance into Health by another name. I think Health is a good thing to have even if it isn't 100% realistic, mostly as an abstraction of blood loss and a way that the player can see at a glance how well they're doing. Of course, a battleaxe to the bare throat should still wreck a person in short order.
Now, on the subject of skills, I'd actually like to reduce (melee) weapon skills down to one single weapon skill, or at least divvy them up by fighting style rather than weapon.
This is something I've thought about as well. I kinda like the idea of having two, though: hand weapons (for lack of a better term) and pole weapons. I'm not speaking from direct experience, but using a spear or halberd just seems like a very different animal from swinging a machete. Additionally, a drastic change to a fighter's skills would need a corresponding change to a mage's skills, or else the mages would find themselves at a disadvantage. I'd be down for a complete skill overall, if such a thing were discussed.