Re: [Arianne-general] Attack Rules example

[Juan J. B. <sa...@re...>]

> This seems good, but for combat, it means quite a high level of abstraction
> for combat.
>
> This may be necessary - how do you get detail in a combat system that
> takes in weapons from a dagger to a fireball launcher?
>
> But it means that, say, sword vs. sword combat is the same as knife vs.
> fireball launcher.
>
> Is this desirable?

I don't need to be in this way.
You can place different rules for the different weapons inside the
attack rule.
Anyway at the begin let's do it simple and let's use RP actual way.

> I would like sword vs. sword combat to have the feel of a different fight, and
> to contain some sword specific actions and drawbacks.
>
> The big difficulty in all this is, I think, is to allow high levels of interactivity in
> combat, while also allowing for the legitimate levels of lag.
>
> 1000ms at client -> server lag, in a client -> client interaction, an end-to-
> end lag of 4000ms, *plus* server + client processing time, plus player
> thinking time.
>
> What do folk think?

Combat is going to be like in baldur's gate. so you click one time and
your chraracter
attacks until order is cancelled or the attacked character is defeated.
So the only important lag is the time from Client 2 server.

> A very high level of abstraction for combat?  (I attack & you attack, we
> each take some damage.  Repeat until someone gives up.]
>
> Or a high level of player choice within combat.  You perform a specific
> attack, and I react to it to avoid, defend or counter it, and dependant on
> outcome you then move to the defensive, or the person with first
> opportunity then begins a new attack.

I think that this kind of play is very (very) hard to do. Let's do it
simple now and we
later can try new approachs.
Anyway the combat needs to be turn-based and has to be fair with players
with high latency.