I noticed in a recent interview with the developers of Broken Hourglass, they mentioned penalties for a character facing multiple opponents at one time. Strange almost no RPG's address this.
Is there any penalty in Eschalon if your character is surrounded, being attacked from behind, etc.?
I think it would add a lot to the tactics potential if you had to run for a doorway or get your back to a wall if faced with three opponents, unless you were some sort of master swordsman.
combat versus multiple opponents
combat versus multiple opponents
***
Cyclopean - an HP Lovecraft inspired Role-Playing Game
Cyclopean - an HP Lovecraft inspired Role-Playing Game
-
BasiliskWrangler
- Site Admin
- Posts: 3825
- Joined: July 6th, 2006, 10:31 am
- Location: The Grid
- Contact:
Well, if you are facing multiple opponents then you are already getting attacked by multiple foes at once...isn't that penalty enough?! 
Seriously, this did come up about a year ago and we decided that with Eschalon being a single player, single character game, getting cornered by 4 Undead Corpses is already an easy way to die without the need to impose further penalties.
Your example of running for a doorway or getting your back against the wall already applies to Eschalon. There'll be many times when you'll enter a room and you'll want to quickly back out, allowing enemies to come single file at you through the door... or wedge yourself into a corner to prevent multiple foes from completely encircling you. This is one of the best tactics for dealing with hordes.
Seriously, this did come up about a year ago and we decided that with Eschalon being a single player, single character game, getting cornered by 4 Undead Corpses is already an easy way to die without the need to impose further penalties.Your example of running for a doorway or getting your back against the wall already applies to Eschalon. There'll be many times when you'll enter a room and you'll want to quickly back out, allowing enemies to come single file at you through the door... or wedge yourself into a corner to prevent multiple foes from completely encircling you. This is one of the best tactics for dealing with hordes.
-
Dragonlady
- Illustrious
- Posts: 1466
- Joined: August 29th, 2006, 2:38 pm
- Location: CA, USA or Knumythia
I agree, and I thank you for not adding penalties. And my carpal tunnel thanks you too!BasiliskWrangler wrote:Well, if you are facing multiple opponents then you are already getting attacked by multiple foes at once...isn't that penalty enough?!
Sometimes the dragon wins...
Help save the earth. It's the only planet with CHOCOLATE!
Help save the earth. It's the only planet with CHOCOLATE!
![Officer [Bronze Rank]](./images/ranks/officer1.png "Officer [Bronze Rank]")
Indeed, I would think that being surrounded by enemies is already a bad situation, no need to add insult to injury by piling on further penalties.
If you're in such a situation, you'd better be finding a position of advantage, standing in the midst will go badly, unless you are a master combatant. I quite like that Eschalon is taking into consideration tactical positioning for combat, not enough games do this - it rarely matters if you're standing in a good position or not, the game engine makes no differention when it really should be coded to take such things into account.
If you're in such a situation, you'd better be finding a position of advantage, standing in the midst will go badly, unless you are a master combatant. I quite like that Eschalon is taking into consideration tactical positioning for combat, not enough games do this - it rarely matters if you're standing in a good position or not, the game engine makes no differention when it really should be coded to take such things into account.
There are worlds out there where the sky is burning. And the sea's asleep and the rivers dream … People made of smoke and cities made of song … Somewhere there's danger, somewhere there's injustice, somewhere else the tea's getting cold!
Yes, I suppose it would be more exciting with a party-based RPG where you'd have tough fighter types defending weak wizard types.
Thing is, once you're level 4 or 5, you can usually run into a crowd of level 1 bandits and while you're dispatching three opponents in front of you, two guys directly behind you cannot land a hit. Having a crowd penalty would keep battles against multiple, low-level opponents interesting.
Thing is, once you're level 4 or 5, you can usually run into a crowd of level 1 bandits and while you're dispatching three opponents in front of you, two guys directly behind you cannot land a hit. Having a crowd penalty would keep battles against multiple, low-level opponents interesting.
***
Cyclopean - an HP Lovecraft inspired Role-Playing Game
Cyclopean - an HP Lovecraft inspired Role-Playing Game
Ultimately, I think it depends on the balance of the game. Will a character be regularly fighting much lower level enemies in large groups? Does being attacked by a larger group already dramatically increase the character's chances of being hit and killed, regardless of level difference?
I'm not sure a blanket generalisation can be made without knowing how the game works on a very detailed level.
I'm not sure a blanket generalisation can be made without knowing how the game works on a very detailed level.
There are worlds out there where the sky is burning. And the sea's asleep and the rivers dream … People made of smoke and cities made of song … Somewhere there's danger, somewhere there's injustice, somewhere else the tea's getting cold!
-
BasiliskWrangler
- Site Admin
- Posts: 3825
- Joined: July 6th, 2006, 10:31 am
- Location: The Grid
- Contact:
Gallifrey: I can see the logic in what you said....a single, low-level opponent would not have much of a chance against a well-developed character, but 6 of those low-level enemies might logically be able to overpower that same character.
I can definitely say that Eschalon has a tendency to play out this way. If you are fighting a single, low-level enemy and they have a 10% chance of hitting you during their combat round, then logically if you fought multiple enemies of that same level together, there is a >10% chance that at least one of them will hit you during their phase of the combat round. So yes, multiple enemies at once is more dangerous than a single enemy, even if we are talking about relatively easy opponents. I can attest to this personally.
We will certainly continue to look at the rules for multiple-opponent penalties throughout the development of this series.
I can definitely say that Eschalon has a tendency to play out this way. If you are fighting a single, low-level enemy and they have a 10% chance of hitting you during their combat round, then logically if you fought multiple enemies of that same level together, there is a >10% chance that at least one of them will hit you during their phase of the combat round. So yes, multiple enemies at once is more dangerous than a single enemy, even if we are talking about relatively easy opponents. I can attest to this personally.
We will certainly continue to look at the rules for multiple-opponent penalties throughout the development of this series.
Right, that's my thinking as well. Even with a low chance to land a hit, a mob of low chances can still take something more powerful down.
Instead of applying penalties for multiple combatants in the future, what about developing attacks like grapple or trip? A group of far less powerful enemies using things like that could very likely make things go badly for the high level PC, and seems more realistic than a general penalty given to the player. In a turn-based system, alternate forms of attack (and defence) are quite practical.
Instead of applying penalties for multiple combatants in the future, what about developing attacks like grapple or trip? A group of far less powerful enemies using things like that could very likely make things go badly for the high level PC, and seems more realistic than a general penalty given to the player. In a turn-based system, alternate forms of attack (and defence) are quite practical.
There are worlds out there where the sky is burning. And the sea's asleep and the rivers dream … People made of smoke and cities made of song … Somewhere there's danger, somewhere there's injustice, somewhere else the tea's getting cold!
Some thoughts
I think the square directly behind the character should get a bonus. Either that or if a creature is behind the player, shields become ineffective, so does dex bonus. A properly trained fighter should be able to protect against attacks except for attacks directly from behind.
If a player can backstab, so should a monster or thief be able to backstab.
Part of fighting a group of thieves or bandits should be trying to stop them from getting behind you.
Moving into a corner should have minuses, fighting cornered limits the ability of a player to move effectively, minuses to hit. Less creatures can approach and attack, but the ability of the player attack is not as good.
Open doorways and fighting in hallways seems to make the best sense for protection against crowds.
Two weapon fighters are often most able to fend off crowds because they have the widest angles to attack from.
If a player can backstab, so should a monster or thief be able to backstab.
Part of fighting a group of thieves or bandits should be trying to stop them from getting behind you.
Moving into a corner should have minuses, fighting cornered limits the ability of a player to move effectively, minuses to hit. Less creatures can approach and attack, but the ability of the player attack is not as good.
Open doorways and fighting in hallways seems to make the best sense for protection against crowds.
Two weapon fighters are often most able to fend off crowds because they have the widest angles to attack from.
I am Myt where's the cheese dip.
-
MarionDeputy
- Apprentice
- Posts: 20
- Joined: August 13th, 2006, 12:16 pm
Re: Some thoughts
I agree with Myt, I hope strategic placement influences penalty/bonuses. Obviously it's easier to kill an openent if your behind him and he can't see you. Side attacks should show an advantage also. Anyone who has ever seen or worn armor knows that it's week points are the sides....mytgroo wrote:I think the square directly behind the character should get a bonus. Either that or if a creature is behind the player, shields become ineffective, so does dex bonus. A properly trained fighter should be able to protect against attacks except for attacks directly from behind.
If a player can backstab, so should a monster or thief be able to backstab.
Part of fighting a group of thieves or bandits should be trying to stop them from getting behind you.
Moving into a corner should have minuses, fighting cornered limits the ability of a player to move effectively, minuses to hit. Less creatures can approach and attack, but the ability of the player attack is not as good.
Open doorways and fighting in hallways seems to make the best sense for protection against crowds.
Two weapon fighters are often most able to fend off crowds because they have the widest angles to attack from.
A thought for handling such a combat dynamic such as giving certain squares bonuses occurred to me while reading this thread. I do agree that the squares behind and to the side of a player should grant some attack bonuses. However, how about making it so that the player has the ability to automatically defend the squares directly around them, making it extremely difficult for an enemy to get to those squares in the first place?
Theorhetically, if I see someone trying to flank me, I would do my best to deter that in a real fight by waving my nice sharp sword or whatever in their general path. You could make it so that the player gets an "attack of opportunity" on enemies that try to sneak behind, and that if the enemy is not fast enough the player can actually hit them or even excert a "zone of control" type of effect that blocks an enemy from even moving onto such a square completely (the idea being that the moving onto such a guarded square would almost certainly be fatal, and therefore not even worth considering).
I suppose one example of a game that implements such a "zone of control" type of dynamic would be Civilization 2, and probably the other games of that series.
I just think it is annoying and unrealistic when an enemy can just run right past my meat shields and butcher my mages so easily in some games (and even vice versa). The idea of players and enemies having their own zone of control would also vastly increase the strategic importance of things like party member formation and placement. And it would require your characters to have either a great deal of speed, skill or both in order to reap the benefits of square bonuses, balancing the game more.
Theorhetically, if I see someone trying to flank me, I would do my best to deter that in a real fight by waving my nice sharp sword or whatever in their general path. You could make it so that the player gets an "attack of opportunity" on enemies that try to sneak behind, and that if the enemy is not fast enough the player can actually hit them or even excert a "zone of control" type of effect that blocks an enemy from even moving onto such a square completely (the idea being that the moving onto such a guarded square would almost certainly be fatal, and therefore not even worth considering).
I suppose one example of a game that implements such a "zone of control" type of dynamic would be Civilization 2, and probably the other games of that series.
I just think it is annoying and unrealistic when an enemy can just run right past my meat shields and butcher my mages so easily in some games (and even vice versa). The idea of players and enemies having their own zone of control would also vastly increase the strategic importance of things like party member formation and placement. And it would require your characters to have either a great deal of speed, skill or both in order to reap the benefits of square bonuses, balancing the game more.
How about using a combat system similar to that seen in: STAR TRAIL or SHADOWS OVER RIVA? (anyone remember it?)
I liked the action point system.
And I think that we could us a grid on terrain for squares adiacent to the character.
I agree with the problem of game balancing and too complex combat system if we introduce rules about backstab and flank attack related to squares.
But a good RPG is NOT an ack 'n slash game! I think it requires a tactical-strategic component. This is why we like so many character stats and keeping our time to study the next move during combat.
More options, more fun, more deep game.
This is what I think.
So a good way to solve the problem could be to introduce standard bonus/malus sytem related to the position of the character on the grid, where he's facing and where enemies are facing.
If my avatar is fighting an enemy directly in front of him, then the 2nd enemy attacking from the flank gets a +1 bonus to hit and the 3d enemy attacking from rear get a +2 bonus to hit plus the opportunity to backstab.
Oh. And another thing. To backstab you need:
1) to attack an enemy unspotted (so you can't simply use your action point to position your avatar behind an anemy and thena attack him)
2) to attack an enemy from the rear when he's facin another opponent directly opposed to you.
What do you think?
I liked the action point system.
And I think that we could us a grid on terrain for squares adiacent to the character.
I agree with the problem of game balancing and too complex combat system if we introduce rules about backstab and flank attack related to squares.
But a good RPG is NOT an ack 'n slash game! I think it requires a tactical-strategic component. This is why we like so many character stats and keeping our time to study the next move during combat.
More options, more fun, more deep game.
This is what I think.
So a good way to solve the problem could be to introduce standard bonus/malus sytem related to the position of the character on the grid, where he's facing and where enemies are facing.
If my avatar is fighting an enemy directly in front of him, then the 2nd enemy attacking from the flank gets a +1 bonus to hit and the 3d enemy attacking from rear get a +2 bonus to hit plus the opportunity to backstab.
Oh. And another thing. To backstab you need:
1) to attack an enemy unspotted (so you can't simply use your action point to position your avatar behind an anemy and thena attack him)
2) to attack an enemy from the rear when he's facin another opponent directly opposed to you.
What do you think?
furor vincit omnia
Another way to do this.
Only certain creatures get bonuses for being behind the character:
Thief, bandit-- backstab.
Only certain creatures get bonuses for surrounding the character:
Giant ants-- swarm
This way it limits the bonuses and creates certain monsters to watch out for.
Thief, bandit-- backstab.
Only certain creatures get bonuses for surrounding the character:
Giant ants-- swarm
This way it limits the bonuses and creates certain monsters to watch out for.
I am Myt where's the cheese dip.