I'm fairly new to BYOND so of course I've been reading a lot of the old forum message's, etc. I noticed a couple complaints (or comments) about HP's (mainly the raising of HP's by levels) being unrealistic. I'm a big fan of text-based MUD's (mainly MajorMUD and the DIKU family) so I've heard many opinions on the subject, and just wanted to share mine.
My first point it that it's a GAME, and while SOME realism does help many games, most people play games to escape real life. (I know I don't want to play a game where I'm sitting at a computer playing a game where I'm sitting at a computer playing a game where I'm... even thought it can't get more real than that.)
One example I saw on here was something like;
In real like a guy goes out and slaughters a bunny rabbit, because of the he can take more damage without dying???
Good point, but let me give a real life example;
There are swordsman, one gained his experience in the frontlines of a war, the other gained his skill sparring and fencing. They could have the exact amount of skill with a blade, but who would win in combat? It could be either, but I'd put my money on the one who was in deadly combat and heres why...
If the war-veteran wounded the fencer, the fencer would react by looking at his wound to evauate the damage. Giving the war-veteran amble time to land a death blow.
If the fencer, on the other hand, wounded the war-veteran, the veteran would know its just another battle wound that will heal with time and keep his concentration on the fight.
If you don't look at HP's as just how much damage a character can take, but also the psycological effects of the damage they have slightly more realism.
ID:154085
 Jun 21 2002, 1:01 pm
|
|
|
Jun 21 2002, 1:08 pm
|
|
Leftley
 |
Emphasis on slightly. There are plenty of excuses for hitpoints and having them rise with experience, but none of them come close to making any sense realism-wise... and most don't make much sense balance-wise. I can live with a game where a player who's about as powerful as players can get has two to three times more hitpoints than a newbie starting out... that makes sense. Especially if the veteran player here has magic items or spells helping them out; then I could see even higher HP differences. However, there are plenty of games out there where newbies start out with 10 hitpoints and 1000 is considered to be mediocre for a high-end player; this is not only absurd, it's not exactly much fun if the veteran player decides he doesn't like the newbie.
|
Yeah...I was thinking something like this too.
Except I call my HP stat "vitality". I should probably go with descriptions and such... And for strength, I was thinking, you wouldn't know it. There would be NO statpanel for it. You would just go to the gym, put on some PowerPounds (tm, Francisco Salas, Jr.) on the old PowerBench (tm) and PowerLift(tm) some pounds, until you couldn't go any further. | |
If you don't look at HP's as just how much damage a character can take, but also the psycological effects of the damage they have slightly more realism. I was one of the proponents of the discussion that HPs should be few and far between -- here's my thoughts why. The war-veteran in the above cited example is an experienced swordsman -- thus, his skill is affecting how badly he suffers damage. Mainly, I don't like arbitrarily assigning hit points to people since I like skill-based systems. I'll definitely admit, and even support, that hit points have their places and are far more useful in some circumstances. If your system is level-based rather than skill-based, having hit points not only makes sense, but it is also necessary. In most of my combat systems, the average human can suffer 50 points of damage before they are killed. The range of human health is between 35 and 85 points. However, their health will never increase or decrease except with intensive training, and even then the difference will only be by several points. In my systems, it's not about being able to take the blow -- it's about being able to avoid the blow altogether. A monk with decades of experience can still be felled by a lowly bandit if that bandit manages to send an arrow through him. Essentially, my system fuzzes the differences between "high-level" and "low-level" characters -- it gives the skilled characters obvious advantages, while still making them vulnerable to the lesser characters. The above monk would probably be skilled enough to dodge the arrow entirely, or only have it graze him, but if the bandit is lucky enough, that shot will kill that monk, hands down. Hit-point-based systems don't allow that luxury, except in the case of critical hits, and those are more random than deterministic. | |
I'm kind of with Spuzzum in the Hit points department. I really don't like them at all.
I'm not sure about in-game material, but I replaced all of my AD&D Hit Points with: Dodge Points Luck Points Life Points Dodge Points are basically your ability to dodge an attack no matter what. Most new characters would have about 1 - 3, veteran players would have about 40 - 60. If you are hit by a person with a skill twice your own + 1 ( ie. if Joe had a skill in swords of 8 and Jim had a blocking skill of 3 ), you don't get this. Luck Points are total luck. If you're hit, you have a 50/50 chance of getting to use these. New characters would have about 5 - 10, veterans have about 20 - 25. Life Points are actually how alive you get. This is the one that doesn't raise as you gain levels. But I also added a much more useful skill base to my AD&D system too... Anyways, that might help someone get a few ideas. The system works great because a new character vs old character makes very little difference as the Dodge Points stat can easily be negated by things like Ambushes, Arrows, Unfamiliar Attacks ( How do you dodge a breath weapon if you've never seen one? Or How do you dodge a crossbow bolt? It flies WAY to fast! ), etc. Just some thoughts. | |
Yeah, the D&D/AD&D docs will all explain away high levels of HP as reflecting increased skill, luck, etc... but the reality of the game doesn't bear that out. A potion of luck or skill doesn't give you a temporary HP increase, for instance.
| |
Well here's a quick thought. Instead of using HP, why not use endurance? I mean that's a pretty good way to describe it.
And one other thing. If you use endurance instead of HP, you wouldn't need an attack damage, you could just use what endurance you had left, because if you're damaged badly, you can't very well attack the same as if you were just starting to fight. | |
Well, I did pursue an avenue similar to that in a game I started and shortly thereafter quit. The problem I see with using "endurance" or "stamina" as a measurement of how "alive" or "how much damage you can take" is that it's too narrow. Endurance, to me, is a better measurement of how long you can last in a fight, or moreover how much you can carry.
In my newest project on the boards, I'm considering having no numerical stats at all. Like, you have hit points and some other measurements of how much damage you can take, but you'd get something like: Healthy Bruised Injured Severely Injured Mortally Wounded (After 5 seconds, you go to the next one) Fatally Injured (After 5 seconds, you die) Dead So combat in game might look like: Joe attacks you Joe injures you with his Broadsword and you drop your shield You severely injure Joe with your Claymore causing him to fall back You parry Joe's attack with your Claymore You knock Joe down with a kick Joe gets up and readies his Broadsword You fatally injure Joe with your Claymore Joe screams in extreme pain and falls to the ground [Player walks away from Joe, leaving him to bleed to death] [In the screen of Joe now] [1 second passed] You start to feel woozy [2 seconds later] You find it difficult to keep your eyes open [2 seconds later] You let loose your final breath as your wounds overcome you. Your life and your quest end here, in the Meadow of Illith, bleeding to death after being struck down by James. But I'm really wanting to get rid of the entire Experience Points and goal acquired thing. It seems so impersonal and to me, reminds the player that they are playing a game. Whereas if you just kill someone and you get a discription of what actually happens to them ( like, they scream in pain or something ), it's more personal and they can better identify with the character they created... That's just me though :-) | |
I dont think HP is unrealistic, its just probably not meant to be in number form. If you change the HP to a HP% then this would probably be more realistic.
To do this, all you need is usr.health/usr.maxhealth*100 put that in your stat code, and it will look more realistic, you can still have hp and maxhp vars, but u might need to make these values change very very slightly, this will also make sure the character is growing stronger, but isnt growing TOO strong. I hope this is ok for u guys, cya | |
tee hee (pushes up glasses) where's the mountian dew? no! i hit the magic dragon for 40 damage! he he! see, it says so in the player's manual! im funny guys, right? (no im not) <<blows head off>>
| |
If I could find one, I'd be in favor of games that use skill to determine who becomes the victor of a battle, rather than luck or attack power.
I'll base my ramblings on a mindless space combat game known as Subspace/Continuum that is a perfect little time waster for anyone who likes flying around in small space ships while blowing up other people. In this game, while there are 8 different ship types each with varying statistics, it doesn't matter which ship you are when you play. Each ship has it's own specialties, some are better at base defense, some are better against groups, some are better in dog fights or dueling combat. Regardless of which ship you use, if you're new, you're going to get your butt kicked. New players generally have a score around 5 wins for every 20 losses. They don't know how to aim, they don't know how to get out of the way, and don't know any tricks to fool the other players into flying strait into their attacks. After a while of playing, players eventually learn how to now run strait into enemy fire. They learn how to rotate their ship and align it with the speed of the targetted ship to aproximate the position they will be in, and send the bomb to meet them at that position. Right now, my score at the game is 3/2, meaning I take down 3 ships for every 2 times I get blown up. That ranks me as an above average player - especially in the zone I prefer, Extreme Games, where you're usually gone on the first hit. There are players out there who've played the game for years. Their ships aren't any stronger than anyone else's. They don't have better firepower, they don't have better evasion, they aren't faster, they aren't anything. Yet they can have ridiculous statistics such as 1/40, 5/150, 1/600 even. That's one death for every 600 ships downed. The ideal health system is the one where it doesn't matter what your health is, it should be your skill with the game that allows you to survive. Since most RPGs don't incorperate any kind of reaction times, these skills must rely on statistics. The characters who've trained relentlessly, learning how to dodge attacks from the other guy will be able to dodge better. The one's who've learned to aim will aim better. Eventually they'll know how to best their opponents. But, unless they're ridiculously good, they'll still be in trouble when up against multiple opponents. Skilled players in Subspace/Continuum still have trouble when they've got ships approaching from multiple directions, launching sets of missiles that need to be dodged - it's like flying through a maze where hitting a wall means death. Likewise, it should be difficult for even a skilled combatant to come out the victor in a fight against multiple attackers. The bottom line in it all - it doesn't matter what their health is. It's skill that decides the victory. | |
The bottom line in it all - it doesn't matter what their health is. It's skill that decides the victory. But in this case, it's more of an action game -- roleplaying games rely more on the skill of the character, rather than the player, in influencing the outcome of a particular event. For example, we'll compare two players in games that function in similar ways, but one is based on the skill of the player, and one is based on the skill of the character. Player1 and Player2 are newbies. They join separate games at the exact same nanosecond, and rise in playing ability at the exact same rate. Eventually, both are considered to be the best at their respective game. Now, here's the difference -- both players are bored with being on the top of the hierarchy, so they decide to come back under new aliases. Player1 becomes Reyalp1, Player2 becomes Reyalp2. Reyalp1, in the game where the skill of the player is most important, is still the best player. Reyalp2, however, in the game where the skill of the character is most important, is no longer the best player. The definition of action games, in my books, are games that rely on the skill of the player in managing a single small entity well. Strategy games are games that rely on the skill of the player in managing many variables and things at once. Roleplaying games, however, are games where the player must act out the part of a character, and there is no reliance on the player being skilled at the game, since the character is still theoretically new. You can't roleplay someone who stays the exact same -- that's just boring. Hence, RPGs rely on making the character gain in ability, not the player. (Hedgerow Hall has lots of examples where player skill also comes into question -- for example, knowing how best to run away from marauding sociopaths, knowing the best places to scrounge for things, knowing which skills are more important, etc. But, for the most part, if I were to log in after two weeks of everyone else playing the game persistently, I would be behind in capability.) (I never noticed this before, but I'm guessing that "Hedgerow Hall" is a pun on "Hedgerow Hell"? Either that, or it's a really freaky coincidence.) | |
Third edition D&D describes HP as 'your body's ability to withstand punishment' rather than how healthy you are, no matter your HP, you die if you take more than 60 damage from one attack, even if you have 400 HP, HP is simply a measure of how much you can take. I don't agree with this totally, lets say you shoot someone, you don't get stronger, maybe your aim increases, maybe you get a little thrill, but you don't get tougher.
Experience is meant to be earned by going into a battle that you have almost no chance to survive, and coming out nearly dead, experience is simply the further mastery of your abilities, ok, example: A ten-year-old takes on a twelve-year-old, punches him twice and gets beaten down, the 12-year-old doesn't fight any better afterwards, because the fight was easy, he sports maybe one bruise, but besides that just keeps on doing the same thing. But the ten-year-old (LEVEL UP!!!)(JK) learns to hit harder, maybe faster, and starts trying to learn to dodge. This doesn't mean "oh boy, I got a hit in, my PL rose by 17!" it means, "maybe next time I should try to dodge that first punch, and I should unload a little more in my first puch..." . Experience is not a measure of you just fighting more, it is an intellectual ability to realize your mistakes and try harder next time to do it right. Killing a bunny rabbit won't do | |
put that in your stat code, and it will look more realistic, you can still have hp and maxhp vars, but u might need to make these values change very very slightly, this will also make sure the character is growing stronger, but isnt growing TOO strong. I think that the scaling--growing by a small fraction of your starting value, rather than growing by whole-number multiples--is more important than displaying as a percentage, although that helps too. Games where players start with 10 HP at level 1, then get 20 HP at level 2, 30 at 3, 40 at 4, and so on are neither realistic nor particularly fun for the level 1 players fighting 300-HP level 30 players. Suppose instead that players started with 100 HP at level 1, but rather than growing 100 HP per level up, they increased by a meager 5 HP. Now instead of a level 20 character having 20 times more hitpoints, a level 20 character has TWICE as many hitpoints--that's still a lot more, but probably not enough to go around slaughtering scores of newbies with impunity. | |
Foomer wrote:
- especially in the zone I prefer, Extreme Games, where you're usually gone on the first hit. There are players out there who've played the game for years. Their ships aren't any stronger than anyone else's. They don't have better firepower, they don't have better evasion, they aren't faster, they aren't anything. Yet they can have ridiculous statistics such as 1/40, 5/150, 1/600 even. That's one death for every 600 ships downed. Well hey! I play on Extreme Games(mostly just elim) in SubSpace. Whats your alias? Alathon, down with the javs.. | |
In some weird nonsensuous way, I was actually comparing player skills in action games to character skills in RPG games. Either way, it's the skill that makes the difference, not the amount of HP they have :o)
| |
Tethaer, and I have my good days and bad days. I usually play when I'm grouchy and feel like making stuff blow up.
| |
or vice versa, you can't have newbies coming in to sabotage the role-play enviornment, going around killing everyone, just because the HP advancement is only a little at the time...
Also, I am rather peeved, I hosted VALKYRIE(MY AWESOME PROJECT) for about 15 minutes a month ago, and within that 15 minutes, a bunch of DBZers, named(gotenks, mightycell, and nail) came in and started yelling out "This game sucks ass, where are the DBZ icons?", and causing a rucus by killing every good NPC in sight, Slaughtering the livestock, and finnally, one of them firgured out that if you set a building on fire, it really would burn... I hadn't program the fire's spawn rates tight, and fires engulfed the entire world of 1000 X 1000 map... I TRULY HATE WHOEVER DID THIS! And at the time, I had not the sense to check their keys, and I didn't have the showkey() in the game yet... In 7 and a half minutes, they managed to wreck everything I had slaved to create, and of course left, presumably to go and play their Zeta ripoffs... I wish I had their keys, I'd go and whoop they butt, I'd transform them into a set of stairs and go stairmaster on their pathetic arses. I'd step all over them, I'd WHOOP THEY BUTT! And in the morning, I'd make waffles... I've spent the last month trying to figure out how to make newbies less powerful, so they could destroy a little bit less of the game if they went berserk.... still trying | |
Actually, in most BYOND games, it's how fast you can click the mouse and who is freinds with the GM... I hate that... I try to be a fair GM... I never use my powers for evil, unless it's to turn a newbie who decides to undermine my authority into a flight of stairs and go stairmaster on their @$$es... oh, wait, I already said that... OK, transform them into a government mule and beat them like a... like a govenment mule!!
| |
While my ideas rarely center around combat, since part of FoomerMUD intended to include hunting dangerous animals for food, combat naturally had to fall into play somewhere. Regardless, each player had a set amount of health set randomly around 40 to 60 or so. Now, the only way to increase your health was to train a skill called toughness. Now, the only way to train toughness was to take damage - and the only way to take damage was to get hurt by dangerous animals. If you didn't get killed by the thing, why lucky you. You've survived, but you probably took some damage. In turn, there's chance based on your current amount of toughness that your toughness level will increase, thus granting you more health.
If a player had 0 toughness, there's a 100% chance that they'll gain one point of toughness if they survive taking damage. So if they had 50 health, they'll now have 51 health. If they survived an attack again, they'd now have to roll between 0 and their current toughness of 1, giving them a 50% chance of gaining another point of toughness. After that, they'd have to roll between 0 and 2, giving them a 33% chance of gaining yet another point. On an on it goes, until they only have a 1% chance of rolling the correct number out of 100 (their current toughness level). That means it'd take a long, long time to gain health, yet it's still possible. And you can imagine how fearsome an opponent with 150 health would appear, although it would likely be a long time and require either a lot of dangerous encounters, or very specialized training through cooperated efforts to get it that high. By then, the player would likely consider that character very valuable, and be less willing to go out and attempt to slaughter 50 health newbies just because they can. The end result is hopefully a better roleplaying atmosphere, since that's the point of the game anyway. Of course, 50 health newbies can always run around trying to slaughter 50 other 50 health players, but they probably wouldn't last too long, especially if the admins got to em first, but that's beside the point. | |