Wolfire Games Forums

Um, yeah. What you just summed up there is what armor is for. Basically, The more armor you have on, the more well protected you are, but you are also more encumbered and more vunerable to throws and heavy falls. The less armor you have, the more you can dodge and move around, but (obviously) you have.

Where are you coming from with this "everyone playing the same" thing? Even in lugaru, there was no win strategy, you had to vary it up. People you face online can adapt and vary their strategy better than the AI. In fact, stats would severly unbalance the game. Speed always wins over brute slow strenght in competitive, skill based games*.

Wepon choice will matter, but it won't be the defining factor. Mount and Blade hits the blance just right as far as wepons go. Besides, we have disarms, don't we?



*See Super Smash Brothers.

Kestril wrote:Speed always wins over brute slow strenght in competitive, skill based games*.
*See Super Smash Brothers.

Often so, I agree. But not always.
See, once again, it relies on level of skill.
Continuing on SSB as an example, in all three games in this series, I have often enough seen/been (mostly seen) heavy characters, beating lighter characters to a pulp. Mostly by avoiding their attacks, and in the small recovery time they have, grab, pummel, launch, rinse, repeat. And similar.

In different skill-based games, like perhaps, Vendetta Online, the same kind of scenario happens: Larger, heavier, slower ships, still managing to dodge the small zippers, and hit these zippers with a few well-aimed plasma bolts to finish them off.
Admittedly, the heavy to light differences aren't as great as in SSB...

Glabbit wrote:

Kestril wrote:Speed always wins over brute slow strenght in competitive, skill based games*.
*See Super Smash Brothers.

Often so, I agree. But not always.
See, once again, it relies on level of skill.

True, but unless you're crazy skilled with a heavy character it's often better to pick the lighter ones.

All I'm saying is: once you start playing with Stats, you run the risk of unbalancing the game.

Armor, however, is a different matter. Because It's removable it doesn't punish the player long-term (as picking stat A over stat B does). Also, with armor the player has more freedom to experiment with different looks and customization; not just a board of numbers. Socom: Confrontation is a good example.

The same goes for weapon choice. Different weapons offer pro's and cons. Knives, for example, can easily take out a stationary pike man. While a sword could easily vanquish a knife at close range. Pikes then take out swords in a merry little weapon triangle.
However simplistic the weapon triangle may be, it doesn't give a disadvantage due to passive numbers calculating who-cares-where. It still remains true to the core aspect of the game: Skill.

Stats, especially multiplayer stats, are ridiculous. Players in any non-MMO should be rewarded based on their actual ability, not the amount of time they've spent playing. Time spent playing brings experience which improves skill naturally; an artificial mechanism to make players better after playing longer is superfluous, as they should be getting better anyway from their experience.

now that I think about it, the only time any of these skills would work would be some sort of per-round basis. Example being Natural Selection's combat mode. As you play and kill etc. you get points to upgrade your guy. But once a new round begins you have to start over. this lets you specialize in certain things.

I don't know if a system like that would work however. Perhaps for a specific gamemode?

Glabbit wrote:Move Maker = No.
Ohh, please no.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_Movie_Maker

"Move maker" was not a typo =O

well glabbit said move maker, and you gave a link to a movie maker is what I think ozy was getting at.

I haz a confused.

Glabbit wrote:I haz a confused.

aaa

bbb

ccc

You're being very grim lately, BWS...