How long should combat be?

[mutantmagnet]

Something that doesn't get talked about too much but is fairly important is combat time length. So I'm curious...

SHould there be respawn time penalties for dieing repeatedly in a short periods of time?

Do you want quick battles where you basically only have seconds to live?
Do you want fights to last about a minute (which according to he guys who made Mechwarrior 2 is the best combat time for most gaming experiences)?
Do you want battles to last 10 minutes? (So that way fights are more deliberate in allowing different tactics to be employed and to make strategy more relevant)

[Uruz2012]

If we're going for realism then a fight should last about 30 seconds. That's about how long the average street fight lasts from first contact until someone gives up or is knocked out.

I think that's a little short though. 1.5-2 minutes sounds a little more reasonable. If the fights go much longer than that then it gets a little boring because there is more room for error. It takes some of the urgency out if the fights go on too long because if you make a mistake you can recover. In a real fight if you make a mistake then you've lost.

[James Olson]

Originally Posted by mutantmagnet

SHould there be respawn time penalties for dieing repeatedly in a short periods of time?

The penalty is inherent in the game design and its econmical. Each time you die you have to re-equip your self with sword or spell regs.

As for battle time, I think it's mostly going to be dependent on the classes facing off. Two glasscannon types going at it will likely take less time than two heavily armored foes. And all this is just rhetoric focusing just on 1vs1 combat, which is likely going to be the less common type of battle, I assure you.

[Nox Vortem]

Originally Posted by James Olson

The penalty is inherent in the game design and its econmical. Each time you die you have to re-equip your self with sword or spell regs.

Agree, I think you have a good point, a full loot system come with a very punishing Death Penalty: Losing your equipment. This is more severe than anything else.

I want combat to be long enough because it will take time to re-equip and you should be able to enjoy combat a little longer compared to the time it takes you to re-supply yourselves.

[Traceur]

well, melee combat in martial arts and fencing actually becomes longer the more skillful the participants are. the fact is everyone can kick/stab, the main advancement of skills is in their defensive uses.

a match between two newbies will last seconds and a match between two masters will last minutes.

of course when you push into it combined techniques, different weapons, and all in different skill levels, it becomes a lot more complicated then my simplification...

on the other hand, ranged weapons, bows or guns, the more skilled they are the shorter the fight gets.

[SkirmCard]

Great question/Discussion topic.

I'm definitely open to suggestion on this topic as of right now, but with the aspect of full loot I wouldn't mind a fight lasting for a minute to 2.5 minutes (depending on skill/skill set of players). Making a fight actually mean something.

One of the problems I see with that is if it takes that long to kill someone it might make running away easier. Which can be good for unfair fights, but I would like the idea that there will be ways to strike down someone who runs after realizing they probably won't win 45 seconds into a minute and a half long fight. I believe if you put that much into a fight you should continue on, whether you think you can win or not.

[Aebriol]

It's my belief that polls like this is misleading ...

Because combat times vary wildly depending on which professions face off, and if it's solo, grouped or mass combat. Sieges or area fights should last a long time, group vs group a few minutes, but one on one, well - warrior against warrior, longer than destructive magician vs assassin and shorter than priest vs shaman.

Focusing on a specific length of time for combat "because people wanted it" is misleading, the focus should instead be on making it fun and varied.

[Sorjak]

Depends if we can heal or if there will be healers, as well.

[SkirmCard]

Originally Posted by Aebriol

It's my belief that polls like this is misleading ...

Because combat times vary wildly depending on which professions face off, and if it's solo, grouped or mass combat. Sieges or area fights should last a long time, group vs group a few minutes, but one on one, well - warrior against warrior, longer than destructive magician vs assassin and shorter than priest vs shaman.

Focusing on a specific length of time for combat "because people wanted it" is misleading, the focus should instead be on making it fun and varied.

Good points, I read it as a 1 v.1 fight, and a generic time mold. Of course there will be variances, but if I'm fighting someone of the same build as me, whether it be assassin, magician, healer, or warrior (whichever), i would like the time length I stated above.

[Joszek]

Depends on the kind of combat.
When it goes about ganking then ... well, it won't last even 15 secs.
But in larger battles I'd like to participate for longer time (3-5mins)

[Lord_Str1ker]

In real-time combat, it can very significantly. Like someone mentioned earlier, its dependent on the level of skill of the player. I believe this topic is pointless, but nontheless we do have time to kill.

[Shinzon]

anywhere from 5s to 2 mins...

[Kamaitachi]

You cant really tell how long a fight lasts. it depends...whether the actors are skilled... if potions(or whatever) are limited somehow during a battle, like a cooldown or something...and so on

[Abydos]

Thebest time for me is Average TTK 80 seconds with the possibility to extend/shorten fights to 100/50 seconds

[Xandor]

Anything over a min is wayyy to long. I play vanguard (the worst PVP ever) and combat there is never over 10 secs, very very gay. I think a min is plenty of time for a good fight.

[admiralnlson]

My preferred average 1v1 fight duration would be... 5 hits with my double-handed axe, tops... no matter how much time it takes (engagement, enemy evading, fleeing etc).

I don't wanna have to spam dozens of hits, just for the sake of having 1min long fights.

[Sarkon]

Very good thread, I'd go for the average 1 minute-80 seconds timer.

[mutantmagnet]

Originally Posted by Aebriol

It's my belief that polls like this is misleading ...

I wasn't trying to be misleading, I had forgotten to mention specifically 1v1 fights because group fights scale up from there.

[Etwynn]

Originally Posted by Uruz2012

If we're going for realism then a fight should last about 30 seconds. That's about how long the average street fight lasts from first contact until someone gives up or is knocked out.

I think that's a little short though. 1.5-2 minutes sounds a little more reasonable. If the fights go much longer than that then it gets a little boring because there is more room for error. It takes some of the urgency out if the fights go on too long because if you make a mistake you can recover. In a real fight if you make a mistake then you've lost.

Street fighters aren't wearing armor, they don't have magic, and they can't be "healed." Realism is important, but immersion is better. I think fights should last at least a few minutes, with combat starting out very fast and slowing down as you and your opponent get wounded/tired. It would great to see armor type (or equipment weight) affect how long you can stay at "100%," so to speak. People in plate with bigass weapons should pay the consequence for the extra defense they gain.

[Blahman]

None of the above. You should be able to kill someone in 1-3 seconds if you are good enough (as a player, not your character stats).

You are all thinking in terms of WoW I guess. I am thinking more in terms of Planetside, PVKII, Mount & Blade, or Dark Messiah of Might & Magic. If you are skillful enough to hit someone between the eyes with an arrow, or sneak up behind and stab them in the back, or set a lethal trap, etc. you should be able to take someone down almost instantly.

Now I don't know if this game is going for those long drawn out Dragonball Z type fights where the person with a power level of over 9000 wins, but I am more interested in the realistic kind of combat that is decided by just a few decisive strikes and where small-scale tactics and positioning have a major effect.

It should be up to the player to actively defend against such attacks to survive. If you get caught offguard you should be easy prey for the attacker. On the other hand, if both players are able to dodge, block or turn the others' attacks consistently then sure, a duel could last as long as they can keep it up.

But a player's "body" itself should be fairly weak in the sense that you can't just absorb tons of damage -- it just waters down the action and skill level when everyone is a walking tank. If you want that kind of game, by all means take your pick from the dozens of generic MMORPGs on the market.

I want something that's never been done before, an MMO-First Person-Action RPG. MMOFPARG? Think Dark Messiah + Ultima Online. That would be sweet.

[The Last Spartan]

They've already said that there will be no one hit kills.

[Hampo]

I agree with blahman. What better way to make the combat exciting and different then making it like dark messiah style. You aint good enough your going to die no matter what skills you have. However this probably wont be the case since i can see lots of people who would cry over that. So it will probably be a mixture of oblivion/other rpg's with the skills mixed into an oblivion style combat system. Which isnt a bad thing i loved oblivions combat system. As long as they add lots of different swing animations/special moves stuff like that. For this game the fight should last anywhere from 20-2 minutes maybe longer if two surviver style fighters are fighting.

[Shawk]

Originally Posted by Blahman

None of the above. You should be able to kill someone in 1-3 seconds if you are good enough (as a player, not your character stats).

You are all thinking in terms of WoW I guess. I am thinking more in terms of Planetside, PVKII, Mount & Blade, or Dark Messiah of Might & Magic. If you are skillful enough to hit someone between the eyes with an arrow, or sneak up behind and stab them in the back, or set a lethal trap, etc. you should be able to take someone down almost instantly.

Now I don't know if this game is going for those long drawn out Dragonball Z type fights where the person with a power level of over 9000 wins, but I am more interested in the realistic kind of combat that is decided by just a few decisive strikes and where small-scale tactics and positioning have a major effect.

It should be up to the player to actively defend against such attacks to survive. If you get caught offguard you should be easy prey for the attacker. On the other hand, if both players are able to dodge, block or turn the others' attacks consistently then sure, a duel could last as long as they can keep it up.

But a player's "body" itself should be fairly weak in the sense that you can't just absorb tons of damage -- it just waters down the action and skill level when everyone is a walking tank. If you want that kind of game, by all means take your pick from the dozens of generic MMORPGs on the market.

I want something that's never been done before, an MMO-First Person-Action RPG. MMOFPARG? Think Dark Messiah + Ultima Online. That would be sweet.

Ill QFT this, the poll is hard to vote on, so I say none..

If 2 guys go at it, both parrying, shielding, dodgeing properly, that battle should last a good few minutes.. But if one doesnt know how to do those things properly, I don't see why I shouldnt be able to kill him in a few seconds.

And on the point of respawn, respawn should take almost 10 minutes imo.. Looking at what happends when you die in MO, it looks like that is how long it could take to get back into the battle.

[mutantmagnet]

Originally Posted by Blahman

None of the above. You should be able to kill someone in 1-3 seconds if you are good enough (as a player, not your character stats).

As cool as it would be to play a Bushido blade style of game I think if fights had to last in seconds atleast 6 would be better.

Seckills usually means the fight is determined by who hits first. 6 seconds should be enough time for the really fast players to properly gauge threats and offer some sort of counterattack.

There is also the issue of latency. For example if entering a new zone causes you to lag and an enemy is there well...instant kills are unacceptable.

[semicycle]

Very interesting thread.

I picked the 80 sec option, but most that have said you have to factor in pots, leeching, char types etc are right.

....one thing I can't stand though is seeing to low damage output tanks pounding on each other for 5 mins.... worst then watching paint dry.

[Blahman]

Originally Posted by mutantmagnet

As cool as it would be to play a Bushido blade style of game I think if fights had to last in seconds atleast 6 would be better.

Seckills usually means the fight is determined by who hits first. 6 seconds should be enough time for the really fast players to properly gauge threats and offer some sort of counterattack.

There is also the issue of latency. For example if entering a new zone causes you to lag and an enemy is there well...instant kills are unacceptable.

The first strike should be important but not necessarily the deciding factor. I envision there being a lot of nuance. Bushido Blade is a good example because in that you can be injured and lose some use of your limbs, e.g. take a nasty cut to the leg and you'll be limping, get your sword arm hurt and you might have to use your off hand. One hit kills should be very hard to pull off, i.e. having to hit a small part of the enemy's body with the right movement at the right time, and without your attack being interfered with in the least, deflected, blocked, etc. In the first person perspective you have a lot of control over exactly where your attacks land and I can imagine blocking, parrying etc also being able to be performed very fluidly and naturally in first person.

As for latency... it is worthless to speculate on how the game and servers will perform. That's more of a wait and see thing. But I am sure that if the coders and techs are competent then latency will be a non-issue. The game is built around UE3 which runs very well on current hardware and already has a relatively robust netcode suitable for the kind of combat I am talking about.

[Blahman]

Here is a preview on Rise of the Argonauts, an upcoming action RPG that runs on UE3 with melee combat. Not first person (from what I saw), or MMO, but still an interesting read.

http://pc.ign.com/articles/869/869440p1.html

Combat won't be governed by RPG statistics, however, where an enemy's armor rating might preclude your sword slash from ever doing damage. Instead, if you hit an enemy with a sword he'll take damage, like in an action game. The trick is to use the right weapon combinations against certain kinds of enemy types, and using the right maneuver to get around their defenses. In fact, Liquid says that under certain circumstances and with the right technique, every enemy in the game can be killed in one hit.