Channeler vs Channeler FIGHT!

Darkodinplus

Join Date 03/2006

+20

Channeler vs Channeler FIGHT!

Dueling System: Amended 1.1a

I’ve been thinking about a dueling system in Elemental in part because the tactical battles sound like they are going to be cinematic and very dependant on customization. Based on what little knowledge is available right now I think Elemental would be a great game for some type of dueling system. The level of customization and physics alone in Elemental sounds like it would be tailor made for epic duels between Channelers.

What I had envisioned would be one of two systems either a totally random battle were the AI would control both Channelers and make use of special abilities, magic, and weapons with whoever was the most powerful winning or luckiest if it was a perfectly even duel perhaps a draw. The second which is what I would prefer is a simple combat interface were the player could select 5 abilities/spells to take into the duel each having a cool down timer after use or a finite number of uses. In addition to the abilities/spells there would be a general attack, defend, flee, and evade command for a total of 9 options the player could select in a duel.

The duel wouldn’t be real time it would be a cinematic turn based system were each player would have maybe 10 seconds to choose his move in multiplayer (single player would have no time limit) and click execute then depending on what the player chose, his stats, and equipment the computer would simulate a cinematic battle. This process would repeat until either one of the Channelers died or the flee option was used (although fleeing wouldn’t be 100% guaranteed). Perhaps you could even throw in an option to make the duel non-fatal. You could have non-fatal duels work just like the fatal duel system or you could have “mental duels” between Channelers on the astral plane.

In these mental duels the mind would be the only factor in the equation making a weaker and stronger Channeler no matter the power difference equal. Of course I would assume you couldn’t get a scar (but maybe knocked out) from a mental duel especially if it was meant to be non-fatal. For example if Superman had a duel against Lex Luther in the astral plane all of Superman’s physical powers would be null but he wouldn’t have to agree to some ridiculous rule of holding back to the point of handicapping himself, the outcome would be totally based on intelligence and strategy alone. It would also introduce a point system in non-fatal duels similar to fencing. A predefined number of rounds for the duel with the potential of 1 point per round would be set. Resulting in non-fatal duels being more like a match of chess (checkers?).

Now the question becomes when would you actually make use of this system in a game? I think there are several scenarios where this system would show its value.

1. Time sensitive multiplayer games where one of the defeat conditions is kill the enemy Channeler (Fatal)

2. Stalemate situation where neither opponent could gain a decisive victory over the other and the game could last infinitely. (Fatal)

3. If your opponent was all but defeated on some ridiculously large map and you didn’t want to waste time conquering everything and your opponent wanted a last ditch chance to win. (Fatal)

4. Fun: (duh) a player might want to fight someone without losing the game. (Non-fatal)

5. Resources: This is a bit more advanced but lets say in a multiplayer game with 8 people (two teams of four) Team 1 finds an Earth shard / Dragon / rarity and two team mates really want it rather than rolling dice or first come first server they could have a non-fatal duel to see who would get it. (Non-fatal)

6. Morale: non-fatal duels between allies / neutral governments could boost morale for the military and civilian populations for both sides similar to the Olympics. (Non-fatal)

7. Prizes: The player(s) could offer rewards for winners of a fatal/non-fatal duel this one relates to fun but could also be a part of diplomacy. (Fatal/Non-fatal)

8. Information: It sounds like it might be difficult to find out what path an opposing Channeler is taking if you have a non-fatal duel you could get a pretty good idea of what type of a Channeler they were. (Non-fatal)

9. Free form: Which is basically where two or more players would agree to some condition dependent on whether they win/lose a duel and then follow through on the agreement. (Fatal/Non-fatal)

10. Quests: the questing system could make great use of dueling both fatal and non-fatal for example; to get a dragon (or some other powerful sentient beast) to ally with you it could demand you prove yourself in battle against itself. (Fatal/Non-fatal)

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

Landisaurus your post makes no sense to me can you clarify on your problems A and B given the information that has already been covered?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Darkodinplus,

reply 24

I don’t think it would be possible to get around some sort of a time restriction on multiplayer games for duels or regular turns. Single player on the other hand you could totally remove any time restrictions. I probably should have included that distinction in my original idea.

Personally, I never have nor will I ever player a turn-based game with time limited turns, even in multiplayer. For one, not all turns are equal - sometimes you need a lot of time nad sometimes you hardly need anything. It is definitely possible to get around time restrictions in multiplayer games. Time limits should definitely be an option, but not a requirement.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I agree and disagree. As a chess player who knows too many people that would happily take an hour per turn to move, I say that creating a game with time-limited turn is fair. You are right, sometimes you need a lot if time, sometimes you just click 'next turn' over and over again until your next spell is finished being researched.

Of course, its your choice, I'm not trying to persuade you that you should play a timed match, just that you don't shun the option.

The person that takes his time to carefully check every city, double check all his positions, and balance his cost vs. effect is going to take longer than a person who just flies by the seat of his pants (I'm usually in the 2nd catigory). No matter the game, the person that does the 1st thing will take longer than the person that does the 2nd. Does that mean that one is better than the other? yes and no, but we can't tell with the information provided.

Now, nobody isn't going to have those long turns The person that can do it all (or most of it) the fastest, will be the winner in timeed-turn game modes. In chess, my father will beat me almost every time if there isn't a turn limit. However our games usually last for 5 hours. The moment I pull out a clock of any sort (I usually give him 10 min a turn, which is crazy, but any shorter he won't even play me) and he looses. Why? because he is insanely careful (I put emphesis on 'insane' because I'm an not exagurating when I say he's taken an hour to make moves before.) I think I am a better chess player because I can do it quickly. I don't have the patience to map out moves to the complexity that he will, which is why without a time limit he wins, but he can't make quick assesments of the board so in such case I win.

That is why I say let there me a time limit option. In compeditive play (like a tournement or something) I would fully support putting something like a 10 or 15 min time limit per turn on a strategy game such as HoMM, MoM, Civilization, or whatever.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Yeah I understand your point. But the reason that I will never play a game like HoMM, MoM, Civilization, Elemental, or whatever, is because I enjoy being able to play leisurely. It's one of the big reasons why I like turn-based games. Basically I would rather wait for another player to finish a long turn than have to rush my own; I much prefer the frustration of having to wait for another player than the stress of trying to do everything I want to do before the time runs out. Even if I don't have that much to do, so long as there is a time limit (unless it's something crazy like half an hour or something ) I can't help but feel rushed.

That said, like I said before, time limits should definitely be an option - possibly in multiple parts of the game, but they should never be required. In my opinion the game would be incomplete without time limits as an option; but it would be even more incomplete if there were any time limits I can't disable.

Successfully updated karma reason!