That is not how it works at all. In Morrowind you can smack an enemy straight in the face and see the sword go through it, and it will not cause any damage. That is as retarded as anything can be. If the enemy has armor then it should take less damage, not make you randomly miss a hit even though you saw the weapon strike it.
But it depends, did it make the 'hit' sound or the 'miss' sound? That's the vital difference... :)
Though of course it should have different animations for hit or miss ideally, my point is that you cannot have full control over whether it hits or misses. The quality of the enemy's armor, his toughness, your strength of hit, where you try to hit, random factors... there are lots of variables to consider (or to ignore, in many games)... a dice roll after considering a lot of factors (their armor, dexterity, avoidance skills, etc; your hit modifier, weapon modifier, strength, abilities, etc) seems to me like a simple, elegant, and overall plenty accurate way to do it. Like D&D. :)
TES of course is a bit different because it's 3d, but the principle is very similar. It should have a bit more of a skill aspect, especially if you can control your swings -- where you hit the enemy and the kind of stroke should definitely factor in to whether you hit them or not -- but in an RPG, I think that there are enough variables that it's better with a randomness factor here and not just a pure 'hit every time or miss every time after factoring in each character's stats' system or whatever they are planning on doing.
Wow, I'm glad you don't want to become a game designer.
*imagines playing a new platformer designed by ABF where even if you jump on an enemy, it doesn't always kill them because of the D&D rules he used*
These D&D rules are good for D&D and turn-based battle systems, and that is it. When you enter it into real-time combat (which is supposed to be more realistic) it becomes a joke, a farce. If an enemy has great armor then if you hit them, they won't take as much damage then if they had lesser armor. If you don't have enough accuracy skill then that is realized in the actual controls, so when you press "hit" it doesn't hit as precisely as you'd want it to. When you develop strength and accuracy your swings and hits become more accurate. But if your weapon visibly strikes and enemy, it should always be a hit! Otherwise the combat becomes a joke, which it is in Morrowind.
Why should they be taking damage when you are not getting through their armor? Maybe hurt some stamina counter, or do minimal damage or bruising or something, but if you can't get through their armor much you shouldn't be doing much of any damage and probably shouldn't be reasonably able to kill them... sure, the D&D system isn't realistic either. But my point really is that neither one is inherently overly realistic so that's a strange arguement to use for one of them over the other.
I was saying that the best system would be one where it models both you and your opponent and exactly where you hit, and with what force, would determine exactly what amount of damage you did. To be more realistic. But if you don't do that, as most games don't, what do you do? What system would be appropriate without using a random factor? Always hitting but reducing damage by armor? As I just said, that system has its uses as well but I wouldn't say that either one is better...
As for a platformer with D&D rules, it depends on complexity. Is this a simple game or a complex one? If you wish it to be a complex game, then sure, you should be able to miss... it shouldn't just be a random chance thing though of course. It's a random decision that is heavily weighted by your and their stats... it's not like 'i hit half the time and miss the other half'! It's 'I'm trying to jump on his head but what if I slip on jumping or he moves a bit and I miss?'. This isn't really all modellable ingame, so randomness is the only good way to deal with it. Well it's either randomness (where you can completely miss and do no damage at all) or having you always do damage but do less of it, and overall I think I like the former more.
And I said that they should have different animations for the misses. One of the best ways to differentiate hits and misses would be to show a strike and blood or something on the ones you hit with.
Quote:Why should they be taking damage when you are not getting through their armor?
Hmm, maybe because I saw the weapon physically go through them?
D&D combat rules are absolutely horrible for any non-turn-based game. That is why nobody but the ES guys used them, and that is why the combat in Morrowind got so much criticism. Randomness works when you have little control in the game, as in the case of Baldur's Gate or Final Fantasy. But in a game where the skill comes from how you directly control the combat? That's called bad game design.
Uhh... as the ES guys said in that article, stats that affect die rolls is the accepted standard for PC RPG game systems. TES just has a more arcadish combat system... but that's the standard for PC RPGs so of course they used it in their PC RPG.
Quote:Hmm, maybe because I saw the weapon physically go through them?
And I agreed twice that on the graphical front that is silly.
Quote:Uhh... as the ES guys said in that article, stats that affect die rolls is the accepted standard for PC RPG game systems. TES just has a more arcadish combat system... but that's the standard for PC RPGs so of course they used it in their PC RPG.
Uhh... real-time combat does not equal "arcadish" combat. You sound like a PC fanboy from 1996. The most complex combat system in any game is probably the real-time combat system in Virtua Fighter 4. No turn-based battle system comes close to the complexity and difficulty of that.
But back to the topic at hand, I know what they said about the Morrowind combat. As a matter of fact I didn't have to hear them say that since
I HAVE THE GAME. My point is not that it exists (but great job on pointing that out!), it's that it's a BAD sytem.
Quote:And I agreed twice that on the graphical front that is silly.
It's not just the visuals, but how it controls. These stats should actually affect the controls of the game. Novel idea, huh?
And my point is that the theory behind the system is sound... they certainly need to make some changes (bring back aiming swings would go a very long way and would also lead to a system your ideas would support well because ideally it'd have a lot less of a random chance involved -- where you swing at on the enemy and how hard would be a huge factor in if you hit, for instance, instead of how fast you click to get more attempts.), but the theory behind the system is sound.
Stats affecting things? Yeah, fine. Have it so that as you increase weapon mastery in that kind of weapon you hold the weapon better and it becomes easier to do good strikes while it wavers or something and is harder to aim and swing well with when you have little training or experience with the weapon. Maybe a "use your abilities to improve them" system, instead of just being able to upgrade them at level ups? Though that easily would lead to abuses... some kind of mix of the two might be good. Some degree of 'use improves stats' and having this have a direct impact of how you can use your weapon in the combat system as I described, but not to the point where to make your character good you can just swing at trees for hours or something...
If the execution is done poorly then the combat is poor. Theory means nothing. The theory of Morrowind's combat is sound, but the execution ruins it.
... but haven't you just been saying that the whole theory of this kind of a combat system in this kind of a game is bad? Um...
When did I ever say theory?
You've been saying that the whole idea of having a D&D system in a first person game is awful! That sounds like theory discussion if I've ever heard any...
The way it's been implemented, and the way you seem to want it to work in a platformer, yes, it is terrible. It could work. My way could work.
What, so it's realistic that every single time Mario jumps on a Goomba he squishes it? Sure, it's fun, but I was saying 'what if you want to make a platformer more "realistic"... you'd need some way of missing. Like you have to aim accurately or something... a random factor was just one idea...
So you would see Mario hit the goomba, but it wouldn't do any damage? The only other alternative would be if the jump action itself had to become gradually more accurate, so when you press jump it's not perfectly straight until you level up enough. If it physically showed that, then it could work. But not the first way.
Oh, it should show you jumping and hitting some part of the Goomba that might hurt it or glance off it or something but not finish off the squishing... didn't I SAY that it was stupid to have a hit animation if you miss?
Do you have any idea how tough it would be to do that? It's just not practical.
How would that be so different from in Morrowind having a different animation for a miss?
Uh, that would be very difficult to do well. And with a platformer it'd be even more difficult. But it would be cool to see. Not in a Mario game, but maybe in another RPG-ish platformer.