Spell casting mechanics

[Stephen Zepp]

The thing of modifying your spell at different stages based on what the opponent is doing, THAT sounds cool.

Right, and that is the core mechanic I'm talking about :)

[Bunk]

The idea of changing the spell on the fly is interesting, plus getting visual clues to what your opponent is building up to as it goes. You still need to work it in with the rest of the combat dynamics though to figure out if you have something fun.

Most "fun" spellcasting system I've encountered yet (for pvp) was still AC1. You had multiple elements, elemental specifc protections, elemental specific debuffs. More powerful attacks, buffs, and debuffs took longer to cast. Attacks were targeted, and different spells travelled in straight lines or arcs, fast or slow, and you had to learn to anticipate what was coming based on the words you heard, since the attack spells were targeted and collision based - none of those silly heat seeking CoX attacks.

Yea it had problems - it was twitch based and exploitable - but it was damn fun.

[Yegolev]

Stephen, are you talking about Spellbinder?

[eldaec]

The thing of modifying your spell at different stages based on what the opponent is doing, THAT sounds cool.

Right, and that is the core mechanic I'm talking about :)

Interesting, but first you need to design a mechanic where there are a decent number of options to change the spell into, and where best performance comes from something other than casting on a repeating attack chain cycle.

In your typical MMOG right now, the lack of variety and interactivity means I would almost never want to react in any way to what the other guy is doing, because the I'm still only interested in running through my attack chain over and over.

[Stephen Zepp]

Stephen, are you talking about Spellbinder?

Hmm...hadn't actually heard of that before, so no, that's not what I'm talking about ;) As far as I can tell, it's "similar but not the same" in ideas, although does bring up an interesting question regarding copyright--if two systems, developed independently model a third system (the concept of casting itself), does that mean one is dependent on the other, or totally separate?

[Samwise]

Ignorance iswas bliss.

[Stephen Zepp]

Ignorance iswas bliss.

Has nothing to do with ignorance--AC 1 has already been described as having implemented a similar system. Daggerfall has a very basic version. His game implementation is interesting, but it's pretty difficult to take the concept of 5 hand gestures and copyright an entire series of spell casting mechanics from it ;)

[Xilren's Twin]

I know that sounds weird--it's a hard thing to describe. The closest I can come to really is playing an old school red/blue interrupt deck in MTG, or playing an interrupt mesmer in GW. In both cases, what you did and when was specifically in relation to what your opponent was doing, and that's the type of game mechanic I'm trying to describe.

Hell, i'd be happy with a 3d mmorpg version of a Mtg Duel.  Even if not an exact replica, I think that style gives us some important factors to keep in mind that could help make such a system work.

Limited Resources - you may know 100+ spells, or pieces of spells (runes, words of power, reagents, etc), but in any given "adventure" you can only take a small subset, and an intelligent design to that set is far more meaningful than taking the gear that gives the best DPS vs resit gear.

Paced gameplay - if you want people to be able to read and react to the opponent, we have to eliminate the dumb twitch parts we can make what should be an even fight a slaugher (i.e. no circle strafing or bunny hopping please).  You should not be able to win or lose before you've have a change to make several meaningful decisions in the battle.  Even though I like GW, the pace is too frentic for my ideal system (plus it has alot of the FPS idiot movement that drive me nuts).  Also, any battle should have a natural conclusion of how long it can run.

Randomness - they has to be some element to it.  In MtG, thats the order you draw your cards; in a pnp game, it's the dice, but whatever the mechanic there should not be any auto win or auto lose scenarios where Water mage defeats fire mage, every time.  I'd be fine if you had say

Flexibility - I like the concept of the sideboard in MtG, you duel, then you can swap out part of your resources from a small pool of backup resources you also prepared ahead of time.  Again rewarding good design of your set of resources to cover you weaknesses, respond to popular archtypes, or even trickier strategy changes (i.e. morphing a mono black control deck into a black weenie rush deck).

Responsivness - as you mentioned, a counter deck adds a level of fun typical mmorpg combat just lacks.  Being able to turn the tables on your opponent in lots of ways should be viable.  Whether thats a classic channel+fireball meets Counterspell (or Reverse Damage, exchange life totals with your opponent, or hell even a well timed Healing Salve).

Multiple Roads to victory - In two ways.  Firstly, you should be able to win by doing more than just "lower opponents health to zero".  If that's the only victory condition then everyone's strategy becomes the same; "how do i do max dps".    Mtg has kill your oppoent, run him out of cards, poison counters, etc, plus you can win on time called (a stall+lifegain deck can actually work), always get your opponent to conceed, and (heres #2) you can also Draw. i.e. A Tie. a Stalemate where neither side won or lost.  Lots of people don't like ties, but sometimes squeaking out a Tie when you are in a horrible position feel even better than a curb stomping win.

Much fun as all the systems sound, most of them just don't seem to flow well in a huge multiple player game where you can be facing more than one opponent at any time.  it;s hard to read and react when you have to watch 5 oppoents at once who can all move simultaneously...

[eldaec]

Responsivness - as you mentioned, a counter deck adds a level of fun typical mmorpg combat just lacks.  Being able to turn the tables on your opponent in lots of ways should be viable.  Whether thats a classic channel+fireball meets Counterspell (or Reverse Damage, exchange life totals with your opponent, or hell even a well timed Healing Salve).

I agree with everything you said, but I'd expand responsiveness to interactivity.

It's not just about immeadiate response and counters - it's about making spells or tactics that affect the way a skilled opponent should play from then on.

It's my opponent playing an enchantment that changes the rules, so I have to think how I use my spells differently as a result, how does my strategy change now everyone has double mana, pets are all debuffed, or any time anyone uses mana they get hit for X damage? It's how much momentum does my opp have? Do I push on with my victory strategy or do I need to disrupt the opp first? Do I have to kill the pet or can I keep developing resources? Do I have to hold mana open in case the other guy surprises me, or do I go for the kill? If I'm casting a rule changer is there any chance it will help the opp more than it helps me? Do I hang on to resources in order to bluff the other guy into thinking I have a counterspell? Does he have a counterspell I should bait him to play it before I hit my finisher?


And to do all this, you certainly need to start by slowing MMOG combat way the fuck down.

[pxib]

Getting rid of front-loaded damage dealers like most MMO rogue classes would be a smart first step, but it's tough to slow combat down in any multiplayer game, even before things get massive.

Two players can theoretically have a clean fight. Even three player bouts will start as 2v1. Four players could make a pair of 1v1 duels, but they tend to gang up as well. It's just more efficient. Play MtG with four or five players and things start out as a game of "whose deck do we hate?" Slow, elaborate development gets interrupted by hardcore ganking once anybody starts looking dangerous. Sometimes the player has hidden his intentions for long enough that hardcore ganking can no longer kill him... in which case the game is already over, and watching him destroy everyone else one by one is just a tedious extension of a game already lost.

[Arnold]

Since I've been player guitar hero, why not use a similar mechanic? Spells are a stream coming towards you, and to counter, you have to repeat the exact thing that was cast using only color visual queues, transferring from one aspect to another just as it hits you. Spell duels could start out slow, and then get faster and faster. You could have a cursor that moves a certain fixed speed and in whatever direction you choose. You draw a sigil using it (think etch-a-sketch) and then they have to repeat what you drew or take damage. Gradually, the cursor starts moving faster and faster, making it easier for them to spam the controller in random directions. Spam could be handled at low levels by having a large moving circle for 'attack' and a smaller pointer for defend which you have to keep 'inside' the attack area -- spam does you little since the attack area wouldn't move fast enough. If done in a 3d enviorn with the spell coming to you, and ending at a 2d plane/grid, you should be able to, with some practice, look 'ahead' and see the general idea of the movements they make.

I'm not sure you'd want something like that, I guess it's consideration of what skill you want to focus on -- quick fingers, memory retention, attack and appropriate riposte combos, etc. There are a lot of mechanics you can 'borrow' and adapt from other games, guitaroman is a good example.

I know I'm focusing on one aspect of gameplay which may not be the one initially intended. I guess I'm more interested in presentation and novel combat systems than I am with 'build your own spell out of lego bricks!' type gameplay. I still like the idea of a general 'damage' spell being able to be manipulated on the fly by widening it into an AoE or Cone at the cost of reducing it's damage.

The old Apple II game "Mobius" had spellcasting like that.  You had to keep a randomly moving ball in a box for a certain amount of time to cast a spell.

[Arnold]

All I have to say about the original post is that precasting in UO and slidecasting in AC1 made both games way more fun, interesting and tactical for mages.

[ajax34i]

Sorry for re-joining the discussion so late; I was away from the internet for a week.

I probably don't understand what you're trying to explain with this casting system, but I do have a couple comments:


1.

While I see a single player game around the mechanic, I more directly see this is as a player vs player (vs player vs xx) focused mechanic, myself. Being able to guess what a player is casting and react to it before they finish weaving the cast would be really interesting--think something like Guild Wars "interrupt" mechanic for mesmers, but more interactive than just "hit my button before their cast bar is done".

There's an assumption here that there would be spells that I'd want the enemy to cast on me, and others that I'd want to interrupt.  Why would I let him cast anything?  From what I've seen PVP is all about stun-locking or otherwise completely disabling the enemy caster; you either have stuns/snare/silence/fear coming at you, or you have big damage spells coming at you.  Where's the spell that I'd want to let finish uninterrupted?

Also, from what's been explained, I'd have this react and modify ability available without cooldown, so again why wouldn't I try to interrupt EVERY spell the enemy casts, stun-locking him if possible?


2.  Both casters in a PVP match would be able to watch and predict each other's spells, and then modify their casting accordingly.  Your examples deal with one caster being really dumb and just casting without any modifiers, and one being very smart and always countering.  I agree that counterspelling is fun.  Being counterspelled isn't.  In any case, I think that an actual PVP match with such a system would probably be more like playing chess, with moves planned in advance, and possible contingencies accounted for as much as possible.  So maybe, instead of doing a "modify your spell on the fly" mechanic, focus on making a "queue your spells in advance" system work in such a way that the player can see how his opponent could possibly react 3-4-5 "moves" in advance and  play tactics with his spells.

The spells could also come out of the caster as a continuous stream, much like autoattack but not really, and the player would be able to modify the stream with different effects.  Like playing bagpipes that are being squeezed by someone else.

[Stephen Zepp]

Some interesting perspectives.

Regarding "always counterspell everything", of course there is a hidden expectation that this wouldn't be possible forever--most systems don't let one caster completely stunlock another--either with cooldowns longer than stun durations, or something similar. While I haven't thought it through completely, I'd suggest that a built in balancing mechanic might be that one of:

a) Not all spells can be countered (speed differential, or counter-spell complexity),
b) counter-spelling may be complex enough as a process (while still staying fun hopefully) that human error/skill would play a part--in this balance, it might be theoretically possible but not probable to totally shut down another caster.
c) Counter spelling is more "character effort" (however that might be measured--mana, stamina, mental fatigue, concentration) in the long run than allowing some spells to be cast.
d) Counter spelling does nothing other than counter-spelling. Even if you allowed for 100% stun lock, nothing else could be accomplished by the stunner, requiring an eventual break of the stalemate.

Just some ideas, hadn't thought this one through completely :)

[Roac]

Some interesting perspectives.

Regarding "always counterspell everything", of course there is a hidden expectation that this wouldn't be possible forever--most systems don't let one caster completely stunlock another--either with cooldowns longer than stun durations, or something similar. While I haven't thought it through completely, I'd suggest that a built in balancing mechanic might be that one of:

a) Not all spells can be countered (speed differential, or counter-spell complexity),
b) counter-spelling may be complex enough as a process (while still staying fun hopefully) that human error/skill would play a part--in this balance, it might be theoretically possible but not probable to totally shut down another caster.
c) Counter spelling is more "character effort" (however that might be measured--mana, stamina, mental fatigue, concentration) in the long run than allowing some spells to be cast.
d) Counter spelling does nothing other than counter-spelling. Even if you allowed for 100% stun lock, nothing else could be accomplished by the stunner, requiring an eventual break of the stalemate.

Just some ideas, hadn't thought this one through completely :)

Any system that consists of
"I cast a spell!"
"I cast counter-spell!"

Is doomed.  Fun games include counters that are strategic, not tactical.  Of course, that requires attacks that are strategic and not tactical as well.

[Stephen Zepp]

Any system that consists of
"I cast a spell!"
"I cast counter-spell!"

Is doomed.  Fun games include counters that are strategic, not tactical.  Of course, that requires attacks that are strategic and not tactical as well.

Agreed--I wasn't going into any specific details, but the term "counter spell" is a generic form of "react to the opponent's actions by performing competing actions that may or may not diffuse/avoid/interrupt his action".

Certainly not talking M:TG "CounterSpell for 2 blue" here by any means.

[Typhon]

How about a system where spells are (almost) always chained together.  The (simple) example I'm thinking of has three types of spells - bolts , shells and whirls. 

Bolts are exactly what they sound like.
Shells look like a spherical bubble is around the caster, these act as shields, capacitors and a status effect.
Whirl is some soft of modifier.

Simple example:
mage_1 casts a frost shell.  This 1) increases his capacity for frost magic, 2) creates a good shield against frost (or fire, I haven't decided), a modest shield against anything not fire, 3) he is effected with the frost status effect which makes him less resistant to fire, more resistant to frost, slows his movement rate and reduces his damage from bleed effects.

He then casts a frost bolt, adding the power of the shell into the bolt.  This dissipates the shell.

Less simple example:
Instead of casting a frost bolt, he casts a frost rejuvenating whirl on the shell.  There is now a blue ball whirling around outside the of the shell.  In addition to the positives/negatives from the whirls frost status effects, he can now cast multiple bolts at an increased power before depleting the shell.  This is not all good, now an enemy caster can see that his shell isn't going anywhere in a hurry, and can try to switch tactics to take advantage of the vulnerabilities caused by frost.

More complex example:

mage_1 casts a frost shell.  mage_1 begins to cast another spell. mage_2 thinks that it will be a bolt, so he casts a counter (which is of type "whirl: - whirls are modified of a spells).  If mage_1 is casting a bolt, it will be countered, part of it's damage rebounding onto mage_1.  If mage_1 is casting a shield, the shield will be enhanced by the counter (in this case the counter was the bad choice - making the "always counter" strategy a bad strategy).  If mage_1 was casting a whirl there is no effect.

The idea is that each mage will want to be building their own shells and whirls (building up power), while attempting to harm and tear down the enemies forces/defenses.

[taolurker]

Typhon, I like the idea of adding spell chains and classifications of differing effects, but that seems to move away from the idea that a caster crafts their own spells that Steve was proposing. The stringing together of effects would allow a way around the "chain-interrupts" through proper layering of spells, but I don't actually see how there wouldn't be a single "money play" that everyone would use.

Adding mechanics that allow spells to be blocked, stunned or interrupted every time (or faster than any others) is maybe something that would need to be % based (EQ1 Channeling?) so characters can't always count on these effects. Otherwise every combat would be: Player A interrupts player B. Player A is stunned by Player B. Player B blocks player A's spell. Not very complex, and not very fun seeming either.

[pxib]

Player A interrupts player B. Player A is stunned by Player B. Player B blocks player A's spell. Not very complex, and not very fun...

...and yet that is, in a nutshell, the core dynamic of every fighting game from Street Fighter to Guilty Gear. It's hidden under layers of cool graphics and each character has multiple rock-paper-scissors moves on which they can focus... but ultimately it's a matter of blocking and countering and bluffing until somebody makes a mistake.

Perhaps it would lose something in a game with half second latency, but it's a pretty popular dynamic.

[ajax34i]

It's a very instant-gratification dynamic, which is why it's so popular, in my opinion.  Spells and abilities in current games are all instant-reward: you do damage, you stun, you do something immediately with each move, and the point of it is to grind away at the visual indicators of success or failure that are the health bars.

I hate to keep giving chess as an example, but in that game, the only thing you do with each move is you build up, and you build up, and you build up, until you finally either deliver or receive the colossal death blow that is checkmate.

Something like that could be simulated with a swords-and-sorcery combat system (build-ups that don't damage the opponent that you can play with until you find an opening to deliver a death blow through), but the ability to interrupt the match and run away must be tied into the whole thing, else everyone will just run.  It's called tackling in EVE, and everyone just runs away if it's absent.

And, there's still the problem of many-vs-one, or the gank situation, which is the most common scenario out there.  The whole counter-spelling premise is a lot less pretty in a gank situation (cause you can't enjoy a battle-of-wits game like you can 1 vs. 1, too many opponents make every move an "oh shit how do I survive and get away" desperation fight, no elegance to it whatsoever).

[KallDrexx]

I like the idea of spell chains because they allow you to do a few things.  They make combat more involved (something I personally find lacking in many MMO's today), they give a bonus for teamwork, and (if designed well) don't punish players who are not immediatly interested in not wanting to deal with that layer of complexity (they won't do as much damage sure, but make it so they just have to change who/what they fight for it).

I once had an idea to do a chain system based on having abilities put n/pcs into various states, and other abilities would require the n/pc to be in a certain state to take advantage of it.  Then it's up to the player to decide the best way to chain these states together to accomplish what they want.  The main issue I've had with this (though since I don't have a game to impleement it with I never sat down to really design it) was to make an easy/intuitive way to convey which state the mob/player was in.  I'm sure that can be worked around though if enough thought was put into it.

The other idea I've had was for dynamic spell creation.  You would have three sets of runes.  One set of runes sets the area of effect (pbae, gtae, single target, etc).  The second set of runes would contribute the power of the final effect (small, medium, large), then the last set of runes would be the actual effect of the spell (stun, damage, root, etc).  So if you want to do a medum lasting AOE root you would select the AOE rune, the medium rune, and the root rune at which point a targetting decal would appear. 

Balance can then be achieved by setting the cooldowns on all 3 runes based on the 2nd set of runes (power).  So sure, you can do a large damage over time but then you wlil be restricting you won't be able to do damage or aoe abilities for X amount of time.  It means you have to actually have a strategy to everything you do and plan ahead (while keep track of what is going on now).

Would either system be fun.  Don't know as I haven't actually played with them yet and until then it's just theorycrafting, but I think these systems can be made to make combat more exciting in fantasy games. 

[Typhon]

The idea I was going for was to avoid the all-or-nothing effect of chaining mutliple parts into one spell, by allowing each spell part to exist independently as it's own brick and mortar that not only provided value in and of itself, but could be used to augement further spells.  An attempt to reward more complex spell-chaining.  I've seen the all-or-nothing approach degenerate into no one attempting the more complicated, but more risky, spells because everyone is watching for someone to swing for the fence (so they can counter).

It seemed similar enough to what Zepp was proposing.

Using the Mortal Kombat (et. a.) model, the idea is to create counters that are similar to the high/low blocks.  Jade Empire also does something interesting with attack sequences that is a bit more simple than normal fighting games but is in the rock/paper/scizzors domain - blocks block normal attacks, big moves break blocks but take more time, normal attacks break big moves while they are being executed.

[Alkiera]

I really like Typhon's idea.  It sounds like the cool descriptions that came out of discussions of magic in early Vanguard, the only thing about the game that interested me.  No idea if it actually made it to release that way, I somehow doubt it.

To make things a little more generic, you could set effect on each of the 'mini' spells, and then rules for interactions.  Allow 'shell' of multiple elements to stack, with perhaps different effects on a bolt or whirl depending on the elemental shells in place.

You could have multiple types of casters, too, if you had an 'elementalist' who had the classic fire/water/air/earth set; a priest set that was, say, air/fire/holy; and a necro set that was earth/unholy.  Make up for the lack of flexibility/power in spells with additional powers; for necro's, obviously pets.

I'd see combat like this sortof like CoH blasters with sniper powers.  When you need to fire uninterrupted, you use your weaker, 'normal' attacks.  However, if you have the time, you pull out the Big Gun.  So if you're solo, or fighting weaker things, you just through unmodified bolts; but if you need big power, or need to exploit a weakness; and you've got the time or help keeping the enemy away from you, you put up your shields and other buffs before flinging magical death.

--
Alkiera

[Typhon]

You could have multiple types of casters, too, if you had an 'elementalist' who had the classic fire/water/air/earth set; a priest set that was, say, air/fire/holy; and a necro set that was earth/unholy.  Make up for the lack of flexibility/power in spells with additional powers; for necro's, obviously pets.--
Alkiera

I was thinking something very similar.  Add multiple... damn, word not coming, I'll go with "categories".  Multiple categories that give the system depth.

Type of spell (bolt, shell, whirl) is one category.  Element is another (I was thinking of stealing MtG's 5 elements, and the way each element has two enemies and two friends) category.  Type of spell caster, with proficiencies in sub-types of spells and elements is another category.  Each category should be fairly shallow (like three types of spells, each with maybe two or three sub-types).  But have them all interact to a degree.  Pretty easy to get into, but many different combination to give depth.

I'd also like to see the environment play a role in the game.  Being close to certain in-game objects has an effect on spell casting - I'm thinking of lay-lines here, but it could be as simple as being close to a fire, or water, etc.  I realize that's a bit obtuse.  Mechanically I'm saying that if someone is smart enough to position themselves effectively it will be like they have the help of other spell casters (no reason that one spell caster can't cast a shell or whirl on another).

[ajax34i]

It sounds good, but the whole game would have to be designed around such a system, and by that I mean, if I get a quest to kill 15 rats I don't want to have an epic battle with moves, counter moves, spells and counterspells, customized and built-up effects and an hour-long spellflinging match to kill each damn rat.  It's ok to have a coreographed epic dance around a few bosses every weekend, I don't wanna do it levelling up day in day out.

[eldaec]

Wouldn't this combo system be pretty much the same as combos in FF or EQ2? Or do you mean something different?

[Typhon]

I don't know, I haven't played FF or EQ2.

ajax34i - I don't konw about Stephen, but I was thinking of a sort of a gladitorial area-pvp game (i.e. Mortal Kombat with wizards).

[Alkiera]

Wouldn't this combo system be pretty much the same as combos in FF or EQ2? Or do you mean something different?

It'd be kinda like the Renkai system in FF, but designed to be done alone, and with some internal logic to why x+y+z=giant fireball;  The EQ2 'combo' system is random and also crap.  Never mention it again.  8)

--
Alkiera

[Lightstalker]

Read this in a different thread, and was interested in who might be interested in this type of mechanic:

In terms of the casting while moving mechanic, it's actually based on the original rulesets of every pen and paper game, whereby spells require a caster to concentrate, not move, and include verbal, somatic (gestures/movements) or spells components to complete a spell. Casting times in MMOs are emulating this, and often the cast time includes animations or effects to further link them to this original formulation of casting spells.

Or, in the way I phrase it, who would think a mechanic where you dynamically form a spell by designating verbal, somatic, material, and concentration choices and have the final spell be based upon those selections would be interesting/enjoyable?

Sorry to dredge, spent a couple months working and missed this thread. 

I think the systems envisioned in this thread are running into the input limit of mouse and keyboard controls (or will quickly).  The worst part about a long 'cast time' in a typical MMOG isn't that you aren't dealing damage during the cast, presumably the player has already decided that the outcome of the action is worth the wait.  The worst part is that the player is no longer pressing any tactical limits on their opposition - they are static.  Static targets attract casual focused fire and allow N opponents to unload their less agile abilities on the static target.  If I catch someone casting a long cast spell I can do a few things then interrupt it (assuming it is still relevant).  These alternative dynamic casting mechanics are no better, in that now we're navigating menus and options instead of pressing or negating tactical advantage.  The implication is that the hard core users will just macro and hotkey "things that usually work" and forgo any of the dynamic options because they need their mouse and/or keyboard to manage the dynamic player environment they find themselves in.

While the mechanics suggested are interesting, I don't think there are enough input channels available to make it work without disrupting current control requirements.

If you start binding movement to a WiiFit device maybe we're starting to get somewhere on freeing up a hand to manage spellcasting while the other is managing awareness/target selection.  Short of that, it is just a complicated way a replacing the arbitrary cast time assigned to various spells.  DestructoSpell has a 6 second cast? You can commonly counter it today by: closing and stunning, closing and silencing, getting out of range, making yourself temporarily immune to the damage, and or mitigating the incoming damage.  While it would be great to turn his DestructoSpell into a spray of petunias on the fly, if it impairs the already limited character control we have today it is for naught.

That said, I think it would be great to play such a system but we're definitely already making (non trivial) assumptions about how many people can mass their blaster fire on the new guy.  Once the players start dieing in less time than their current connection latency the game is up.

[Waldo]

Very cool idea.  I love the idea of chaining.  I could see some kind of energy drain on each element, so you can't just do item 1 and hold onto it forever, unless you're higher level.  Also, the idea of branching.  Maybe at first you don't know what's the right spell in the circumstances, so you start with a basic chain element that's versatile - so you might not know exactly what you'll cast in the end.

Other ideas would be the notion of a "cast it now" button - so you could perhaps stack up 1 or 2 links, then hit "fire" or maybe go for 3-4 links more for some addition effect. 

You know what would be a cool interface for this?  A multi-touch screen.  I think it would be a pretty energetic and fun game if you literally were touching (jabbing/hitting) things on your screen to activate them.  You could make it a bit of a mini-game where you have to keep a finger on each active spell chain item to keep it alive.  If you let go of it (lift contact), it fades out.   One hand is holding them all in place while the other is grabbing new spell chain icons and dragging them over to the holding hand.  To cast, you bring all the holding hand fingers together to push the elements into one "blob", drag it to the target, then let go.

[DarkSign]

Only if it was done where you weren't obstructing your view. If you did it as some circular bright display in the middle of the screen where your enemy was, you'd have a fist full of screen and not see the game you were playing. Just a thought.

[Waldo]

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~johnny/projects/wii/ - check out the latest from that guy @ CMU.  Finger tracking with a Wii.  Again, imagine this combined with some kind of spell casting system.  Sure, make a mouse+keyboard only version as not everyone could have a setup like this.  Seriously, it would kick ass to play some kind of spell casting game with gestures like this.  It would sort of bring the Wii-style to fantasy.  Can you imagine someone playing WoW on their big screen, standing up and using their hands etc?     

[DarkSign]

I heard a lot of noises about that when the P5 glove came out...but then never really saw many games using the mechanic. I think the OP's post is about  battles where you counter each other - almost like parrying in fencing. To me that could be cool or could fall on its face. I mean there's only so many times that you can go back and forth and back and forth and back and forth unless the back and forth is from a decently varied list of counters.

[Waldo]

I heard a lot of noises about that when the P5 glove came out...but then never really saw many games using the mechanic.

Yea I guess Nintendo came out with some kind of system a while back that emphasized motion tracking and such too.  Word is it's pretty popular with some people :^)

[DarkSign]

Oh... the PowerGlove?  That thing is actually really cool. I have a great book from the 80's called Garage Virtual Reality which is all about creating 3d worlds (before people really knew how) and making head-tracking / finger input systems.

Some guy has a YouTube of hacking the powerglove into a 3d mouse. End result? He plays Unreal Tournament with it...but lulz...he cant strafe :(