Question about calculations for combat

[Ezdaar]

I'm a bit disappointed that current and near future MMOGs seem to be doing less than detailed pen and paper RPGs when it comes to hit calculations. Is there a good reason for this? I would think that for each action you could do either a few calculations or table lookups to give more detail and flavor than "X hits Y" or "X critical hits Y!".

This is one area I fear CRPGs in general have fallen down. Pen and paper games must operate with a limited hit/damage model or the players will be at the table all night just rolling hits and damage(hello Rolemaster). CRPGs on the other hand have at their disposal the capability to do millions of floating point calculations per second and yet all of them still use a simple hit and damage calculation.

Why is this? Is anyone planning on doing something more detailed? WWIIOL for example tracks bullet trajectories and on impact does calculations that detail how hard the bullet hit, what angle, where it goes after hitting, etc. When you look at something like a tank engagement they're checking the angle of impact of a shell on armor, type of shell, whether or not it penetrates, spalling, if it penetrates then where does it go, what systems does it hit, etc.

I don't think sword swings need to be as detailed but they could take into account armor type, flesh type, sword hardness, facing, swing/thrust type and strength, hit location, etc.  You could then have better visuals for say getting hit in the leg and a related game mechanic to go with it, like reduced movement.

[Alkiera]

I think many are still so stuck on the timered combat that a more complex system like this would be difficult to do.  Sure, you have billions of calculations per second, but when you have each person in an 80 person raid attacking 2-3 times with each hand per second, and all the rest of the people too, it adds up.

There's also the argument that went you attack at the rates most decent-level adventurers seem to in crpgs, there's just so much text telling you what you just did, that nearly everyone refers to it as 'combat spam'...  Increasing the level of detail on something players already refer to as 'spam' is probably not seen as worthwhile.

I agree, however, that'd be nice to see some more interesting algorithms than the current crop of games.  I think to make any real use of them, tho, they'd need to slow combat down, for both reasons listed above.  I think it'd also make combat more interactive, slow it down enough that you have a bit of time to change tactics during a fight, thus allowing it to be (player-)skill based without making it too 'twitch'.  Use certain cuts to aim for weaker armor locations, use hit locations and make them mean something, etc.

Really, MMOG combat seems have loads of room for improvement.  I'd be nice to see some.

--
Alkiera

[WonderBrick]

I would love to see more interactive, realtime fighting, much like the interaction of ranged weapons in FPSs.  Whenever I give into temptation to try a new MMOG, the queued fighting system in the majority of MMOGs is what, first and last, keeps me away from trying those games.

I am waiting for the day that UO Fishing suddenly develops a interactive mini game that makes it exciting.  Maybe then they can apply some of those lessons to queued combat.  :P

[Catalan]

I' d love to turn this and this into a 3D "real time" combat system "tech demo". Both look to me playable in "turns" of a few seconds and twitch enough to make player skill count. But I'm lazy

[Krakrok]

Combine that hand gesture spell casting game with the EyeToy.

[HaemishM]

I'd be more interested in a Magic The Gathering/Pokemon type of card-game/special move system for combat, since MMOG devs have shown a huge reluctance to use real twitch.

[Nebu]

It has been said in many other threads... if you introduce skill into MMOG's, you'll alienate the greatest percentage of your subscribers.

The time = power paradigm works in mmogs because the largest portion of the subscriber base wants to be rewarded for time and loyalty.  In a skill based system, most players will lose more than win.  In our age of self-esteem>all, that doesn't fly.  So long as people demand the time = power paradigm, companies will keep producing it en masse.

Personally, I'd love to see more skill introduced into the genre.  I'd rather that games be too hard than too easy.  Seeing the current trend in dumbing down games to appeal to the mass market, I'm certain that all I can expect from the future of mmogs is even more disappointment.

[WayAbvPar]

I'd be more interested in a Magic The Gathering/Pokemon type of card-game/special move system for combat, since MMOG devs have shown a huge reluctance to use real twitch.

This has been a fav idea of mine for years. Each form of combat (melee, missile, magic) could have its own set of skills/cards/whathaveyous that could be earned, collected, looted, etc... all kinds of fun here.

[Krakrok]

I'd be more interested in a Magic The Gathering/Pokemon type of card-game/special move system for combat, since MMOG devs have shown a huge reluctance to use real twitch.

Have you ever played Tactics Arena? I've never played Magic:TG, but it feels like Magic:TG + Chess and it might be something that would be workable in an MMO (or at least a variant of it anyway). It's also like Guild Wars in that you have to pre-pick which type of characters/spells (and their layout) you want to take into battle with you.

[Roac]

It has been said in many other threads... if you introduce skill into MMOG's, you'll alienate the greatest percentage of your subscribers.

Another broad statement that can't be supported.  Yes, if you introduce skill through player competition as the only avenue for success, you will alienate players who join game X for other reasons, and dislike that one.  You may pickup more than you lose as a result of item X "done right".  

In a skill based system, most players will lose more than win. In our age of self-esteem>all, that doesn't fly.

That's why Unreal, Doom, multiplayer football, etc, are piss-poor sales items that no one wants to buy.

[Shannow]

Nebu , dont confuse excuses made by game devs with actual facts. Yes those reasons have been brought up in other threads, specifically quoting Raph IIRC as to why devs shy away from skill based systems.
 A lot of people went on to post that those reasons were horsecrap and if it was true why are mMOLGs such as Planetside and ww2ol still around?
  I think a lot of players want to be rewarded on skill not the ability to catass for 16 hours a day.

[Xilren's Twin]

That's why Unreal, Doom, multiplayer football, etc, are piss-poor sales items that no one wants to buy.

Apples and oranges.

FPS and sports games re typically zero sum games that have limited time frames (a match have a very limited start-play-end duration) and next to no persistance (only exception being planetside and WW2O i can think of).  But, the action of playing the game itself is fun almost the whole time you are playing it (except when you die, which doesn't last long generally doesn't negatively affect your next play session).

MMORPG are all about persistance of character and growth over time, typically coupled with game sessions which are not thrill a minute twitch fests.  If you limit a player's avatar to only the skills they naturally posess, and they basically arent going to get any better, a lot of the attraction of "growing" you character just flew out the window.

I'm not saying it can't be done, just that trying to mix the genre's without thinking the ramifications of each through can lead to some really unfun game designs.  Pure player skill + persistance is a path tread lightly.

To put it another way, if you could make a mmorpg that was an almost perfect representation of the RW, would you really want to be just yourself or say a James Bondish super spy (or Thargor the Burninator for that matter)?

Xilren

[Nebu]

A lot of people went on to post that those reasons were horsecrap and if it was true why are mMOLGs such as Planetside and ww2ol still around?

Still around: Yes.  Examples of a financially successful mmog?: No.  These are niche games.  Nothing any serious investor would take interest in given the current market analyses. Are they good games? That's an entirely different debate.  They don't seem to have captured the mass appeal of their less imaginative counterparts (note: I have played both games and like them).

I think a lot of players want to be rewarded on skill not the ability to catass for 16 hours a day.

Really? Then why are Lineage, EQ, DAoC, etc. so financially successful?  The truth is that people are paying LOTS of money to catass.  They pay monthly subscription fees, some for multiple accounts, for the chance to catass. You don't want to catass, I don't want to catass, and most people here agree with us.  The obvious conclusion is that the people posting here are not typical of the mmog audience that is financially driving the market forward.

Apples and oranges.

Thank you for getting my point.

[Krakrok]

Really? Then why are Lineage, EQ, DAoC, etc. so financially successful?  The truth is that people are paying LOTS of money to catass.  They pay monthly subscription fees, some for multiple accounts, for the chance to catass. You don't want to catass, I don't want to catass, and most people here agree with us.

My obvious conclusion is that most people are crack heads (re: gambling). When the rat presses the lever for the cheese most rats doesn't want to try and press a moving target. It likes the lever to be in the same place every time.

On a side note (and I have no idea how this relates to anything) if you drop a rat in a pool of water that also contains a small platform the rat will swim randomly around until it finally finds the platform. The next time you drop the rat in the pool of water it will swim straight for the platform.

[Roac]

Apples and oranges.

FPS and sports games re typically zero sum games that have limited time frames

Yes, different generes.  However, don't make sweeping claims, then cry because you got called on it.  Also note that most MMOG combat is zero sum as well.  Trade skills are normally not.  Time frames are things that could be limited in MMOG, depending on design.  SWG has mission-based PvP zones players can sign up for.  They're games of PvP football, in effect.  Resource points and sieges in SB serve similar purposes.

So not quite so different.  At least, there's nothing requiring difference.  Really, the only thing inherit about MMOGs as a genre are persistance and massive concurance.  Anything within those bounds fits in the genre.

[Alkiera]

I' d love to turn this and this into a 3D "real time" combat system "tech demo". Both look to me playable in "turns" of a few seconds and twitch enough to make player skill count. But I'm lazy

The former is a Diku-like auto-attack melee system, using a stats system similar to Hero/Champions...  I'm afraid it's not as well balanced, tho, due to all stats having the same cost, but not the same benefit, pointing to the existance of an ideal template.  Some work with Excel seemed to confirm my theory, but I should compile and play with the game a bit to be sure.

The latter, on the other hand, was kinda amusing.  It takes the common tactic of slowing time to introduce strategy into something that frequently doesn't take very long.  In concept, something similar is what I'd like melee combat to look like in a game, allowing for player skill with less twitch.  Would have to reduce the spell count significantly, using shorter, more predictable 'spells' to make it playable at real-time speeds, even if you allow several seconds per turn.  Longer than 5-6 seconds per turn would make it unbearably boring, if the average fight has enough turns to be about tactics rather than luck.

I'm not sure how you'd combine the two.  One is strictly a preperation game, choose your stats, then hit 'a' and pray fate smiles on you.  The other, both players start out identically, and there are no random events.

--
Alkiera

[Catalan]

Look closer at the glad thing, the readme text alone is misleading, user input is required for every "turn". It's more like a slow textual version of Street Fighter :)

[Shannow]

PS & ww2ol are niche games because of various technical & gameplay issues, NOT because they are Massively multiplayer FPS's.

No one has yet tried to add persistance to an established twitch game (ala Unreal, HL etc), toss in some RPG elements and maybe you'll have the 'Next big thing'.

I won't be suprised if a major gaming company does take that leap in the next 5 years, its getting to the point where the EQ clone may not bring the returns their publishers are looking for. I see the game being implemented using an establish engine in a series of 'arenas' with a linking social/trading structure around it.

[Jayce]

Yes, different generes.  However, don't make sweeping claims, then cry because you got called on it.  Also note that most MMOG combat is zero sum as well.  

I don't see anyone crying.  We are debating/arguing.  Viewpoints that don't correspond to yours == crying?

I don't think you guys are meaning the same thing by "zero sum".  At the end of every sports or traditional FPS "round" (could be level, game, tournament, season, etc) there is a winner and a loser.  In MMOG PvP there is never a final loser.  You can always dust yourself off and go back for more. That's what I'm reading as "not zero-sum".

PS & ww2ol are niche games because of various technical & gameplay issues, NOT because they are Massively multiplayer FPS's.

I don't know that I buy this either.  I can't speak about WW2OL as I have never played it or followed it, but the only issues I have heard people complain about in regards to PS have been lack of a point, lack of persistence (tomorrow the ownership picture looks totally different), lack of character development.  All of which are part of the balancing act between MMOG and FPS that PS performs.  I think it's the nature of the beast that a game like that has tradeoffs that fewer people like than, say, a game based on catassery.

I don't like it either, but it's what we have to work with.

[Shannow]

PS & ww2ol are niche games because of various technical & gameplay issues, NOT because they are Massively multiplayer FPS's.

I don't know that I buy this either.  I can't speak about WW2OL as I have never played it or followed it, but the only issues I have heard people complain about in regards to PS have been lack of a point, lack of persistence (tomorrow the ownership picture looks totally different), lack of character development.  All of which are part of the balancing act between MMOG and FPS that PS performs.  I think it's the nature of the beast that a game like that has tradeoffs that fewer people like than, say, a game based on catassery.

That falls under gameplay issues. I don't believe a massively multiplayer FPS will fail simply because it is that. PS's faults are because of bad design choices, ww2ol has bad design choices + horrible launch (though mind you iirc it sold a lotta boxes on release day).
Now maybe a mmolfps has a higher entry standard required than your usual graphical mud simply for the fact that the whole time invested/treadmill scenario does appeal to the LCD but I dont see why, implemented well, a MMOLFPS cannot be commercially successful.

[Alkiera]

Look closer at the glad thing, the readme text alone is misleading, user input is required for every "turn". It's more like a slow textual version of Street Fighter :)

I did eventually find 'Gladiator Pits 2.0' which does, in fact, resemble an arcade fighting game, only it'd require way more buttons than any existing fighting game.

Frankly, if they could make the interface more intuitive, and network lag a non-issue, it might be an ideal combat system.  There is some discussion of being able to swap out tables, so if you picked up a sword in your right hand, it changed from the 'hand' table to some 'sword' table that allowed you to perform sword-swinging actions.  Looks interesting, and does more closely resemble that magic hand-waving game.

I agree that that kind of thing is what will eventually be required to have tactical combat.  Tactics, IMO, requires two things...  a 'state' that changes from turn to turn, and 'choices' of what to do, given that state.  MMOG combat to date has lacked state and choices... the 'style' system of DAoC added a bit, but not enough.  The big problem is that in most MMOs, after each attack you return to the 'standing there' state, and you didn't even really leave it to attack.  The only 'choice' was whether to push 'hack' or 'slash' when faced with an enemy... and there wasn't a great deal of difference between the choices.  Also, an ideal tactical game show you at least the current state of your opponent, requiring you to learn what their choices are so you can predict them.

The GLAD 2.0 program manages both of these.  a hand has the ability to do 6 things...  1)clench into fist, 2)open palm, 3) strike, 4) elbow, 5) defend, and 6) Withdraw.

Just striking from the default state is only mildly useful...  however, if you make a fist, and _then_ strike, you get a better effect...  and if you withdraw your hand, then make a fish and strike, the result is quite powerful.  However, the game lets your opponent see what you're doing, too, and those actions take some time to perform, and may alter your offensive and defensive modifiers.

On top of the 'hand' table, which works for both hands, there is a 'foot' table that lets you jump, duck, advance, retreat, kick, and spin/sidestep.  This lets you do cool martial arts if you jump, and manage to spin and kick before landing.  There's also a 'head' table that lets you concetrate on aiming, defending, doing more damage, healing yourself, attacking faster, etc.

This system meets that 'tactics' test.  There is a state for both yourself and your opponent, and you can see both.  You also have a variety of choices to make, and the 'ideal' choice varies both on your state and your opponent's state...  which means you can watch your opponent and be defensive, waiting for a good opening; or go on the offensive, hoping to knock your opponent down and finish him quickly.

Combat will always be about front-loaded damage until you can see what your opponent is doing in time to block/parry.  Always returning to the same position after each attack is too slow in real martial arts, you need to use the ending position as the start of you next move to excel.

--
Alkiera

[Roac]

I don't see anyone crying. We are debating/arguing. Viewpoints that don't correspond to yours == crying?

Showing a counterexample to proof negative a claim means an end to a discussion.  They lost.  If they keep talking about the same thing, yeah, it's crying.  If, instead, they redefine the position, it's a discussion.  Instead of a discussion, I got a non sequitur; "zero sum" and "limited time frame" activities presently exist in some MMOGs.

I don't think you guys are meaning the same thing by "zero sum". At the end of every sports or traditional FPS "round" (could be level, game, tournament, season, etc) there is a winner and a loser. In MMOG PvP there is never a final loser. You can always dust yourself off and go back for more. That's what I'm reading as "not zero-sum".

You misunderstand what zero sum means.  It stems from game theory, which is involved with understanding consequence and strategy of decision making.  Part of what they try to do is ascribe value to outcome, with the simplest being win or loss, 1 or -1.  Flipping a coin is the simplest example; imagine a 2x2 grid, where the rows are the coin outcomes (H, T) and the columns are your choices (H, T).  The boxes are filled with 1 or -1, depending on the result.  The sum of all possible outcomes is 0 - zero sum.  If it were redone  for a game of rock, paper, scissors, there are three values; 1, 0, and -1.  The game is still zero sum, with all possible outcomes being tie (0, 0) or win/loss (1, -1).

Most FPS are zero sum, as are sporting games.  Many MMOG PvP contests are likewise zero sum; either in terms of win-loss / tie, or in economic value (I loot you and gain by an equivalent amount that you lose).  Other features factors such as equipment decay on use, will change this formula if designed into the game.  If combat involves equipment decay, either through use or on death, it is no longer zero sum, assuming personal wealth is part of the game being evaluated.  If PvP involves xp transfer, it may be zero sum; if it involves gain regardless of the result (as with UO), it is not zero sum.

Being able to "dust yourself off" is irrelevant to determining whether something is zero sum.  Sports games are a classic example of zero sum games, yet the games don't end.  FPS games often allow instant respawns.  Games have boundaries, which for sporting events are confined to that one sporting event (not the season).  For MMOGs, it might be that PvP encounter.  Hence, they can still have zero sum components.

[Trippy]

I don't think sword swings need to be as detailed but they could take into account armor type, flesh type, sword hardness, facing, swing/thrust type and strength, hit location, etc.  You could then have better visuals for say getting hit in the leg and a related game mechanic to go with it, like reduced movement.

MMORPGs already do some of this stuff and I believe new ones will continue to add these kinds of features to their combat engines. Trying to make combat more "realistic", however, doesn't necessary make for better gameplay and there are technical considerations as well.

Just a few examples in current games: EQ factors in facing in determing your to hit chance, armor in SWG have different damage absorbtion characteristics, and WC3 has different damage types that get matched up against different armor types.

And yes I know WC3 isn't an MMORPG but Blizzard certainly could've implemented a similar system in WoW (which I don't believe they did) but that leads me to my next point which is that these sorts of things don't necessary lead to better gameplay. Do you really want to have to haul around 3 or 4 different sets of armor just so you can switch to the appropriate type depending on what creature you are fighting? It was pain enough in EQ having to haul around extra armor pieces as resist gear (another example of combat complexity in a MMORPG).

On the technical side of things, targeting hits by location involves creating more complicated bounding boxes around all models that can be attacked which is extra modelling work and it requires more CPU cycles to do the intersection calculation. And then if you want to do "limping" animations and the like, that requires extra animation work.

[Jayce]

Showing a counterexample to proof negative a claim means an end to a discussion.  They lost.  
If they keep talking about the same thing, yeah, it's crying.  

I think the conversation was:

That's why Unreal, Doom, multiplayer football, etc, are piss-poor sales items that no one wants to buy.

Apples and oranges.
FPS and sports games re typically zero sum games that have limited time frames

Yes, different generes.

So you agree that they are different situations but still claim that "they lost"? I don't see a non-sequitur there: different genre pretty much implies that the sales data for one are not predictive for the other.

You misunderstand what zero sum means.  It stems from game theory, which is involved with understanding consequence and strategy of decision making.  Part of what they try to do is ascribe value to outcome, with the simplest being win or loss, 1 or -1.

I have never studied game theory, but according to what you wrote I did seem to correctly intuit what zero-sum means.  Win, lose or possibly draw - it's not rocket science,  whether you assign numerical values to it or not.

I can agree that individual PvP encounters are zero-sum.  You could even say that games like UO were zero-sum (in the olden days) in that if Joe Miner gets PK'd, he would probably never see the PK again, so the competition is over for good.

But I don't think you can say the same about say, Shadowbane, AC1 PvP server, or other MMOGs where resources, leveling areas, or other control issues come into play.  In those games, the overall success of your nation/guild/monarchy is affected by an aggregate of individual PvP encounters.  So really, until you quit the game, there is always an ongoing win/loss sliding scale, with each encounter - outside of death penalties and looting rights - having a larger effect on your gameplay as a whole.

[Roac]

So you agree that they are different situations but still claim that "they lost"?

They are different genres, and yes, the opposing argument is lost.  The claim was a skill based system can't fly because more players would lose than win.  The reasoning isn't genre-dependant, and I gave a counter example that refuted the claim.

different genre pretty much implies that the sales data for one are not predictive for the other.

Irrelevant; the argument was given without dependancy upon genre.  There is no reason the identical rationale can't be applied to other game genres, or for that matter, sports, board games, or other activities.  If the deduction is only applicable to MMOGs, there has to be something in the argument to show why, or else there's no reason to confine the argument.

I can agree that individual PvP encounters are zero-sum. You could even say that games like UO were zero-sum
...
But I don't think you can say the same about say, Shadowbane, AC1 PvP server, or other MMOGs

For starters, a "game" in game theory is a technical item.  Shadowbane, AC, UO, etc do not qualify as a "game" in this frame of reference.  Neither do football, rock paper scissors, etc; you have to qualify what you mean by a game.  To try to simplify the discussion, a game has to be a "round" of something (see your original quote about a "traditional FPS round").  Football does not qualify as a "game" in game theory; a single game does.  A single play in football also qualifies as a game; you can slice it a lot of different ways in order to example different aspects of what is occuring.

So really, until you quit the game, there is always an ongoing win/loss sliding scale, with each encounter

You're misunderstanding what a game, in this technical sense, is, so you can't understand what zero sum means.  Game theorists would not neccessarily define "game" to be one's entire subscription period.  I suppose it's possible, but it would be complex, and the rules for determining payoffs would have to be setup (gold?  Levels?  Rares?).  Games with ongoing subgames are, in fact, of interest in game theory and can relate to zero sum games.

[Krakrok]

Terra Nova had a discussion today about winners and losers. To sum it up it says:

 * Motor City Online (a skilled based MMO) failed because there were only a few winners.

To fix this you:
 * Reset often (WWIIOL).
-or-
 * Award winners status prizes, not power prizes.
 * Giver losers power prizes to make them more equal with winners (Counterstrike).

AKA for skill based games nerf good players so they are underdogs (and they will try all the harder) and buff bad players so they don't feel like such losers (and they will keep playing even though they suck).

Which reminds me of the trick gamedevs use in racing games which is to articially increase in speed of the losing player or articially decrease the speed of the winning computer player so that you are always racing (and have a chance to come back) instead of getting blown away on say lap one and having no chance of ever winning even though you have 2 more laps to go.

[chinslim]

I think the problem with MMORPG combat today is that the "roll of the dice" no longer factors in.  Combat mechanics invariably reduce down to spamming an "I win" combo or level/gear imbalances that tilt the odds so heavily in favor of one side.  To me, RPG combat mechanics have always been about odds and discrete turns.  Somewhere along the way, it became a "rock, paper, scissors" thing which I think most people here hate.

MMO combat mechanics in particular fail to account for population differences due to an emphasis on maintaining a fluid and persistent environment.  This is most glaring where combat tweaked for an interesting 1 versus 1 fight breaks down when 1 side brings 2 friends along, for example.

As I've said, balancing combat mechanics is challenging in a fluid and persistent enviornment, but I still lay alot of the blame on marketing-oriented devs who pay more attention to graphics, gee-whiz fluff, and the environment while seemingly relegating mechanics to the last minute.  They're too focused on putting in the abilities that make people say, "oh cool, I can do that to somebody else!" without answering the reactionary afterthought, "so how do I counter that?"  Combat mechanics often go 1 layer deep, usually on the offensive side, with little thought given to counter strategies and defense.

[Arnold]

For starters, a "game" in game theory is a technical item.  Shadowbane, AC, UO, etc do not qualify as a "game" in this frame of reference.  Neither do football, rock paper scissors, etc; you have to qualify what you mean by a game.  To try to simplify the discussion, a game has to be a "round" of something (see your original quote about a "traditional FPS round").  Football does not qualify as a "game" in game theory; a single game does.  A single play in football also qualifies as a game; you can slice it a lot of different ways in order to example different aspects of what is occuring.

Shit, I've played plenty of "rounds" in both UO and AC1.  A "round" was getting the shit kicked out of you (or kicking the shit out of them!), re-equipping, re-grouping, and fighting another round.

[Arnold]

Terra Nova had a discussion today about winners and losers. To sum it up it says:

 * Motor City Online (a skilled based MMO) failed because there were only a few winners.

Nah.  Motor City Online failed because no one fuckin' cared about it.  Did you ever hear a guild that just got banned from UO say, "So what, we're going to MCO anyway, where REAL SKILL is king!"?

No.  You heard people say, "We're going to AC," or "Just wait until SB comes out!"

I knew MCO was going down the tubes the second I heard about it.  Sure, some executive figured if he mixed EQ with NASCAR, he'd make a mint, but that kind of guy is't a gamer and doesn't understand why certain games are successful, and others aren't.

[Arnold]

I
MMO combat mechanics in particular fail to account for population differences due to an emphasis on maintaining a fluid and persistent environment.  This is most glaring where combat tweaked for an interesting 1 versus 1 fight breaks down when 1 side brings 2 friends along, for example.

UO, the granddaddy of them all, did just fine in this area.  One on one combat was very exciting back in the day, and a good player could fight a 2 on 1 and come out victorious.  Hell, I've seen really good UO players win in far more lopsided battles than a 2 on 1.

[Riggswolfe]

I' d love to turn this and this into a 3D "real time" combat system "tech demo". Both look to me playable in "turns" of a few seconds and twitch enough to make player skill count. But I'm lazy

I hope that gladiator game didn't win that contest in 2000. I played that same game, along with a bunch of other nerds at an RPG convention in the early 90's. I'm almost positive it is the same game, it has the same stats and everything. The game I played was being setup to be a PBEM game at the time.