Concepts for Dissidia 3

[Mercen-X]

I'd like to see tag team battles, or even three-way battles.

Imagine a battle in which you have no partner but are forced to fight two adversaries. Now imagine those two adversaries take shots at each other while fighting you. Imagine that if you're taken out first, the battle ends but the winner is decided instantly from among the survivors and that you can still win in you had placed a bet on the winner, kind of like they were your second choice of hero. Maybe that last part's a bit far-fetched. One-on-one battles are so played out. Tag-team battles are old-news too. They're still just o-o-o with a dash of character swapping.
But Dissidia's dash-around combat system would allow for multiple adversaries. It would make sense to take on Cecil, Kain, and Golbez all at one. Maybe it wouldn't make so much sense to pit Cloud, Sephiroth, and Tifa against a player, but whatever.

[Del Murder]

Why stop at 3? 4 is a nice round number and makes more sense, since in a 3-way battle one of the players could just hide while the other two duke it out. Then you could also have 2 vs 2 battles.

Basically just give us all the options of the SSB games.

[SuperMillionaire]

Put some Guilty Gear, Soul Calibur, and Marvel vs Capcom influences in there, too.

[Mercen-X]

4 makes more sense, in a 3-way one could just hide while the others duke it out.

Therein lies another layer of complexity. Are you the one who's stealthy enough to lie in wait while one of the fighters takes out your potential opponent or will you be the one forced to battle at the point of exhaustion while your new enemy is fresh for the fight? In some cases, the character/player levels may not be equal and may require two combatants to willingly gang up on the third just to survive.
I think Halo is like this to an extent, though I don't have much experience with the game.

My main problem with 2 on 2 battles is that usually both on one side have to survive, being that if one loses, both default.

[SuperMillionaire]

I would say only 2 players can play at a time, but have 2-on-2 tag-team gameplay akin to Marvel vs Capcom.

[Mercen-X]

Fine... I guess I'm the only forward-thinking mind on these forums... I'll just have to build a 1-on-1-on-1 fighter from the ground-up myself... as soon as learn how to build a video game to begin with.... in thirty-five years time... *sigh* can someone else just do it?

[SuperMillionaire]

I think you should make it a 4-way free-for-all battle, or 1-on-1-on-1-on-1.

[Mercen-X]

Well, my main concern would be the requisite minimum. I don't care if the free-for-all is 1-on-1-on-1-on-1 or whatever higher number one can think that'll fit on a gamemap without slowing its animation pacing. As long as you don't actually need a fourth player (or computer controlled character), I'm fine with the free-for-all. That's what I consider the purity of the free-for-all. Smash Brothers allows you to play with just three characters 1-on-1-on-1, but it doesn't offer the open map like Dissidia or Halo. I suppose my idea is more of a strategist's free-for-all because instead of simply hacking mindlessly, you may be able to find a place to hide out and plan while the others do the monkey-work.

[SuperMillionaire]

True, but why do you like 3 players anyway? It makes no sense. Also:

My main problem with 2 on 2 battles is that usually both on one side have to survive, being that if one loses, both default.

In the Marvel vs Capcom series, you have to eliminate all of your opponent's characters in order to win; simply eliminating one is not enough. On the other hand, in Tekken Tag Tournament and Street Fighter X Tekken, matches span multiple rounds, and you only need to knock out one of the opponent's characters to win a round, and win the most rounds in order to win the match.

[Shlup_has_burger_nips]

Let's go straight DoA style trout, breast physics engine and all.

[Mercen-X]

True, but why do you like 3 players anyway? It makes no sense.

That's the end result of thinking for myself rather than like every other humanoid Duplicate surrounding me. It makes no sense to you, but it sounds all the more interesting to me. More VS games use some cheap game mechanic the programmers don't make you privy to in order to make the game seem harder than it actually is. For example, your opponent always knows every move you're going to make before you make it. Or: your attacks don't deal as much damage as your opponent's do to you.
Why rely on equal numbers to balance a fight when balanced combat is an illusion to begin with? Unbox the mind, brother.

[SuperMillionaire]

True, but why do you like 3 players anyway? It makes no sense.

That's the end result of thinking for myself rather than like every other humanoid Duplicate surrounding me. It makes no sense to you, but it sounds all the more interesting to me. More VS games use some cheap game mechanic the programmers don't make you privy to in order to make the game seem harder than it actually is. For example, your opponent always knows every move you're going to make before you make it. Or: your attacks don't deal as much damage as your opponent's do to you.
Why rely on equal numbers to balance a fight when balanced combat is an illusion to begin with? Unbox the mind, brother.

Well, that's because it depends on the difficulty level you're setting it to. The higher the difficulty, the harder the computer AI is to predict and beat.

[VeloZer0]

But Dissidia's dash-around combat system would allow for multiple adversaries.

The mechanics of Dissidia are based on a polar coordinate system with the enemy as the origin. Which basically means everything you do is based on the enemy.

In a game like Super Smash Bros. it is based on a Cartesian co-ordinate system where everything is based off of the background, something which is static for all players. So not having a focal enemy can make sense. However the dissidia gameplay is essentially designed around having one enemy as the entire focal point for the game design.

[Mercen-X]

Well, that's because it depends on the difficulty level you're setting it to. The higher the difficulty, the harder the computer AI is to predict and beat.

Difficulty settings are just another excuse one-on-one fighters exploit to not include realistic dynamics.

Dissidia's dash-around combat system would allow for multiple adversaries.

The mechanics of Dissidia are based on a polar coordinate system with the enemy as the origin. Which basically means everything you do is based on the enemy.

Details. In the coming years, this problem will be all but forgotten... or so these game companies intend that we believe... "for what is a game designer if not a god?" lol

[SuperMillionaire]

Well, that's because it depends on the difficulty level you're setting it to. The higher the difficulty, the harder the computer AI is to predict and beat.

Difficulty settings are just another excuse one-on-one fighters exploit to not include realistic dynamics.

What exactly do you mean by that?

And one player would certainly run away, causing the other two to hunt him down.

Dissidia's dash-around combat system would allow for multiple adversaries.

The mechanics of Dissidia are based on a polar coordinate system with the enemy as the origin. Which basically means everything you do is based on the enemy.

Details. In the coming years, this problem will be all but forgotten... or so these game companies intend that we believe... "for what is a game designer if not a god?" lol

If it was more of a "brawler/beat-them-up" or "hack-and-slash" like Kingdom Hearts, that could be nice too.