JadeJohnson:

I would like to know if there is a way to make a wrestling-weapon-system, similar to the Tables, Ladders, and Chairs matches in the WWE 2K video-game franchise, but in PowerPoint. I already have slides for each and every attack in the game, connected by on-mouse-over-hyperlink-based controls, but what would be the better way to interweave the weapon-system:

1. To alternate-between melee human-body attacks and weapon-based blows on a one-to-one basis, or

2. To remap the controls to randomly generate moves, from both classes, depending on which wedge of the currently displayed invisible control wheel is touched by the cursor.

If it helps, the controls are made up of invisible twelve-wedged spinning wheels that cover the whole screen and rotate on their center points at the center of the slide, at a speed of 0.5 seconds per rotation.

As soon as the player's mouse cursor touches one of these twelve wedges, which are evenly weighted between both wrestlers's move-sets, either the story-advancing wrestler or the challenging-opponent performs a move upon the other combatant.

In addition, using PowerPoint's blink animation, it is actually possible to layer multiple control-wheels atop each other, with different timings, as well as to link any additional wheels's wedges to new locations in the game's code.

That being said, please pick the better of the two control-schemes.

If you need any more information, I shall answer up to an additional three questions, to the best of my mere human ability.

Chat GPT:

Both control schemes have their own advantages and disadvantages. Here are some factors you may want to consider before choosing the control scheme for your wrestling-weapon-system:

One-to-one basis: This control scheme provides more predictable gameplay for players, as they can plan their attacks and defense strategies more easily. However, the gameplay may become repetitive over time, and players may get bored with the same set of moves.

Random generation: This control scheme adds more variety to the gameplay, as players don't know what moves they'll get each time they touch a wedge. However, it may also lead to frustration for players who don't get the desired moves or feel like they don't have control over the outcome.

Based on these factors, I would suggest going with the one-to-one basis control scheme for your wrestling-weapon-system. It provides more predictability and allows players to strategize better, which is important in a fighting game. However, you may also consider adding some level of randomness by creating multiple sets of moves for each weapon and alternating between them in a sequential order. This can provide some variety without making the gameplay too unpredictable.

If you have any additional questions, please let me know.

JadeJohnson:

Alright: let me give a little more information from a development standpoint.

When you point to a wedge, depending on the previously discussed timing, whichever move was triggered by the cursor plays out, after which another control-wheel shows up. Currently, we're not using the Blink-layering system, except for pin-cancels and standing knockouts. However, the pin-memory is also used for making the referee count faster or skip from one-to-two, two-to-three, one-to-three, or either-one-or-two-to-an-immediate-pinfall. The standing KO only utilises one wedge, however, all of the other eleven code-slots in that wheel are still present: they haven't been deleted.

The only issue is that said latter wheel is only on screen for 0.03 seconds during the fourth and final blood-frame of a standing punch by either combatant. We, the development-team, that is, need to leave that wheel alone.

Now: going back to your idea of creating multiple move-sets for each weapon, should I make it so that each weapon has its own dedicated wheel, or should there instead be multiple layered wheels, each featuring one move for each of up to six different weapons?

My problem with the first method would be that players might move their cursors too quickly for all of the possible move-sets to appear, even if the cycling was set to one refresh per 0.1 seconds, the lowest value PowerPoint accepts.

On the other hand, having multiple weapons per wheel could limit the amount of variety per match, based on the fact that in our field beta-tests, players would move their cursors to a wedge in no more than 0.1 seconds.

Based upon my feedback, which layering-mapping should we use?

Chat GPT:

Based on the information you provided, it sounds like having a dedicated wheel for each weapon might be the better option. This way, players can focus on the specific moves and strategies associated with each weapon. Additionally, it allows for more variety in matches, as each weapon will have its own unique set of moves.

However, to avoid the issue of players moving their cursors too quickly, you could potentially slow down the rotation speed of the weapon wheels, or increase the refresh rate of the wedges to ensure that players have enough time to choose their desired move. Another option could be to limit the number of wedges on each weapon wheel to only the most essential moves, ensuring that players have a more streamlined set of options to choose from.

Ultimately, the best option will depend on the specific design and mechanics of your game, as well as player feedback and testing.

JadeJohnson:

Well, regardless of player feedback for the moment, PowerPoint's refresh-rate for the Blink animation, as I previously stated, cannot surpass 0.1 seconds per wheel. Furthermore, the code-layout is already set in stone, so we shan't change it now. I guess what I'm trying to say is:

"Which mapping yields more overall moves per 0.1 seconds?"

Chat GPT:

Based on the information you have provided, the second mapping with multiple weapons per wheel would yield more overall moves per 0.1 seconds. This is because the first mapping with each weapon having its own dedicated wheel would require the player to cycle through multiple wheels to access all the available moves, which would take more time and reduce the number of moves per second.

In contrast, having multiple weapons per wheel would allow the player to quickly access a variety of moves for each weapon without needing to switch between different wheels. This would increase the overall number of moves that can be performed in a given time period, making the gameplay more dynamic and engaging for the player.

JadeJohnson:

love it! Thank you, Chat GPT; you solve my game-development problem! I'm so glad I can count on you for such advanced mathematical calculations! I'll go with the second one!

Now, I've got to go to bed, so I'll chat with you the next time I require assistance; goodnight.

Chat GPT:

You're welcome! I'm glad that I could help. Don't hesitate to reach out if you have any other questions or concerns. Have a good night!