| 1: [Jan 25 1999] Because you asked for it (Biblius) |
| This board's purpose is to enable the discussion of topics related to combat within dartmud. As well as to keep such topics from spilling over onto other boards. |
| 2: [Jan 25 1999] Grappling (Qualinst) |
| I recall a discussion that took place, oh maybe 9 months ago regarding brawling. It was going to incorporate and support some new commands such as subdue, and other non-lethal ways to become victorious in combat. Many people were a part of this discussion, I can't really recall who though. It'd be nice to see something done along those lines. Wrestling moves, perhaps some form of martial arts. Maybe even disarming (which is currently the name of a skill) would become part of that. Qualinst note Bows |
| 3: [Jan 25 1999] bows (Qualinst) |
| Sounds like a cool skill to have. Perhaps in the hexes thrown wouldn't work so well and bows would be needed to attack from row 2, or from some form of missile weapon. Perhaps inside (i.e. not the hexmap) bows would still work, but only in the same room I suggest this because I _think_ that was one of the main concerns about coding bows in the first place. It'd be neat to see 'em, even if they didn't do all that much more than thrown. Qualinst. |
| 4: [Jan 25 1999] Polearms (Qualinst) |
| I'm not sure why these haven't been implemented. Noone ever seems to really want to talk much about them when I bring it up (to creators). Perhaps it's the answer fighters need for animals. If you are in row 1 of your party, you could attack row 2 of another party. *shrug* This is another skill I've seen, and wanted to see something done with. The weapons are already craftable, you just can't learn the skill by using any of them. Qualinst |
| 5: [Jan 25 1999] re: Subdue (Ral) |
| I'm going to take a preemptive shot at the idea for a subdue skill. Here's what I see happening with it... Let's say that a subdue attack was implemented where an attacker could use a weapon like a blackjack to knock out their opponent rather than kill them. I can already see an argument people will have against this idea. "If I'm knocked out, they'll just remove my amulet then give me the final death!" While I personally have a "c'est la vie" attitude about this, it's probably going to have to be dealt with if any form of subdue skill is added. If this is the main reason such a skill would never be implemented, I would suggest, for the sake of progress, that perhaps amulets should only be removably by their wearer. This would pretty much solve the problem of people worried about the final death. Just a thought, since I have a feeling someone else was going to bring up this point with much more enthusiasm than myself. Ral |
| 6: [Jan 26 1999] re: subdue (Nimbus) |
| while I agree that subduing an opponent would be great, the means of doing so is yet unresolved. To me, it would be better to simply have a combat flag akin to "set retaliate = off". However, instead of not initiating combat, the "subdue" flag would limit the final blows. It would direct combat to a focused end. In essence, this would be a high degree usage of aim, with control over the amount of damage inflicted (not to kill). The current combat system produces an unconcious opponent and due to lag and other forces I've always found my quarry slain. However subdue could function in other ways. It could be a function of percise targetting (note necessarily the head). A two-finger upward thrust to the solar plexus or any of wide variety of nerve pinches (even a knee to te groin!).. all could be used to incapacitate or kill. This would be an extension of unarmed combat (brawling). Either it can be built into the current system as a function of brawl/aim combo, or as a standalone skill (or better, a subset of the current skill.. also having to so with the "set" command). As for weapons that subdue, that would be fairly simple to create although a bit too powerful (generally) for the current PC population. A sap or blackjack would fit in okay so long as they require a few parameters be met (that the target be unawear of the attack fully unable to stop it's blow). Thus this sort of weapon would be very useful to thieves and assasins, yet would be barely usable in a direct combat siduation. As has been mentioned, if subdue were a function of brawling one way it could work is by requiring that the target be success- fully grappled and have it's concentration knocked down severly). By such means, a fighter could subdue an opponent alone or someone could grapple an opponent, thus limiting it's ability to defend/attack, leaving the door open for the spank of a blackjack on the noggin. I envision that blackjacks and other such devices would function much akin to the flash spell. Whereas the flash spell is unstoppable, items created for fighters and thieves would be (and have to meet specific criteria for use -- as mentioned above). I'm not sure that low conc is something that will knock out a npc. So for that reason I'd guess things like blackjacks would instead either do the calculation (take npc's current conc, subtract the amount effect of the weapon employed, add/sub any modifiers, and if the result is zero or less set the unconc flag of the npc) -- or directly set the unconc flag for a duration. Since it seems that the near future will see the release of many ancient and powerful spells (some of which are already in select hands), then it doesn't seem unreasonable to give similar functionality to warriors and thieves. Mages take the direct approach to causality, the rest of us must abide by our limitations and hope Lady Luck smiles upon us. -Nimbus |
| 7: [Feb 12 1999] Just an idea... (Euros) |
| Just an idea I came up with while bored, as I always say, I know nothing of code and what can and can't be done, but what about jousting? The way I thought it would work was like this: Say polearm were in. I ask Qualinst to joust and he accepts. The computer does all the calculations from here. (Hmm, just realized Qualinst is a she.) Anyway, you give polearm, riding, and shield use skill checks. So, to make this easy for me, say we both have average riding, etc, with average aptitudes, but Qualinst has 3 more polearm improves than I do. So the computer does a random roll for both of us. (Totally unrelated to skill or anything.) So I roll a 75, and Qualinst rolls a 74. The skill check comes in and with Qualinst additional improves in polearm, she could receive some sort of minor bonus. She wins, I fall over my horse's bottom. This way, the more skilled person h as a good chance of winning, but will most likely not win consistently. (As I feel is the case when it comes to jousting.) And the lesser skilled person has a decent chance of winning, especially if the two people are close in skill. I'm sure that was a bad example with bad numbers, there should be a chance that both fall off their horses, or none do. (Maybe depending on the difference in rolls?) Most likely the weapon will break on impact, and the loser will fall off her horse. The fall should not be a bad one, minor bruises and such. They usually stand up right after to engage in battle, right? If not, perhaps agility, acrobatics, or armor class checks? If the loser is seriously outclassed, maybe a broken arm or something. Technically the damage could be grave indeed, but I posted this up as a game like dice or fishing, just something to do when two fighters are bored out of their minds. With the world out there, consequences are often serious enough, so when one takes a break from adventuring, a little harmless fun might be nice. Euros |
| 8: [Feb 12 1999] Additional thoughts. (Euros) |
| Maybe an additional modifier on top of the random numbers could be a sort of rock-scissors-paper deal...aim high, aim mid, aim low. The winner of the RSP gets another small modifier. Also, War Horses from Tobermore could be put back in (debugged, if that's why they were taken out), trained up, which gives a bonus in the riding vs riding skill check. A normal horse from the hexes can be used, but little or no modifier, maybe small one if mastered, though his riding skill still gets checked, just with no modifier. |
| 9: [Feb 19 1999] re: jousting (Nimbus) |
| A bout a month ago I recall someone saying they were working on just such a thing, Euros. It was just about the time that people started getting all excited about polearms (again). What's become of that project I don't know, but it certainly would be a nice addition. My question is.. although horses/warhorses would be cool.. what about jousting with non-traditional animals? Jousting on elephants would seem a bit difficult and I'm sure they'd need to be trained to charge and to not gore the opposing mount. However, a battle between mounts might be kind of cool... something else to bet on :-) -Nimbus Ps. Euros, anything can be made with code.. if there is a sharp mind involved. :-) |
| 10: [Feb 20 1999] Re: Nimbus (Euros) |
| I thought a little about that, divisions could be implemented by players based on size, and mount (besides whatever the code takes into account.) A halfling jousting an orc is probably at a disadvantage if strength is a factor, not sayin that characters like Fergus wouldn't do extremely well, though. Wolves and elephants can be made into separate divisions, no way a gnome on a wolf is going to joust a sasquatch on an elephant without there being serious problems. Of course, that can be solved ICly by the players, if the gnome is willing to joust that sasquatch, so be it, I'm sure there'll be a few healers present to clean up the mess. Differences in the same types of mounts could be taken into account as well- stallion vs clydesdale, each with their own advantages and d disadvantages..speed and strength of the mount. How well the animal is trained could be an advantage as well. (The gnomes on the wolves would only serve as pre game entertainment, of course.) Euros |
| 11: [Feb 21 1999] Blackjacks (Gered) |
| An important thing to remember about those particular tools, is they're pretty much useless if the target has any decent head protection. Armets or heaumes, for example, would make blackjacking impossible, and lesser coverings like coifs would still seriously impede it. Gered |
| 12: [Feb 23 1999] re: Blackjacks (Ral) |
| An interesting point. Armored headgear would provide some protection from a blackjack. But since this is an ooc board, I'll bring in a little real-life example of headgear not negating that type of damage. The university I go to gets a little silly sometimes, like around the Halloween festival and the Daylight Savings Time change, when students are forced out of the bars a whole hour early. Last year some cops started a riot by wading into students in riot gear and mounted on horses. Guess they didn't like a few hundred students walking around on the streets at such an odd hour. At any rate, one of these cops had an empty bottle of Jack Daniels lobbed at his head from a nearby student and was knocked out. The officer was in full riot gear, which includes a visored helmet. A blackjack swung by a skilled and burly person leaping from the shadows would inflict a wee bit more damage than an empty fifth, I'm betting. Just tossing in the usual gibberish, Ral |
| 13: [Feb 23 1999] Peek. (Euros) |
| Here's an idea for the thieves out there...what about a peek skill? Lift that flap on the backpack, sneak a little look... Now you know what kinda person you're dealing with. I mean, a thief can pilfer stuff out of a pack already, but what a waste of time to find that newbie you were picking on only had a few empty moneybags and a rusty dagger in his pack. If you could take a stealthy peek first, and see that he really has a Lesser Portal book you could certainly use, then maybe you may sit and hold friendly conversation with him a bit longer... On a similar thread, what about a show command, where players could show you their bags, packs, keyrings, swords, etc, and you could see what's in them, in the case of containers, or their long descs, in the case of individual items. Euros |
| 14: [Feb 24 1999] Blackjack (Nimbus) |
| Although blackjacks may have their faults, another option would be the introduction of garrots. A simple attack, sneak up and wrap a cord (with handles at the ends) around the victim's neck. Then tighten and lift (if able) until the body sags like a bag of wet grain. Most armor in the game is open at the face, or possibly extending to the chin.. but that leaves the neck exposed to this sort of attack. Brawling and strength should be factors both for victim and asassin. Armor would only be effective if it secured the neck. A poor asassin might cause the victim to passout, while a skilled may break the victim's neck. The thief class was never really made as a separate class from fighters, therefore there are a lot of possibilities for improvement. -Nimbus |
| 15: [Feb 25 1999] RE: neck protection. (Rhun) |
| A coif is a chainmail hood that covers the wearer's head, neck and shoulders. A Bascinet has an attached piece of chain mail called a 'camail' that extends from the lower edge of the helmet to cover the neck and shoulders. Plate armor should include a 'gorget' which is a metal collar which would also protect the neck (note that an armet usually was worn with a gorget.) Also, the heaume, or 'great helm' would protect the neck unless the wearer had their head tilted back. Rhun -- who knows entirely too much trivia about medieval armor. l |
| 16: [Mar 11 1999] I suck. (Open for debate.) (Euros) |
| Okay, I've talked about this with several people off the boards, but I find that I repeat myself a lot, especially to the same people, so I'm going to post a final note for posterity, and hopefully never mention it again. Just a bit ago, I tried to destroy Grashlin's left hand so my cat could get some exercise. I put my aim at 175,bonus at 75, speed at 50. My aim blows really isn't too shabby, but I wound up hitting Grashlin's head, legs, and body more than the limb I was actually aiming for. I'd say I hit his left hand about 4 times before he gave in and died on me, which took lots of hits, being and elf and all. This isn't too bad, I suppose, since some of the time I can actually grind the limb off before he dies. So after that bout of fighter depression, I went to talk to Qualinst, and we had a short discussion of fighting. Strength is way to important to the fighter's career. I know I'm probably the only one who constantly complains about it, but given that every other weak fighter has opted for a more suitable race (which I definitely can't blame them for, every time I attack something bigger than I tiger, I wish I was born an orc or catfolk), I guess I'm a pretty decent example. I'm not saying strength shouldn't be a factor. Someone brought up the point that yes, an ogre will always hit harder than an elf or gnome. This is true, but when it's an ogre with able skills and an elf with about 1600 improves on the ogre, I don't see why the elf loses in the being deadly category. Yes, the ogre won't be able to hit, but in the cases when both are attacking something that they can both hit, like an elephant, this is when it shows. One point Qualinst brought up was yes, an ogre is vastly more strong, but whether or not he can use that strength should be reflected in his skills, and just because something is weaker, doesn't mean it's not deadly. I agree totally with her here. The reason is, when I view combat here on dartmud, it's really not who can take off the most hit points in one swing. The phrase 'You hit X's head with destructive force with your X' can be a little misleading. An eye poke, or a thrust into a tendon in the shoulder would have the same results as totally beating a limb to a bloody pulp with a club. If anything, the quick efficient thrusts would just be that... more quick and efficient. With the lack of brute strength, I'd imagine this is how an elf would fight. And though it doesn't say so exactly, this is what I imagine when I hit something in the head with destructive force. Not totally obliterating it, just doing the important parts. Another thing is strength isn't calculated into aptitude, yet it's a huge bonus (multiplier). So why not make it part of an aptitude, so if the weaker fighter trains harder, he still has a chance to gain some sort of respect without saying, 'I have agaawel offensive. I know it looks like fair at best, but it's true.' Of course, this leads to another problem, which would be that even stronger races would fight like me, if I were the standard, the ogre would only have what, 200 or so improves on me at the same skill level, but he'd still hit pretty badly. The same thing goes for mages and power and intelligence and all that, I know I posted it somewhere else. One mage with average power, and another with 250 power, the more power laden mage may have an advantage of aura, but I don't think it's as much as strength gives. Besides, the average powered mage can make up for his deficiency in aura with more spell casting skill. I'm pretty sure I'll never hit Kala or an elephant harder than just a normal hit, and with really not much progress in skill levels left, this is a bit depressing. Varied races really do nothing, the way things are set up now. In the search for best performance with skill level, any interesting race really has no chance. Humans, catfolk, orcs and trolls, possibly dwarves are the only races this mud needs (a who at any given time shows players feel this way too.) If you actually got this far into the note, thanks for listening, and I meant no insult to anyone, including spyder fighters, mages, and people that have changed race. A response would be welcome, I really want to discuss this. Euros, the elf with an inferiority complex. |
| 17: [Mar 14 1999] Re: suck.. (Nimbus) |
| Agreed, aim doesn't work (even at high skill). With low skilled (low stats?) opponents Nimbus can hit what he's aiming at fairly well. Switch to a skilled opponent and aim drops dramtically. (I think it's based on stats not skill - reason being that when Nimbus fights the Target he can't hit the ring he wants (except by random chance). That's pretty bad considering my character is in the top 1percent of skilled combatants. Btw, I don't think daring works much better. I don't use it much, but I seem to do better with bonus and speed than b/d/s. Maybe daring works.. maybe someone could comment about that. I'm not sure how effecting aim should be, but I expect that at high levels (ootb+) hitting your mark should be easy.. and at high levels (virtuoso+) hitting the mark should be in the 90+ percentile. However, a change of that nature would mean that NPCs would be able to kill more effectively as well. Would players find that to be a problem? Personally.. I'd find it more realistic. (ps.. halve the conc hit with thrown..atleast!..and increase the casting time of firebolts. I throw that out a lot because Celetar, when he "broke" thrown, he said it was to make thrown in par with gfb.. he missed the target!). -Nimbus |
| 18: [Mar 15 1999] Re: Nimbus. (Euros) |
| Daring is a bit useful, in its own right. For example, a while back, when brawling with Lialah, I noticed I could hit her harder with daring. Daring also helps you hit things that you wouldn't usually have an easy time hitting, stuff that usually parries you. (Although I don't think Nimbus has a problem with this.) The bad part is, I notice daring makes you miss a lot, and you get a lot more sloppy with what you hit. Oops, when I meant I could hit lialah harder, I meant putting daring in along with offensive. In both cases, actually. Daring alone causes you to hit lighter, and more rarely. When I'm in serious mode, I don't use daring at all, because every hit needs to count, and daring isn't dependable enough. But it could be, if you couldn't hit your target at all, and leg shots and all that would be and improvement. This is just personal experience, I've heard other things about daring, but I'm not sure how well they work, since I've never noticed. Euros |
| 19: [Mar 15 1999] Daring and Offensive (Spiffy) |
| I think they are both 2 different types of fighting.. The game defines offensive as careful fighting.. or should I say controlled fighting.. Daring is like wild.. I guess offensive works better with aim and stuff.. Thats the way I always saw it.. I also thought that Control was effective against daring and parry was more effective against aim and offensive.. That may be why you hit some targets more when using daring.. maybe they just have worse control than they do parry.. Spiffy Spiffy whoops.. am I making any sense? I cant even hardly understand myself sometimes. |
| 20: [Mar 16 1999] offensive, daring and aim (Bond) |
| as for me, if I were to go on serious combat I'll use only bonus and speed as I've found out a few things 1. daring does helps, hits harder and u miss more, I rather use more speed or bonus to compensate on the hard hit 2. aim works like 50 50 percent chances on fighting except when u're bushing, it seems to work quite well though I would suggest have a percentage of hits successful for aim for each level and daring, if pumped more, and the opponent's control is lower than the total skill for your daring + how much its pumped I meant make a calculation using these 2 it would meant harder hits like what its now or maybe add conc blown to it cause a wild fighter does makes my heart beats faster Bond |
| 21: [Mar 19 1999] Will (Spiffy) |
| I would like a creators input on this if possible.. what good is will for a fighter? I know its useful for channeling and scrying and stuff but is there anything else that affects aside from magery? There really arent vampires we have to worry about Unless it does something else.. Spiffy |
| 22: [Mar 19 1999] Re: Will (Merkle) |
I always thought that the higher your will was the faster you recoverd from conc hits...I could be wrong though. -Merkle |
| 23: [Mar 20 1999] re: Will (Eddard) |
| Will does help recover conc, so I guess that makes it good for sd and ma. Will also plays a large part in determining your teaching aptitude, a skill many of us are fond of. It's also good for scrying (which any warrior can do with a decent will). There are a couple of other things, but then you'd have nothing left to discover :) Hope this helped, -Eddard |
| 24: [Mar 21 1999] Re: will (Spiffy) |
| I know it provides some protection against Vampires.. but since there are really none around worth worrying about.. I have heard about conc but I havnt really noticed a difference. My teaching apt did improve but I thought that was attributed to my small increase in intelligence. Anyway.. Thanks Spiffy |
| 25: [Mar 23 1999] Re: Spiffy. (Euros) |
| Teaching seems to be a combination of intelligence, and will, it seems.. Although I'm fairly smart, my aptitude is a lot lower than my intelligence.. and as an elf, i have sorta bad will, which would explain it. Also, will helps out riding and animal training, although riding seems to be a combination with agility as well. euros |
| 26: [Mar 25 1999] Fighting (Eddard) |
| Ok, I give up. Warriors fight, right? We may craft or practice stealth, but in general, we fight, and that about sums us up. So why is it so ungodly hard to get into the war or destruction alignments? I just don't get it. I haven't crafted or snuck around, done any considerable teaching, or done anything at all other than straight fighting. Yet for more than a month of this, with many hours put in, I just can't get rid of passion. What's going on?! -Eddard P.S. Since fighting certainly wasn't working, I tried everything from incessant flipping to invoking scrolls of yfb. Nothing seems to work |
| 27: [Mar 26 1999] re:Fighting (Nimbus) |
| As it was mentioned long ago.. in a realm far far away.. What fighters expect: "We are justice! We kill and maim. Destruction and chaos is our way of life. Our weapons taste blood and gore every day. We smell it, taste it, it is in our lungs and in our hearts. We are not all the same and thus reason our methods differently, yet we all know that where we tread, death follows." What fighters get: "You attack, an act of war. You kill, an act of death. Yet these two balance out so you are left with the remainder (nothing). Fighting is mundane. " In the past (original DM), alignment was less complex (either good or evil and it was adjusted based upon how much your own alignment value differed from that which you killed. Warriors/mage/thief all shared the same alignment system and were equally subject to "bad alignment". As as this flavor of DM goes.. being a combatant carries no alignment weight. However a mage can alter their alignment at will. A while back I (and others) commented about how easy it was for smiths and farmers to obtain a passionate alignment and requested that fighting get similarily weighted. End result.. smithing and farming alignment was vastly decreased. I guess the motto of this story is... "Request equality and you'll get a kick in the crotch." -Nimbus Ps. Bashing doors is one way to get a war alignment.. although it's also one way to die rather quickly. Since most doors are beyond anyone's bashing skill, bashing seems to be yet another skill that has been effectively killed (so much for fighters being destructive.. :-/ |
| 28: [Mar 29 1999] GFBs. (Gered) |
| A couple of disadvantages to GFB though, that you didn't mention. 1) It has a nasty habit of backfiring and killing the caster. 2) It can really only safely be used by most people while in the right alignment, otherwise #1 happens. 3) With the exception of the troll aura-gods, very few people can manage more than a couple GFBs at a time. After that, they're stuck for half an hour waiting for aura. 4) Foci are only a partial solution to #3. Apart from needing the right spells (many people don't have them) or filling up one's hands with webs (if they can get them), making a large enough focus to matter takes quite a bit of channelling. Half an hour of work for a couple of GFB hits is pretty mild compared to what a half-skilled fighter could do in that amount of time. That said, throwing should probably be reexamined. I think a solution to it might be to allow it to do better damage, but have it take time to execute, rather than being an 'instant' effect as it is now. Damage and throwing speed could easily be at least partially tied to the size of the weapon. Darts are fast, but not very damaging, whereas a large spear would be slower and more dangerous. Gered |
| 29: [Mar 29 1999] An addendum. (Gered) |
| Please check my post on the mage board concerning a way to keep a revised throwing skill balanced in respect to mages and casting. Gered |
| 30: [Mar 29 1999] Re: 29 (Euros) |
| I know Gered said thrown damage could be *partially* tied to size of the weapon, but I just want to throw a few points in anyway. First off, I can't throw a large weapon, much less wield it. Things that should be throwable (darts, rocks) are either too light or too heavy. That's not the pont, what is, is an average sized person throwing a sword like a zweihander and doing more damage for it is unpractical. Having size directly proportional to damage is just wrong. Sure, a twelve foot ogre might get away with it, but it's heavy, slow, and probably won't fly the way you want it to. Secondly, when I imagine thrown, I tend to think of the sly type, a quick-wristed person who produces daggers out of nowhere and pokes his target full of them before she has time to blink. I don't disagree with delays for game functionality, but what I'm getting at is any weapon, even a dagger, can be deadly is used properly (whether thrown, thrusted or swung.) I think that's really the problem with smaller races, like mohnkees, who can't wield anything larger than Gurne's dagger one handed. A blade placed nicely between the ribs would definitely hurt someone, regardless if it is size 15 or size 150. I only had two points, but writing those reminded me of a third..awkwardness of weapons. After a weapon reaches a certain size/weight, it becomes awkward to its wielder. This makes sense, but there's nothing to offset this penalty except strength. With agaawel sword skills, weaker people will never be able to handle a longsword correctly, until they start over or reinc into a body with at least average strength. Maybe certain weapons should all have a difficulty, ie, a katana takes more skill to use properly than a shortsword would. (Dunno if it's true, just an example.) Higher sword skill means you can use a difficult weapon more efficiently. This actually brings me to yet ANOTHER point, body shopping seems more common than it ever was, but I'll save that for next time. Euros |
| 31: [Mar 29 1999] Weapon sizes. (Gered) |
| I had in mind actual throwing weapons when I said that. Chucking daggers is going to be a lot faster than hurling a spear at someone, but that spear is going to hurt a lot more than one of those daggers. Gered |
| 32: [Mar 30 1999] Thrown and stuff (Tsnilauq) |
| I have to agree with the point that was brought up about a thrown spear being able to cause more damage than a thrown dagger...but on the same note, shouldn't it be harder to throw a spear properly? When I say "harder to throw" I mean both more show health finger connor skill being required for an accurate throw, and more of a conc hit, than I think a smaller, faster dagger would require. Another thing I'd like to bring up is a possible new skill, or just a new "check" being made during combat.....One for a critical hit. I have to agree with Euros both in saying that strength is way to important for fighters, and that a non-strong elf (or gnome) should be able to deal a precision blow to their enemy in a critical spot (heart, lungs, throat, etc.) to compensate for their lack of strenght. Possibly this could be based on aim ,and dext or something, since usually the weaker races do possess more dext than the larger, stronger races. Tsnilauq the gnome |
| 33: [Mar 31 1999] Thrown vs GFB (Nimbus) |
'For creators who don't want to wade through this note: 'Thrown needs the following fixxes: much lower conc hit, 'and more influence by aim. 'For those who have missed the old battle over the thrown 'skill here is a little background: Initially thrown was 'a fairly easy skill to perform. Too easy it seems in the 'eyes of some people. Some folks likened it to GFB. And 'thus the following is a spawn of that contension. '|A Comparison between Thrown Skill and Green_Fire_Bolt: | '|--------------------------------------------------------| '| T H R O W N | G F B | '|--------------------------------------------------------| '|Adv: Ranged Attack | Adv: Ranged Attack | '| Fast "throw" time | Fast "throw" time | '| Silent attack | Silent attack | '| | Hits unerringly | '|Learning Aid: Thrown Knife | Learning Aid: Book, weight | '| | | '|Only ranged attack | One of many | '| | | '|Dependant upon: Strength | Dependant upon: aura | '| Obj weight | alignment | '| this skill | this skill | '| Aimed blows| | '| | | '|Use limited by: #items avil| Use limited by: aura | '| conc | conc | '| skill level| skill level| '| | *extras | '|Front row combat effect: | Front row combat effect: | '| Compounds conc hit | Spell disruption likely | '|Rear Attack effect: None | Rear Attack effect: None | '| | | '|Percentage of missing: 50 | Percentage of missing: 0 | '| Based on: Aim skill | Based on: none | '| | | '|Failure damage : none | Failure = : nothing or | '| | death(uncommon)| '| | | '|Damage: factor of str,skil,| Damage: constant (hard!) | '| defender's skills, | | '| weight of throw obj| | '| | | '|Downfall: Two+ throws and | Downfall: Mana costly, | '| you are too confused to | casting successive GFB | '| fight ..easily killed. | may deplete mana. | '| | | '|Pitfalls: Highly dependant | Pitfalls: Requires Able+ | '| on strength. The best | skill to cast (else | '| thrown weapon breaks in | likely to backfire - but | '| combat. Makes user too | can be cast anytime prior| '| vulnverable to be used in| as well). | '| real combat siduations. | | '| | | '|Rear attack functionality: | Rear attack functionality: | '| Same as frontal attack | Multiple uses, can be | '| minus extra conc combat | supplimented by focused | '| hits. If fighter's conc | items or OSS. Can be | '| is bad then the fighter | supplimented by other | '| is useless. | Combat/defensive spells. | '| | | '|Minimal learned skills: 1 | Minimal learned skills: 4 | '| (this skill) | Channelling, casting, | '| | lg or pg, this skill. | '| | If altered like summon | '| | spell, then the total is | '| | 7 (incl. rfb,yfb,ofb) | '========================================================== '*Note: In reguards to front row attacks it is listed as 'a mage's GFB is "likely" to be disrupted. The first GFB 'if set as attack response is triggered prior to combat. '(This information is 2nd-hand, I have not tested it myself.) 'Thereafter, any spell the mage tries to cast while in the 'front row will be disrupted - if the mage is hit. 'I've probably missed a few things above but it seems 'well covered. It should be noted though that GFB was only 'used as a comparison (initially) because damages for 'both were similar. However, if you make the same comparison 'using YFB,OFB,RFB,DB,DK or any of the other offensive or 'defensive spells that mages can possess then the spell 'advantages far out-weigh thrown. GFB is a dangerous 'spell to both it's user and target, yet it's still the 'favored spell of mages. Thrown on the other hand has 'been raped and is of little use to fighters, except in 'that it is the only ranged attack they possess. 'Also something that should be addressed for this 'comparison is the learning factors. As far as I'm awear, 'all spells can be improved through books (although writing 'a highly skilled level of GFB would be quite difficult 'and time consuming). Spells can also be increased by use 'of weight. Thrown has none of these aids, nor does any 'combat skill. Thrown does have craftable throwing knives 'although their helpfulness falls off quite quickly. 'A mage can learn thrown and a fighter can learn GFB, 'however the fighter has to become proficient in atleast 'three other skills prior to attempting GFB and it would 'take a very long time before a fighter achieved sufficient 'casting and GFB levels to be able to use GFB in combat, 'whereas the mage could be combat ready in a quarter of 'the time (theoretically). ' 'There is quite a bit more that can be said about thrown '(Euros is doing a fine job of that). However, the only 'usefulness of this message can be summed up quickly. 'Summary: The comparison of thrown to GFB is a bad one. 'To give fighters back a reasonable measure of ranged 'attack ability the thrown skill needs the following 'augmentations: (first and foremost) half or quarter the 'conc hit. If it is a non-factored variable then do as 'above, else change the weight ratios of the skills 'required to use the skill (1*strength,3*aim,1*dex, '1*detail). 2. If an object can be lifted, it should be 'throwable (factor the weight of the obj vs pc's max 'carry weight). 'If critical hits were added then this would be a 'perfect venue for it. It also would take some stress 'off of fighters who feel vulnerable in combat in 'that their only avenue is to learn to sneak and 'ambush. Fighters are not just cannon fodder, they 'are also strategists.. if given the tools to be so. 'Ps: ' If people want to contintue comparing GFB to thrown, 'GFB needs the following changes: alter the "unerring hit" 'to match thrown(it hits..maybe..and might do little 'or no damage). And throw in a heafty conc hit that renders 'the mage ineffective for the rest of the battle. Oh, 'and you might as well trash all the other ranged attack 'spells since fighters only have the *one* ranged attack. |
| 34: [Apr 01 1999] Thrown (Yoda) |
| I was reading that throwing a spear would be more difficult than throwing a knife. I think it may take more strength to throw a spear than a dagger, but I don't know that it takes more skill. IRL, I could stick a spear in the side of a barn 9 out of 10 times I think. If I were throwing a dagger or knife, maybe half that. More often than not, I'll hit the barn with the handle end of the knife. Maybe I'm just clueless and doing it wrong. But if that's the case, It seems I have to learn more to throw a knife than a spear. Another thing I read, was that bigger weapons would be slower when thrown. While to a certain degree, I agree, but I think the size of the weapon size vs the strength/speed of the thrower would be the real factor. An ogre can probably throw a longsword just fine since his strength is ungodly. A gnome however, is likely going to have problems throwing short sword. The down side to linking damage done to weapon size in this manner is that it still pushing more emphasis on the strength stat which is already too important in my oppinion. But then again, it doesn't make sense for a small weapon to do same amount of damage as a large one. I think a arrow to a human, would be the equivalent of a spear to a gnome. Maybe the small fingers with the better dexterity could throw and "Arrow/tiny spear" much more effectively than an average human, but to me, that seems a little unlikely. Hope this note made some sense. Yoda . |
| 35: [Apr 01 1999] Throwing weapons (Spiffy) |
| There are different types of spears.. Throwing spears and spears used for thrusting into the loins of your enemies and watching the blood splatt.. er umm anyway I think there should be different types of weapons craftable especially for throwing like throwing spears, and javelens, maybe throwing stars.. Throwing axes etc.. Anyway.. It may be harder to throw a regular spear but a throwing spear is weighted for throwing.. easier to toss and stuff. Perhaps throwing weapons should be easier on the conc to throw than non throwing weapons. That could be an idea.. Spiffy * whoops |
| 36: [Apr 01 1999] new weapons (Spiffy) |
| Since I am on the topic of weapons.. I think it would be cool to be able to throw Oil vials and such and they could break and coat the target in oil.. or not depending on if you hit or not. Anyway you could have a fuse in it lit or swing a torch at someone and catch them on fire.. Maybe we could implement a stop drop and roll command ;) Spiffy |
| 37: [Apr 02 1999] spears (Fergus) |
| I think a spear is basically a long stick with a point on the end. You can throw it or stab someone with it. Maybe the blade on the end would change, but I don't see too much difference from one spear to the next. A Javelon would be more of a distance spear, but I'm not sure why you would want to try and attack something from 50 yards away. Unless it was just that ferocious. But then again, attacking Shelob or Azarak from that far away might have saved me an [34mamulet[0m a time or two. Oh yeah, being a distance spear, I wouldn't think it would have the characteristics to do serious damage. An I would think, if I saw it coming from that distance, I could easily step aside. But that's just my feelings on the matter. Maybe I'm clueless, but I guess it doesn't hurt to throw ouot an oppinion. [33mFergus[0m |
| 38: [Apr 03 1999] More thrown! (Yay!) (Euros) |
| Reading all the arguments (each with their own good points), I'm beginning to think thrown should not be compared to gfb in any manner. Aside from animals, gfb is the major source of firepower the mages have, while we fighters (the stronger ones at least, not going to go into THAT discussion again) have the capability to sling 'gfb's' round after round without getting tired. Nimbus did bring up two really good points, which I'll restate since I think they make a lot of sense. One - gfb NEVER, ever misses. Sure it can do really crappy damage if you haven't practiced it, but I don't think any mage is really willing to go into serious battle with cruddy skill. The second - thrown does take a lot of concentration for damage done. If I'm not mistaken, in the 'modifying' of thrown, both the concentration penalty AND damage were lowered. Which is a bit extreme. On the other hand, with maybe one or two exceptions, anyone with decent thrown can do as much or more damage with a held sword quicker and with less concentration penalty. Mages have no chance when it comes to facing a fighter one on one - they're not supposed to. And someone else made a good point (was it Phylogeny? i've heard so much on the topic I forget); an unprepared fighter is just as dead as an unprepared mage. I don't care how big, bad and buff a mage is, if he's being swung at with a sword, there really isn't a way he's not going to lose his concentration.. mages are the big, bad guns that stay in the back ranks and drop the other party's members from a safe distance. The way disruptions work is just fine, I think. I just can't see how a mage can spend hours locked away somewhere with a target or pet, come out with a high gfb skill and be prepared to launch them like a seasoned battlemage. Maybe a new skill for mages should come in. (Yeah, they have enough skills as is, but frankly, every mage usually learns every spell with little or no specializing, a healer can learn 20 new ways to kill another person with magic and be just fine as long as her alignment is right, so just hear me out.) A concentration skill for the battle oriented mage. As mages launched spells in real combat, without practice casts, and at real targets, his ability to handle combat without screaming and running away would increase. The average mage goes into battle with little more than robes, he's not going to hang around a place where skilled fighters are dropping unless he's really confident in his skills and experienced on the battlefield. A mage is a mage, a healer is a mage with sometimes rarer spells.. To be fair, the same could be said for fighters. The skill woulnd't make you run away, it would just help you complete your casts without dropping bricks, and help successful casts (a bonus even, if you concentration skill was high enough). |
| 39: [Apr 03 1999] more.. (Euros) |
| Okay, seems Gered had already posted a similar idea, and that was argued about on another board... I hadn't intended for my concentration skill to mean mages could take hits and still cast, I meant it to decide whether they could cast at all. Mages would still be interrupted any way they are now, maybe more. Eddard brought up a really good point, with a skill like concentration, it wouldn't stop mages from hiding behind a wall of animals, entirely safe, even from ranged attacks. So, just to let you know, if I misled anyone, that's not what I meant. And yes, LSAa is going to be tweaked, and other more powerful spells are going to be put in. I imagine one or two landsharks would take a bit longer to kill than a few falcons, all the while the mage is shooting stuff at you. Another note, in my last post, I had entirely forgotten the argument about thrown and gfb was in regards to ranged attacks, not normal, so I did mess up a bit. Euros |
| 40: [Apr 03 1999] Concentration in that respect... (Gered) |
| Is already covered by the spell skills themselves. If you're not skilled enough/expending enough fof your power, the spell will fizzle or backfire. All that would be accomplished by adding a concentration skill on top of that would be to make it much harder on novice casters. (And, if it was designed so there's always a chance of fizzle regardless, I would bet that serious-backfire spells like reinc would suddenly become a lot harder to convince people to cast.) Gered |
| 41: [Apr 03 1999] Reinc shouldn't be affected, if I understand right (Tsnilauq) |
| I think they were saying that in combat a mage with a lower concentration skill would have a harder time maintaining their focus and being able to cast spells properly. It shouldn't effect any reincs, unless you start doing reincs in combat situations. Tsnilauq |
| 42: [Apr 03 1999] In combat... (Gered) |
| A mage already has a hard enough time maintaining concentration in combat. The slightest little nick disrupts casting, whether by melee, weapon, or opposing spell. The only spell that isn't subject to disruption is Tell, because it casts instantly. Gered |
| 43: [Apr 04 1999] Concentration. (Euros) |
| Nope, what I had in mind refered to combat only, anything a mage would try and cast to kill or harm another player. armor and healing cast in battle could be affected as well, but reincs, jonathans, the like woulnd't be affected, of course..unless done in battle. And mages already have a hard time casting in combat? I really don't hear of many mages who die in combat because someone disrupted them, unless they were being silly. Like I said, a mage shoulnd't be casting in melee. Thrown can disrupt casting even from behind a safe wall of feathers, but how fast can someone throw something? A trigger for 'X begins casting a spell' could be disastrous. And as for opposing spell, if you start casting before the other mage does, I don't see how you'd be interrupted. Euros |
| 44: [Apr 04 1999] Seems we're off on a tangent. (Nimbus) |
| Seeing how we're off talking about mage skills/spells there's one thing that I find a bit problemistic with spells.. namely the casting time. Anyone who has played a caster and has learned multiple spells of a similar type (heal_*, bolts, ect..).. any spell that is a variation of another - they all have the same casting time. Bolts are silently cast and have a time of 2, healing spells are 6, summon ..I don't remember. But anyhow, it seems to me that if a spell is harder to cast it should be equally adjusted in reguards to throw time, ..not only damage, diff, and cost. Doesn't it seem a bit odd that a mage (highly skilled) could cast such powerful spells so quickly? Look at Reinc or Ress.. both are powerful spells, but have long casting times. Both of those are very vocal (spammy) and difficult to master. Should it be so much easier to kill someone than it is to restore them? (notice I threw in combat there at the end so it fits on this board's charter). -Nimbus .. I could be totally wrong.. |
| 45: [Apr 04 1999] Bolts silent? (Raven) |
| Since when are firebolts silent? Speaking as someone who got killed by a firebolt within recent memory, I definitely saw the caster cast at least one of them. And yes, it's always a lot easier to break stuff than it is to put it back together. R. |
| 46: [Apr 04 1999] Firebolts are... (Gered) |
| Not silent. The only way they can be made so is to OSS them so they can be instantly triggered, but that's a different story, and applies equally to any other spell used with OSS. Mind affecting spells are the only ones that have silence among them, and not all of them are. Gered |
| 47: [Apr 04 1999] Bolts silent? (Patrick) |
| Thats funny... never has any bolts spells been silent. And for goodness sake spells like gfb is not as easy to learn as you think. My recent two deaths cause by gfb backfire proved it and I am above proficient on that spells. Patrick |
| 48: [Apr 04 1999] .. one thing (Nimbus) |
| Please don't try to suggest you know what I think. I do know a few things. However, it sometimes takes a stupid question to rile ppl into posting. As for spells in general, I have never stated that they are easy to learn. However, *some* are easier to learn than others. Spells in general have more learning aids than other skills. Not that it's a bad thing, it's just something to keep in mind. As for thrown, I can honestly state that I've spent over a year (not constant) working on Nimbus' thrown skill and it is being extremely stubborn. I've practiced many spells and gotten them up levels expodentially faster (not with Nimbus). However, I've also not utilized any teachers with this skill. Then again there don't seem to be too many new (since the change) throwers with much skill in thrown. For the time being, lets separate thrown and spells. There really is no reason to compare the two except for the want of something to argue about. GFB is probably the most powerful (common) offensive spell to *most* mages. Thrown is probably the most useless skill to fighters (yet there are so few, we have to fight to keep it). Thrown could be powerful. It could be a viable combat option. At the momment it is neither*, but we are always hopeful. *Note: The effectiveness of a throw attempt has many factors and the conc level of the thrower is directly propotional. The only effective throw is the first. Combat does not last long enough for a second throw. Throwing multiple items in successing leads to problems. The first item hits or misses at full power, the next item at half, and if you try for more you'll likely miss everytime (not to mention your mind will be so blown that fighting is strictly out). Extremely high willed characters may have better luck. But that's not to say that only dwarves, ogres, ect.. should be the only races that can throw effectively (as Euros stated). Nimbus |
| 49: [Apr 05 1999] Thrown.. with dwarves and ogres (Spiffy) |
| conc say whoops heh I really dont think dwarves and ogres really have an advantage in thrown when it comes to will. Spiffy's apt for thrown is poor, I believe its because of poor dex but im not sure. Anyway I dont believe an ogre would be much better. I have tried learning thrown and have only managed 3 plusses in that skill. I havn't practiced it much more.. Spiffy |
| 50: [Apr 05 1999] Ogres throwing? (Rhun) |
| Rhun's aptitude for thrown is even worse: a beginner. I believe it depends on agility and distance vision...which ogres are not too good at. *If* I could actually get the skill up with these poor apts, I'd have to get it much higher to even hit. Strength would probably play a part in the damage, but so does aptitude. As for an ogre's will...you don't even want to go there :) Rhun |
| 51: [Apr 05 1999] I'm in! (Euros) |
| Yeah, I think Rhun's right about the aptitude thing. My thrown aptitude is able, but this body lacks in the distance and agility category. However, my will is the same as Rhun's, so there. Also, I hear varying things about aptitude. One is a low aptitude will make it harder to learn the skill, on the flip side, you just need to get it higher to be where everyone elses' is. Catfolk lockpickers, troll thieves.. the point being, it's not consistent. Not all things can be made up for with harder work. I've said that before, I know. A fighter/thief that's a troll can be just as sly as a mohnkee with hard work, but the mohnkee will never slam like the troll does. Also, there are ogres are there with monstrous thrown. Nothing like a greataxe splitting my body in half lengthwise while my daggers are bouncing off his lumpy skin. I've gotten my thrown up to a decent level, but have all but stopped practicing since the changes..like Nimbus said, can't pick up a lump of coal and get a few more improves for difficulty. in face, most decent throwers out there probably nearly got where they are before the changes. Euros |
| 52: [Apr 05 1999] Re: Thrown again.. and Aptitude (Spiffy) |
| I take that back about my apt.. I looked again and its Beginner.. Spiffy |
| 53: [Apr 06 1999] Mess about thrown (Sarderic) |
| Something that bothers me about this discussion is that for some reason, everyone expects to be able to do EVERYTHING. To me, thrown seems like it is more of a thief skill, or at least a skill less desirable to those who have the ability to wield a sword or other weapon well. I think one drawback to the whole problem is that as it stands, a mage can utilize the most powerful forces of healing, then go and farm for a few hours, feed their friends, cast some practice bolt spells, and then go kill something. To me, this doesn't make any sence, although I dont think making other disciplines just as versatile is the way to go. IF you want to be a sneaky, non-hand-to-hand combat player, then learn those skills as well as thrown. Certain races are better at those things anyhow, and that makes sense. But I strongly disagree that thrown should be a skill just like all others that can be learned up to a great level just to have on a skill list and have an alternate way to kill something. There was a discussion a while back about how unbalanced the economy is. Well, I believe I know why. If a player needs something that they cannot make themselves.... they dont seek out someone who can after a while. Instead, they learn how to do it themselves, totally ruining any notion of a player specializing in such an art. I short, I suppose I am saying that maybe it is more of a feature that thrown is such a hard skill to use and learn. What makes it different from any other skill if everyone has it and can use it? -Sarderic the creator |
| 54: [Apr 06 1999] Re: Sarderic. (Euros) |
| I totally agree with the economy thing..I've posted the points you did many times before. For instance, i refuse to learn smithing and mining, even though it would really help me get my wood working up. But, if you're an off time player or a loner, or broke, sometimes just doing things on your own is the easier way, until we're forced. (ie, the way magery and fighting are forced to hard to learn together.) Maybe thrown shouldn't be a fighters' skill, it's true it's sometimes viewed as a range attack, and most fighters belong in the front row. But, if someone wants to learn thrown as the only way to attack things like you seemed to suggest, it's still underpowered. Unless you do something like increase damage, lower conc penalty, and make it virtually unlearnable to those with fighting and magic skills.. For it's difficulty to (er its) practice, it still reaps little reward. But, first and foremost, I'm a fighter, so here's my main point: A true fighter (no crafts, magic or stealth) has about what, 8-14 skills to learn throughout her life? If she learns err, scratch that. 8-14 skills depending on what she WANTS to train, a few fighters specialize by not learning hafted, daring, or what not. If she doesn't learn any crafting, stealth or anything else besides fighting, it's a very boring life indeed. I think the reason a lot of fighters turn into big crafting enthusiasts is to give them something else to do than parry, be parried, parry, be parried until their skills reach AGAAWEL. The true mage, on the other hand, will learn spellcasting, and maybe 70 interesting and new ways to utilize their talent without having to stray from their magic path. Granted, mages do learn crafts, but you see my point, I hope. Can't see more than one hex? There's a spell for that, can't speak a language? A spell for that...can't see at night? etc. So while fighters tend to learn a lot of things outside their 'class', mages can stay within their classes while learning new 'skills'. Didn't say it was fun, but when something resembling a fighting skill like thrown comes out, it's really no wonder mostly every fighter here picks it up. Euros |
| 55: [Apr 07 1999] In agreement (Spiffy) |
| I Agree with Euros.. The fairness of the game just seem HEAVILY slanted towards mages favor. Consider the following... The majority of the quests out there have spellbooks for the prize. Mages can overcome most shortcommings they have through the use of spells IE The Johnathans spells, Qv, Thh. There are areas only mages can safely traverse with little or no danger of being slaughtered, where as it would take several HIGH powered fighters and thieves to traverse the same areas. Take for example the UD.. A mage can traverse the UD with a few spells. 1) A Light Spell - So they can see 2) BAI - so they dont get attacked 3) Recall - In case they get lost 4) Any of the summon spells - In case they DO need defense 5) Fire Bolts - In case they need to attack back It seems the only thing mages lack is the ability to fly and walk on water. Take the strongest fighter out and send him down to the UD with full armor whatever weapons he can carry, however many shields he can carry, and however many torches he will need, I promise you he will get lost and either die of starvation or get pummelled by a pitfiend. (hell, 1 of them took out 3 decent fighters in a matter of 6 hits) Now take the most skilled mage you can find.. You dont even really need the most skilled mage.. They can go down, fiddle fart around, get lost, and still be able to recall out in time for supper. A fighter and thief together cant accomplish the same as a mage. |
| 56: [Apr 07 1999] Underdark (Patrick) |
| Different places required different ways of doing things. Sometimes you need to avoid fights to solve things. In Underdark the idea is to avoid fighting. Even if a mage with 5 animals in front of him, he would not last at all if he jump into a room with 5 ratmen or orcs. I doubt there is anyone in this mud that can fight his/her way through underdark at all. Now back to a mage going through underdark. Firstly a mage needs those spells specified by Spiffy to safely move around there. And those spells you need to learn them to high level as well. But even so, spells then to behave unpredictable sometimes. Bai can expired at the most unconvenience time, gfb can backfired when you are in the midst of a battle, and your marked shield can get lost if you lost connection or get your hand chop off. Any of these would killed the mage. Which is why a mage would like a fighter, prefer to have a party down underdark as well rather than alone. As for fighter having trouble in underdark, I know at least 2 people who are warriors and has explored underdark alone and mapped out large areas of it. As to how they do it, it is for you to know. :) Have a bit of imagination on how to use your skills. :) Rdgs Patrick P.S. Now did I mention spell casting do not work in a lot of rooms in underdark too? :) |
| 57: [Apr 07 1999] Throwing not a fighting skill? (Rhun) |
| If you think throwing is not a fighting skill, tell it to one of the norse, who were as good at throwing their axe as at cleaving heads with it, or a Frankish warrior who used his francisca to good effect either way as well. I would also not like my post to be construed as saying I believe I should be able to do anything equally well, just to note that ogres aren't the best at throwing. I chose an ogre and I can live with that race's limitations. I would also like to bring your attention to the term 'renaissance man' (sorry Euros, this term arose before the PC movement would have corrected it to 'renaissance person') It was much easier to become proficient in a wide variety of skills before modern society required increasing specialization. I am not suggesting that everyone learn every skill, but note that a renaissance man was expected to have a wide range of skills. Try reading 'The Courtier' (who's author my memory fails me on at the moment' |
| 58: [Apr 07 1999] re: Magecentrism (Desla) |
| Spiffy, the inequality has been noted, and is pretty old news. None of the several quests released in the last two months have spells for prizes. One is highly geared towards crafters, another is highly geared towards fighters. Part of the reason there are so many mage things is that so many ex-mages become creators--I was a healer, myself. I coded Segliz, and I coded a lot of spells, so I suppose I'm raising my hand here as part of the problem. My point is that we're working hard to remedy the discrepancy--not by taking stuff away from mages, but adding stuff for crafters and fighters. Desla |
| 59: [Apr 08 1999] Thrown (Nimbus) |
| I'd just like to note something reguarding DM's past. Back a number of years when DM was in the alpha-beta years, the time when fermat, Ds, and the crew were deciding which races to include and what skills should be ..ect. Fighters were the base class. Parry and shield were still rather buggy and fighting on the whole was inconsistent. After several months of that new combat skills were added (disarm, thrown, polearm). I thought thrown was a cool idea and that DM would go the way of other innovative muds by allowing thrwon items to travers multiple rooms. However, that proved to be a big headache so it never was added. The point being that thrown was concieved of as a fighter/fighting skill, not athief skill. Thieves as a class weren't added until quite a while after (6mo-1yr). Thieves were an afterthough.. to spice up the game and add "evil" players. In the past, fighters were much more able to handle combat siduations. Even now a fighter who has obtained mastery (agaawel) of all combat skills is merely a shadow of the old warriors. An old warriors could easily thrash the living daylights out of today's fighter. Know the past histor of Dm and you will have a proper perspective of why players of fighters and thieves are still waiting and hoping for change in their favor. (IMHO thieves were never made into a full class.. more of an extension of fighters - examplified by the low learning barrier between the two classes skills..and the low number of skills for both combined). -Nimbus |
| 60: [Apr 08 1999] More thrown (Sarderic) |
| I quite agree. I don't mean to imply that fighters have no place to learn a skill. The whole glory of Dartmud is that you can make your player into whatever you want it to be, and that is also half the fun. I do not think, however, that examples of human history where a 'fighter' type could do this and the like is relevant. Human history and people's ability were diverse. Certain cutltures excelled at certain things, not because everyone could, but because their culture prized such abilities. Dartmud, on the other hand, has one culture. If it is to be a culture where everyone can do everything, with the exception of mixing magic and fighting, pretty soon you just get a bunch of people with similar skills, and noone is diverse any longer. Peeking around in how things are set up, I quite realize that there is no easy way to fix it, except for strict and huge changes which would probably upset a number of players to the point of not returning. Also, I am guilty of being a healer turned creator myself. I tried playing a fighter a number of times, but it was just too boring. One of my goals is to help fix that, but that is beside the point. I think I have rambled and strayed from my original point far enough, so I will just say that I agree thrown should do more damage, but not if it is to be used in conjunction with hand-to-hand combat. Gfb is something that I think tips the scales a little too much, but would adding a similar skill for fighters solve the problem? I dont know, perhaps it should, and then NPC could just be buffed up a little bit (once again punishing newbies to try and balance powerful players). -Sarderic |
| 61: [Apr 08 1999] more on thrown again (Solis) |
| just a quick note: thrown is for fighters. fighters fight, and try to kill, thrown is a way of trying to kill. you may say what about ambush. you want to make thrown like ambush? cool. make it a silent attack when perfected, and make the user of the skill able to stay hidden while he/she throws. and when the user is hidden, make the weapon thrown unblockable (as probably the target will not see it coming, make it have better aim and do more damage. that will make it a nice thief skill. another quick thing i want to say, is i have to totally and whole heartedly agree with euros. about the power of stats for fighters, i think sure, the stronger you are the harder you hit, but only for a while, why even have such a thing as agaawel if when you reach it, if you started in the wrong body you still suck, i sayu make a point where if you are that good, then you are deadly, i mean, it seems like after a while you dont really hit much harder which to me seems funny cuz why are we still practicing, (well actually cuz we have no other goals to shoot for but thats another topic for another day) yes i understand the attempts to keep the races different, but i say if you work hard enough for long enough, anybody should be able to make any race into any profession, and anyways the only thing being accomplished by making stats so powerful and skills so powerless is to make all mages rowans and trolls (mostly trolls) or atleast all good mages, and all good fighters catfolk, etc etc about the concentration thing, if mages dont want to be hit, they should learn to parry :) s/s (sorry if i rambled, havent written in a while) |
| 62: [Apr 09 1999] I'll try to be brief..although rarely am. (Nimbus) |
| If sweeping changes are to be made they should be in the favor of the player-characters, not against. Early Dm had a thriving economy and all classes were challenged (and most everyone quested). The downgrading of the combat skills (and spell casting skill) has not done anything in the way of "balancing" the skilled players in favor of the newbies. Look at what this "balance" did.. This occurred after House of War had already become the epitome of the highest skilled players migrating towards each other. To fix the the "problem" of players who player there characters a long time and built up high levels of skill, extra skill levels were added..(doubled or nearly). So if you had a character with agaawel skills they were now at ootb (approximately). Many players walked away from DM at that point (mostly the most effected ones). Characters that were frequently played became infrequent or in the case of War and Id.. they visited to read mail (although Id did return to play full-time a year or so later). Others left alltogether or just stuck around to take their frustrations out by Pking. In essence the game was ruined for many long-time players. The economy, which is severly damaged at the momment, was also quite functional in the past. The issue then was also one of too much in too few hands.. namely very wealthy pcs. Although the ecomony was disabled to curtail the wealth of the few.. it only penalized the newbies.. those who had large accounts rested on their laurels..and some still do. Some accounts were closed..for one reason or another. However.. nothing beneficial came of that effort either. So we wind down to today's DM.. we have all these old problems that were "fixxes" which were never properly handled. They could be now, but as Desla stated on his post to the Casting board.. there is a concensus among the coders. It seems that concensus of the past was to balance by disabling and whittling away at what was a functional and stable balanced system. From what Desla and other coders have posted here it would seem that there may be a change in the mood of the concensus body.. that restoration may be forthcoming. I certainly look forward to the day when DM is once again "whole". As for fighters.. fixxing the problems as discussed here would be a good start (thrown, aim, fighting). Also a shift towards an emphesis on skills rather than stats would help greatly to allow all combatants of all races an equal chance at being good at their trade and at par with mages. Newbies will always be at a disadvantage. If you arrive late to the party you may find the punch bowl empty.. don't go saying it's not fair.. it's not our fault that you arrived late. Old players try to help the newbies, but atleast for me, most my training was self-taugh and I don't think I should go out of my way to see that newbies get to combat ready levels in a few hours. I have done it on occation, but it's not fair to the old players. Once the established problems are fixxed the next step is to narrow the skill gap between the classes. The mage's 70+ skills that provide them with every possible benefit seems to be the biggest factor. To make it fair for fighters, they need skills that allow them to be more than mundane front-liners. NPCs have been altered to do cheap shots (breath weapons, non-blockable attacks..ect) that target the fighters, yes the fighters are not equipped to handle the changes. (change "yes" to "yet"). As example I site the "Fighter's" amulet quest. In the past a small band of fighters could do it.. (I'm talking about the direct method, not the non-combat method). The only thing I ever heard creators grumble about was that highly skilled fighters would go and spar with Shelob for hours, much like all fighters do with Pelidor. With newer spells (mark/recall) and other additions, the quest became less of a fighter's quest and more of mage's/thief quest. In the end.. the addition of changing Shelob to a demon and adding the breath and "attack from all sides" initial attacks have rendered this quest one that is not for fighters - since fighters cannot fight shelob without facing a very quick chance to be amuletized. The only way for fighters to do the quest now requires a throw-away npc (if you want to fight). the quest still favors non-fighters.. which would be akin to altering the Segliz "mage's amulet quest" by putting in a no-casting room with an agressive npc that first dispells any spells active on the mage and then proceeds to block all the exits. It would make a good warriors or thief quest, but makes would be at a severe disadvantage. There's nothing wrong with making quests that encourge multi-class paries, but when the quests become doable by a single person - of the wrong class - then players begin to complain and creators tend to ignore them. As has been stated, coders code for themselves - they may have the interest of the players mixxed in, but on the whole it is their project and most are stubborn ... er um.. proud of their creations :-) Okay so this wasn't even close to brief.. sometimes there's a lot to be said. It may have been said many time before, but we players live with the illusion that somehow what we have to say has meaning. We don't expect immediate change, but are always hopeful that our words do not fall on deaf ears. If coders are tired of seeing the same old topics discussed then they either need to see that those topics are looked into (and players are made aware of the decision), or place a board somewhere that briefly lists all the past requests for change and what if anything was done by creators. -Nimbus |
| 63: [Apr 10 1999] Can I be more brief than Nimbus? Bets? (Euros) |
| I've suggested in the past that Shelob's quest actually be made easier. (This was before the breath thing.) My reasonsing was, in effect, the same reason it is now: unless the first person who walked in the room could parry Shelob, or be close enough to and take hits long enough for her to die, the party would probably not make it back out again. At the time, only one or two parties were actually doing the amulet run, and this was the most common (only?) way to quest them. So I suggested this, in order to make the competition more.. competitive. My idea was turned down, instead, Shelob was made toughter and tougher, and finally the gas was added in. This brings me to several points. (Yay!) First, when I view the mud, I view it as any other fantasy world, with people of all types - traders, mages, warriors. Some not important enough to mention, or code. (A book that mentioned every single inhabitant of a planet would be quite boring and long.) The players, I feel, are the heroes, the ones which stand out (the ones that don't say, "I need a better job!" every five minutes, although they are more important than others.) So what bothers me about the Shelob quest is, as players became more skilled and were able to actually take on a monster like Shelob by themselves (I was never one of these), creators buffed her up. I don't understand why this was hard to deal with, as heroes are heroes, you don't hear stories about how the dragon came back several times stronger because the knight killed it the first time. Secondly, we have stats and bodies. In the past, body shopping was a lot less rare. A LOT. And, creators seem very against it, but the way bodies are set up now, promotes it, I think, from my point of view. Yes, it still happened, but in a different way. You have a catfolk fighter, he dies, loses his body, but that's okay, because Belion and Nazakaner are right there, with better stats than they could ever hope for. (I do like that the new registration system allows a race to stretch its limits without stripping sense and other stats, but that's off topic.) Now, while races like sasquatches had no choice but to change races, and others, like me, had to accept a body with base stats, the point is, once you found you liked Thrain, you tended to stick with Thrain, every time you died, body shopping done with. Nowdays, with the random stats, body shopping is a lot more rampant, as and elf (I'll just use me, I'm tired of thinking up examples) who either bought and rolled for strength constitution, and agility, finds herself a magnet for magical energies and not too strong. Hence, her fighter career is now over, unless she risks it and takes another chance...So, the question posed in the previous paragraph is once again asked. Why aren't players allowed to have good stats, stats that suit them? I've heard, "Death isn't supposed to be a reward. Deal." But really, what does this accomplish besides making players unhappy with the game? And why is it, NPC's, who, like Belion, may certainly be noteworthy, but not exactly a hero, have stats double, maybe triple that of the real heroes? Certainly a hero is one because he stand out somehow, smarter, stronger, quicker, whatever, than the other members of his race. My third and final point concerns newbies. There is definite conflict here, I've heard some creators say they want fighters to be able to kill each other easier, I've heard some say they want to give newbies a fair shot against the big guns. I don't think the skill curve, skill cap, or whatever it is and how it works actually helps either or these views in any way. Here's why: The curve might actually help lower level fighters against a higher level fighter, which accomplishes the second, but punishes the high level fighters. Why? If I train five years, why can't I mop the floor with the mid level fighter who's been around a few months and has been constantly harassing me? (I must note that, fighters do learn themselves up pretty quickly too.) I didn't intend to mention this, but I guess I will. I could not hit a fighter whose parry was less than half my offensive skill. (In number of improves.) She was parryin with two hands, and swinging, but the details are negligible, maybe next time, this note is becoming a bit too long as it is. After several minutes, I did manage to hit her barely, but that's it? Killing? Not likely, unless the fighter lagged for a few hours, or opted for a very slow, very painful suicide by my katana. As for the concern of newbies never being able to make it due to rude, cruel, higher skilled players..this isn't true. How often does it happen now? Yes, I couldn't hit aforementioned fighter, but I'm sure I could manage any newbie that shouted, 'Okay! I just registered, what do I do now?' It doesn't happen often. And, according to several sources, this is a player run society..you may occasionally get those cruel types, but more often than not, they are dealt with by 'player justice', so I really don't think it's too much of a concern. Anyway, I said I'd write about body shopping later, so I did. Tune in next time for more about mid level fighters versus me. I'd also like to thank creators who take the time out to post responses, a lot of the time I think some things are just plain wrong, and discover the reasons for them and shut up. Euros |
| 64: [Apr 10 1999] I understand the feeling. (Patrick) |
| I have to say I understand how Euros felt. I mean I was around for quite a long time myself and have trained for years to get to my present level of skills. I have went thru' a few degrading of mage abilities including lower of aura max and so on and everytime it happen, it pains me greatly to see everything go down a level. I also understands the need to make the mud fairer for newbies but look at it now. Newbies these days have great teachers to teach them while us have to be on our own right from the start. Every little improvement we get is time and effort taken. When we train hard to be able to solve a quest only for it to be make more difficult later can be a bit annoying. There should be a better way of doing things. Let us all think and see if there is a better solution then simpler making quest harder or reducing player abilities. Rdgs Patrick |
| 65: [May 08 1999] Disarm and break weapon (Patrick) |
| Just a few suggestion to spice up fighting. Maybe we can allow fighters be able to disarm or break an opponent weapons. Just a suggestion. -Patrick |
| 66: [May 12 1999] re: disarm and weapon breakage (Bishop) |
| well i believe there was a disarm skill or one that was planed on. but either never installed or taken out. Weapon breakage would be a good idea i think though might actually get the econimy going a bit. also adding in clothes getting old and shoes wearing. but only my opinon -)- Bishop -(- |
| 67: [May 13 1999] Disarming and weapon breaking... (Gered) |
| One serious problem is the fact that a fighter's defense is based on holding a weapon or shield to parry with; no weapon/shield, no defense (and fast death). If disarming or weapon breaking can affect those defense weapons/shields, then it poses a serious problem, because one successful disarm, or one inopportune break, will probably end the battle rather abruptly. If these are going to be implemented, then I certainly hope some form of non-equipment-dependent defense becomes available first. Gered |
| 68: [May 17 1999] An idea to give fighters more variety ... (Pixel) |
My idea : Fighters get a new set of skills, ones for special moves. These skills are for all of the flying kicks and spinning double-sword attacks and whatever that is currently subsumed into the combat allocations etc. The difference with these skills/moves ? They are researched by fighters, just the way mage spells can be researched (or used to be, at least). So, some fighter of suitably high skill gathers the neccessary spends a lot of talk time and research time and maybe ven sparring time with a creator (maybe), and at the end all, they get their + in a new skill. Once that's done, they merely have to practice it up until they're good enough to teach others. I'd imagine these new skills would give some bonus during an attack, or maybe some of them could be used defensively, and so on. With a system like this in place, I believe some of the arguments comparing fighters unfavourably with mages based on skill counts would be gone. Fighters would have new skills to with, skills to trade with other fighters, and could build up even more distinctive fighting styles. Just imagine watching two legendary fighters sparring, and seeing kimar's_flying_headkick launched into action, countered by war's_diveroll. Well, hope this made sense to someone. (oh yeah, there really should be some way for a fighter to hold a weapon, a shield and be able to see - without mage assistance ... it's just too basic to playability to not have ...) Pixel |
| 69: [May 17 1999] Re: #68 (Ramik) |
| I couldn't agree more with Pixel's excellent idea. I've often thought about how, if I were a creator, I'd add in this or that fighting skill. The concern, of course, is that such skills quickly become common knowledge and unbalance the game. This would not be so much a concern with these skills, as anyone who went to the trouble of researching their own, unique skill, would certainly balk at passing it out as a party favor. Perhaps the unique style of a Baron or Sir might be disseminated freely throughout his house, but that would only another element to inter-house conflicts. Perhaps the members of House Tellborn would be feared, not solely because of their skill at arms, but because they, alone among the Mud, know how to disarm. Of course, martial arts maneuvers will likely be one of the first things to be researched, bringing sweep kicks and bare-handed parrying to the mud. But, although martial arts maneuvers are good, I look more forward to racially specific skills! I, as a spyder, would love to pioneer the use of a four-handed sword. Perhaps a braman might train himself to be able to constrict with his trunk. Catfolk might well be able to scratch with their hind legs, etc... Of course, these researches might be dependent upon other skills and factors. For example, before inventing my Four-handed Sword, I might well be required to achieve virtuoso proficiency with Two-handed Sword. Some sort of constrict attack would probably require reasonable proficiency with brawling. I hope this research gets the green light, although I'm doubtful it will. I think to those up above, there's too much potential for abuse, which, to be honest, I can see. I just think that what it has to offer is too valuable to ignore. Finally, one fighter won't be a boring carbon copy of the next. Finally there might be some potential for surprises. ---Ramik |
| 70: [May 19 1999] fighters (Serafin) |
| was thinking about that line you always get when reading helpfiles or talking to newbies, the one that says fighters can have different styles :) depending on what they work on. HAAA!! how many people on purpose avoid working any weapon skills so that they can be full fledged brawlers?? or any of the other supposed fighting styles, and why would you? what reason would someone have for putting themselves at a disadvantage when with just more practice you can have great brawling and also great hafted for when you need it, or whatever. the problem is theres really no advantage to specializing, and there are so few skills that to not learn one is to handicap yourself, also with stats being so important you prolly wouldnt want to be a brawler unless you had great strength cuz otherwise even at agawel you still aint doin no damage cuz somehow all your practice hasnt helped you to learn where to hit to do the best damage :) so what can we do to diversify fighting?!!! spheres of fighting! just kidding... 1. we need more skills. for this we need ideas, theres a whole bunch of us so lets start putting them down on paper. er virtual paper. 2. these new skills, together with the old, need to somehow be opposed, no not like spheres :) ok, maybe like spheres, i dunno, whatever way that would force people to make choices, to diversify, and not to try to learn everything, like say you had 8 groups of fighting skills, yes we'd all be jumpin for joy, and maybe the sheer number would be enough to keep us from learning them all. maybe. maybe not. now say there was a point like master or high master where only 4 of the groups could go above that point, and the way that was determined is once one skill from a group reaches that point then others from that group can, but from some opposite group cant :) and being high in one group, makes you somewhat equal but different from some other group, like different types are good at different things, the whole paper rock scissor :) thing. 3. maybe fighter mages should be hampered by the fact that they cant get as many groups above that point. (while im on the topic, other races are gonna need some help if we dont want the mud to be overflowed with trolls :) was gonna write more, including some ideas for fighting skills, but im a little burnt out from writing posts on the mage board and then the idea board before getting to this one. so maybe tomorrow ill come with those ideas, in any case, you people have all the above statements to scream bloody murder about. im sure well whatever. these are my thoughts. serafin. |
| 71: [May 19 1999] Fighter ideas (Arryn) |
| I've looked at the combat code because it is one of the reasons I became a creator. First off I agree with almost all of you regarding fighting, that it would benefit from new skills and there should be more to it. Secondly, from a coding perspective, any changes to fighting requires a major coding changing to combat and a greater amount of testing. Does this mean I don't want to do it? No, it means that I am looking at but before I make any changes, I want a full plan on everything that it will need rather than trying to do patchwork. I have some of the things already planned and I am working on in conjunction with other things. You can either mail me or post here all the ideas you want in fighting. Since I see many good ideas I haven't responded to any one specifically. Just know that your ideas are being looked at and hopefully most of them will be incorporated. A change of this magnitude takes a good deal of time, but don't think we've forgotten about it. Arryn |
| 72: [May 19 1999] just an idea (Sarderic) |
| Here is one idea, just to throw something out on the table. I know this may be somewhat cliche, but there are a variety of different kinds of fighting. Right now, we have fighting with a sword, an axe, or whatever.. and other than that the weapons are different... there really isn't anything special about one or the other. However, suppose there were different fighting techniques. In the martial arts, there is a variety of different kinds of fighting. Some kinds focus on defense, some on offence, some a variety of both. Perhaps if we had different types of fighting, that showed up as skills (for instance, not to suggest these as skills, but just as the general idea, a karate skill, a fencing skill, a kickboxing skill), and much like one can 'set aim to head', one could set which fighting style they used, or maybe even a combination. These skills would probably conflict with magic to a great extent, but it would be the perk for the pure fighters. Just a thought, be gentle. -Sarderic |
| 73: [May 22 1999] Combat (Nimbus) |
| In general, fighters do want to specialize. The problem is that along the way to becoming a full warrior they find that their learning rates stagger or stop for extended periods (days, weeks, months..). It gets very frustrating when you train and slaughter everything you can find and still can't learn. It is times like these that fighters turn to those skills that they've neglected or just never wanted. Seeing the new skill rise usually coaxes the "stuck" skill into action. In my opinion, it's the learning curve and it's lulls that make most fighters into one-man armies.. not because that is what they truely want, but it's what they have to do in order to succeed. -N |
| 74: [May 24 1999] An idea about fighters (Bishop) |
| I notice that alot of fighters seem to go on for hours fighting the same being with equal skills. how about adding a system of endurance.. after holding up a wepaon shield armor after a period of time is very hard on the body... maybe adding a endurance that slowly goes down like movement, and rebuilds the same. this would add a little more realism to fighting as well.. only an idea though. |
| 75: [May 24 1999] endurance and fatigue (Arryn) |
| Endurance and fatigue have been considered as an option to fighting, however if we do this it would cause great difficulty with practicing fighting, so we have refrained from doing this. Arryn |
| 76: [May 25 1999] Fatigue, on the other hand... (Gered) |
| Would make for an excellent new fighter skill - one that reduces the accumulation of fatigue. Gered |
| 77: [May 25 1999] Re: Gered. (Euros) |
| Right along with my concentration skill for mages. :) Euros |
| 78: [May 25 1999] re: fatigue (Fergus) |
| perhaps we should also add in mental fatigue. so that mages cannot sit and practice spells for hours on end. I know my mind starts getting fuzzy after working on calculus problems for a couple hours. Fergus |
| 79: [May 25 1999] At the moment... (Gered) |
| That's what conc does for mages. Now, putting a separate skill in for 'mental fatigue' and a mental fatigue rating wouldn't be such a bad idea - but the conc hit for spellcasting would need to be replaced by it. Gered |
| 80: [May 26 1999] Re: fatigue (Celetar) |
| The main problems with either combat or mental fatigue, is the boredom factor. They both make sense realisticly, but at first glance it sure looks like it would decrease the playability of the game. There's enough wasted time here, time wasted waiting for fatigue to recover might put us over the top in the 'things I could have more fun doing in Real Life' category. -- Celetar |
| 81: [May 27 1999] Well... (Gered) |
| As things stand, perhaps. On the other hand, if the learning rate was tweaked to take a fatigue system into account, it could work. (I know, I know, you don't want to mess with the learning rate. :) ) Gered |
| 82: [May 27 1999] re: learning rate (Desla) |
| Gered Said: (I know, I know, you don't want to mess with the learning rate. :) ) Not so. I very much want to mess with the learning rate, so adventure is more rewarding than practice. As is, adventuring is just a way to wind up dead, since practicing ad infinitum will give you more safety and the same results. However, we don't want to give a net increase in the learning rate (i.e., power level) for "free"--but we don't want to tick everyone off by altering the balance in a way that's not properly playtested. So in essence, it's something that has to be done carefully, but not something that's impossible or our of the question. Desla |
| 83: [May 29 1999] re: fatigue (Bishop) |
| well waiting on aura is already a huge fatigue.. but a mental fatigue would be very acceptable . put the term mental would then have to be allocated towards crafts and fighting as well. for you need good mental condition to continue fighting proper. ;-) I still think either or would add to the reality here ( and was only an opinion) -)- Bishop -(- |
| 84: [May 29 1999] re learning rate (Bishop) |
| is it not possiable to make the creatures in a quest be more prone to increase improves. And perhaps only for a few exciting moments.. (basically to stop botting these creatures). just an idea. -)- Bishop -(- |
| 85: [May 29 1999] Learning rate (Patrick) |
| I think Desla's suggestion is great if it can be effective implemented. I myself dont like standing all day at one place learning spells. :) Rdgs Patrick |
| 86: [Jun 01 1999] re: learning rate (Honor) |
| The learn rate on combat is fine. It certainly would be better, as Desla suggested if quests were more rewarding than idle practice. However that would have to carry over to mages as well (as I expected Desla intended). However, a problem with combat (of many) is that skill does not mean success in combat. It means you might live a little longer against enemies that fight like you do (no breath weapons, or other dirty attacks..including spells). Fighters unfortunately do not fight well, Euros is a good example of what I mean. She is a skilled combatant, but if she wants something to die fast and with a high degree of success she uses "other means". It is the wise thing to do, but shows that direct combat is ineffective (alone or in a two-person group). Against a small target it's fine, against a skilled player or large Npc.. Your mileage may very. -=Honor thy Eldar=- |
| 87: [Jun 14 1999] Specializing (Vespiel) |
| Heya I think that specializing for warriors is the way to go. We should look closer at that, and perhaps devise a good system that would make this profession more exciting. It would have to be balanced, so that not everyone goes for that ultimate style, forcing players to chose their fighting style according to their preferences, talents, tactics and perhaps even race. One way of doing it (and hopefully not the only one) would be to make weapons a more diverse. If that's already in, forgive the ignorance, but generally different weapons give different combat advantages and disadvantages. A spear, for example, helps one with defense. A dagger puts one more at risk, but is one of the best weapons to hit the head with. A staff can be a very defensive weapon, while an axe is a primarily offensive weapon and not a very defensife one. That may be one of the areas of specialization, but of course a player could end up learning all the weapons, and learn all the techniques. In this case, however, that's still fine, as you can only use so many weapons at one time. Chosing that correct style for the particular engagement would be the key. Other specializations should be more inherit. I think it would be very good if players were not able to learn _everything_ on the grid. A warrior that is profficient at everything is... well... extremely rare. A warrior that has more than one fighting style is also rare, and most warriors will chose one style to specialize in. Styles take long to learn, so the jacks-of-all-trades don't achieve such great skills in their many styles. Those that specialize do. Vespiel |
| 88: [Jun 15 1999] re: Specializing (Artag) |
| I have to disagree with you, Vespiel. Most of the changes you suggests are already present in the combat system to some degree, and I think trying to implement them more fully along the lines you suggest would be disruptive and harmful to what is an effective, mature combat system. Besides, I think combat specialization is much less common than you suggest. Everyone I know who is good at combat is just generally good at combat. They have a particular weapon of expertise, but they are very nearly as effective with weapons other than their chosen one. They have a consistent style and way of moving -- but that is reflected in combat allocations. Just my $.02 Artag |
| 89: [Jun 15 1999] Specialization (Raven) |
| For what it's worth, all my player chars were combat specialists - one incarnation only did sword, another only did 2hs, with some degree of success. The hardest part was convincing teachers to set their teach list appropriately, so unfortunately I picked up isolated improves that I didn't want. (Of course it's nicer now that you can choose skills not to teach. Good job, whoever coded that. Oh wait...) |
| 90: [Jun 16 1999] Hooray (Eddard) |
| for polearms! |
| 91: [Jun 16 1999] Polearms (Ramik) |
| Are polearms working now, or were you just cheering for the concept? Either way, I agree, but I'd like to know if there's another skill I need to fiddle with. |
| 92: [Jun 16 1999] re: Polearm (Eddard) |
| Sorry if I got yer hopes up, that was just my two cents on polearms. |
| 93: [Jun 16 1999] Re: re: Polearm (Ramik) |
| Well, dammit. I want pikes and lances to work right...not to mention glaives and fauchard-forks and whatnot. |
| 94: [Jul 26 1999] setting parry and control (Thtek) |
| I've messed around with the "set parry/control" command, changing the default and the amount for enemy 1 and enemy 2 (not working more than 2 with split yet). It doesn't really seem to make any difference. Anyone that can explain how and if setting those works? |
| 95: [Aug 13 1999] Pelidor (Eddard) |
| Out of curiosity, why is that Pelidor doesn't regen? If it's no important reason, could he be made to do so? Does anyone agree that he should come back between boots? Player of Eddard |
| 96: [Aug 14 1999] Re: Pelidor (Nimbus) |
| Pelidor doesn't reset for a couple reasons: 1. He serves no functional purpose (offers no verbal help to a functional quest, nor does he have any real purpose). 2. He is a sparring partner only, and one that fighters learn well with. It may be spite or there may be other reasonings, but generally creators don't favor fighters sitting around and sparring all day (mages can sit cast all they want though). There are probably better reasons that creators and long-time players will point out. 3. Lastly, there has been a recent movement to provide more challenging combat npcs (packers and waderers). A nice change from the dirty fighting npcs that use unblockable attacks, or are overskilled (as a minor example I'll point to the fish trader that throws a mean axe - it's good that he uses thrown, but he should be throwing fish not axes! :-) -N |
| 97: [Sep 10 1999] Grapple (Caterus) |
| howdy all Hrmm.Thats Myth and I was testing Grapple for fun I seem to notice that escape grapple really is useless when you can walk South or anyother way maybe you guys could fix it so that escape grapple is the only way out unless you are higher skill or close to the person grappling it would be nice change when you Grapple an Npc like tupper and he still gets away Thanks for your time **Caterus** |
| 98: [Sep 12 1999] Last (Brixia) |
| I agree on that. Block and grapple are absolutely worthless as it is now. I had an rowan, no combat skills, that walked right past both Grashlin and Gudz. |
| 99: [Sep 12 1999] Re: Last (Phylogeny) |
| Try walking past Shelob then. Phylogeny, who tried it once or twice. |
| 100: [Sep 12 1999] blocking (Caterus) |
| Well as far as I know it has to do with the size of the door, you Of corse a Gnome cant block a door that a Braman can walk thrue Then again I might be wrong! **Caterus** |
| 101: [Sep 13 1999] Grappling and blocking (Ramik) |
| Well, the fact that blocking is of limited use doesn't bug me nearly as much as grappling. I can see how blocking could be a straight SIZ vs. AGILITY test, involving the size of the doorway as a modifier. This doesn't involve actually using any skills, so it makes sense that a newbie braman should be better at it than an old, experienced gnome. It has to do with raw stats, not a learned ability. Grappling, however, is of such limited effect as to be useless. I don't think it's out of line to expect your skill at grappling to advance as a subset of your skill with brawling. However, as a Legendary brawler, I can attest that Telinor has no problem wriggling easily out of my grasp. Escape is apparently not a function of agility either, as Fossil, a newbie ogre, escaped just as quickly. These days, grappling is only used to prevent someone from blocking. While that's all well and good, it does seem to elevate a mere side-effect of grappling to a rediculous prominence in the overall scheme of things. I, for one, think it's just about time grappling was made effective...or at least useful. ---Ramik |
| 102: [Nov 20 1999] Aiming question (Nimbus) |
| Hi, I'm solicing insight on how to hit what you aim for. How high does aim have to be to function adequetly? (aka damage the targetted appendage more than surrounding appendages). The head is not a good thing to aim for (since it seems that as the opponent tires the head is the first thing hit solidly). Does anyone have a combat allocation setting that works extremely well for this purpose? I've tried several setting but the results are usally less than satifying. Really what I'd like to do is be able to IC dismember an opponent *before* they die. I've been able to do it with weak and unskilled opponents to some degree, but nothing that I could call reliable (as in a definitive combat style). Ps. Has anyone ever hot a ring on the Target that they aimed for more than five percent of the time? Ten? Fifty? -Nimbus is curious. |
| 103: [Nov 20 1999] Targets (Raven) |
| That's a quirk of targets... the name of the ring that you see, isn't what you name to aim at. Try aiming for "center", "first ring", "second ring" etc. Dunno why the coder who made them did it that way, but then again, he hasn't been around to ask, either. R. |
| 104: [Dec 24 1999] Happy Holiday (Eddard) |
| When a mage wishes to practice, they can do it almost anywhere. A thief, while not quite as flexible, is not very limited, depending on what they wish to practice. But any fighter with master skills or higher has one place to go: Pelidor. All it takes to prevent any advancement in these warriors is to kill Pelidor. If Eddard, or any other of the many, many players who can kill Pelidor decides to do so, and is on frequently, the entire population of warriors suffer. So please make the cocky Knight of Karnak repop between boots, like most other npc's. I confidently speak for virtually every fighter in the game on this. I know it's been asked before, but I'm hoping it's changed this time. Thanks. Eddard the orc |
| 105: [Dec 24 1999] re: Pelidor repopping (Flandor) |
| What you should have said, Eddard, is that Pelidor is the one _safe_ place to go. There are plenty of tougher opponents to fight. You just don't want to admit you're afraid of pitfiends, tyhr-kreen, seamonters and giants. -Flandor |
| 106: [Dec 24 1999] re: Pelidor repopping (Ramik) |
| I wasn't aware there was a constant locale in which to find the tyhr-kreen, giants, and pitfiends. Seamonsters, sure...just go sailing...but that involves water, which counts this hydrophobic arachnid WAY out. ---Ramik, who's far more scared of drowning than any NPC out there. |
| 107: [Dec 25 1999] re: re: Pelidor repopping (Eddard) |
| *chuckle* I figure Flandor was being sarcastic, but just in case you weren't: Like Ramik, I don't know of places to find tyhr-kreen and giants(consistenly), seamonsters aren't really suitable for sparring, and neither are pit fiends(damn fangs!). There are a couple of other npc's out there, but Pelidor is really the best pummelling partner around. Orcs Against Water |
| 108: [Dec 25 1999] Places to find things (Desla) |
| There are fixed locations to find just about anything; I know of at least one place to find opponents of your desired type which has not yet been found... Desla |
| 109: [Dec 26 1999] Re: Pelidor repopping (Katkt) |
| Regardless of whether or not there are other places to practice, I'd like to see Pelidor repop because I don't see anything special about him that justifies him being different from virtually every other NPC in that regard. Once upon a time, he was supposed to be nigh invincible, so he didn't repop. That's no longer the case. Some of the randomly generated NPCs in town are now way tougher than him. Once upon a time, Pelidors armor was very valuable and could be sold for lots of money, so he didn't repop. But now, unlike when Peli came into existence, the limiting factor on how much money you can make by killing things and taking their stuff is not the value of the stuff you can get, but the amount of money held by the shopkeepers. Once Peli was connected with a quest. But no more. So why not have him repop? He's a good sparring opponent for fighters. He's nothing more, and he's nothing less. Maybe bring him back every hour or so. Eddard's point that non-fighters are fairly flexible in where they can practice, while fighters are limited to where they can find an appropriate opponent is an interesting discussion all on it's own, separate from the issue of Pelidor specifically. It's certainly largely accurate. But is it a problem, and what effect does it have? I don't really have any specific ideas in that regard. I just think it's an interesting observation... Katkt |
| 110: [Dec 26 1999] Weapons Improves (Goldthirst) |
| Am I the only one who has hit a serious drought of weapons improves? All my other skills, even the ones higher than some of my weapons skills are still advancing at a normal rate... but ever since I became a champion I have been unable to get any weapons improves. The player of Goldthirst. |
| 111: [Dec 26 1999] re: Weapon Improves (Eddard) |
| Hah, I've been having that problem since long before you became a Champion ;) And as for places to find things: I enjoy exploring in DartMud, and I hope to some day find tyhr-kreens and giants, and many more oversized, overlimbed, underbrained monstrosities. But I do not think that warriors should be made to sail/hike/spelunk to the far ends of the planet to practice combat. Katkt really said all that needed to be said: Pelidor repopping will not pose any threat to game balance, and if it came to a vote(not anonymous) I don't think there would be anyone against it except for those who have been killing the poor guy. Sorry if I'm repeating myself. I think everything about this topic has been addressed, and again, I sincerely hope this small change is made. Eddard the orc GRUNT |
| 112: [Dec 27 1999] on pelidor (Cerote) |
| While I sympathise with Ed, I think he's got the Pelidor thing wrong. I don't believe npc's are supposed to be rungs on a training ladder. They were put here to populate the town with interesting people. That they're used as rungs is secondary to their purpose. One could argue that if this is so, why do some repop while others don't? There's no logical answer, but there really doesn't need to be, as they aren't meant to be systematic. That they are so is a happy convenience, but the convenience shouldn't be taken as a right. Cerote the grateful. |
| 113: [Dec 27 1999] re: on pelidor (Flandor) |
| Well put, Cerote. Thanks. And does it really make sense that _any_ NPCs reappear after they die? Maybe you ought to have to ress them if you want to practice on them again. -Flandor |
| 114: [Dec 27 1999] Not to mention (Kythalus) |
| I would like to point out that there are other things out there that can be used for practice... specifically other players. There are plenty of fighters out there who are more skilled than peli, and are also on way too much. In the past, practicing with other players was far more common, and was helpful in promoting partying. That said, I don't think it would be a terrible thing if Peli showed up a bit more often. Kythalus |
| 115: [Apr 23 2000] Weaponry Anti-Nerf (Raven) |
| We're considering tweaking some of the weapons: Longswords get lighter and faster, competitive with katanas. Axes get faster, period. Some weapons might change name, depending on size. Any important suggestions, speak now, or... |
| 116: [Apr 24 2000] Yess!!!! (Spiffy) |
| How about makign a Sickle so I can wield a hammer and Sickle? ;) Spiffy |
| 117: [Apr 24 2000] Hafted (Spiffy) |
| I understand how hafted is more likely to get wedged in your victims body but it doesn't seem like it should for all weapons.. for example.. Scepters? Maces? Mornign Stars? seems like it would be more likely for spears and axes and whatnot. Spiffy |
| 118: [Apr 24 2000] how about (Serafin) |
| makin weapons made of different ores actually be different? is this possible? i mean arent some ores heavier by nature and some more prone to breakage and dulling, like pure gold is pretty maleable i think while iron is heavy. and when i say weapons above i mean weapons and armors and such. I like that something about combat is getting a non-negative tweak. s.f.t.s.o.t.a.p. |
| 119: [May 12 2000] Pelidor Repopping (Ramik) |
| When Eddard brought this up before, I remained silent for a few reasons. We were in the middle of a war, so I had more important things to think about, the mud reset every 3 or so days anyhow, and I had hopes of solving the problem IC. under the current system, however, there's a very real need for Pelidor to start repopping. I understand the argument that "NPCs don't exist for us to practice on." I disagree, but I understand it. Pelidor really ISN'T all that interesting apart from his practice value... sure, IC, he's not there for us to practice on, but OOC he sure as heck is. There is an issue of fairness here that should be addressed here as well. As a high-skill fighter, Pelidor really is just about the only place we can practice. Sure, we can go running all over the map trying to find Thri-Khreen or somesuch, but what sort of complaints would we hear if a thief had to map the globe to get his hiding to Legendary, or a mage had to explore the underdark to get his SC to Adept? I'm not asking for Pelidor to repop as often as Thrain or Kala...not even once an hour like Katkt suggested. I'd be happy with once every 5 hours...every 10 hours..or even once a day. As it stands, it took 5 DAYS after this last reboot for a creator to take pity on us poor fighters and bring Pelli back. That's rediculous, and there's no reason for it. ---Ramik |
| 120: [May 12 2000] Re: Pelidor (Raven) |
| Can any player offer a reason why Pelidor should not repop? Anybody against making him repop? |
| 121: [May 24 2000] New Combat Skill Proposal: Tactics (Ramik) |
| For quite a while, it's been pretty widely agreed upon that there's an unreasonable power imbalance between pure fighters and the other classes. Every now and then, someone disagrees with this premise (usually someone who's never actually played a fighter), but for most of us, it's pretty much a foregone conclusion and a fact of life. Fighters just aren't as cool as mages. They aren't as diverse, sure, but that's fine and only natural. What really bugs me is that mages (and ambushers, to a degree) are better than fighters at 'fighter stuff'. Thanks to LSA, GFB, BAI, LL, GA, Blur, etc…they're more able to kill, defend, explore, and protect than a standard warrior is. Right now there's nothing to set the fighter class apart from any other…no special capability or skill that makes them different. The last time we spent a while discussing this, Merkle said something that made my blood boil and got me thinking. He said (I apologize for the approximation), "Of course fighters aren't as useful as mages. All they can do is break stuff." The madder I got and the more I thought about it, the more I realized he was exactly right. Right now, all fighters can do is break stuff. The thinking, strategic part of combat has been totally omitted…in fact, it's been given to all the other classes free of charge. Aside from the increase in the learning rate, a smart fighter is no better than a stupid one. A wolf is able to block in row 1 as well as a 13X agaawel fighter. 5 measly little hazozats are able to block in row 1 BETTER than a 13X agaawel fighter. I want to change that. Here's an idea as to how. I propose the implementation of a new combat skill, "tactics." It has been suggested that two skills, "offensive" and "defensive" tactics would work better. I prefer one, but it's open for debate. Tactics would represent the shifting positions and constant maneuvering that takes place in melee combat. A skilled tactician would be able to position himself to his best advantage and use the terrain against his opponent. It also allows a warrior different degrees of "blocking" as part of a party or on his own. The tactics skill would allow its practitioners a few new abilities, as well as expanding and enhancing some old ones. 1) In a party, the protection of second row party members would be based on the tactics skill. Better tacticians would be able to protect more people, and protect them against a greater number of opponents. 2) When fighting against a party, tactics would allow a fighter to attempt to bypass first row opponents, and directly engage the second row. The number of opponents in row 1 and each opponent's tactics skill would both affect the difficulty for this. Even on a successful bypass of row 1, the attacking fighter would be at a disadvantage to parry the row 1 opponents he circled past, as they would now effectively be "behind" him. 3) The more row 1 blockers there are, the less chance there would be of someone penetrating to row 2, even before tactics was taken into account. Tactics would merely enhance this defense or allow a single attacker more chance of slipping through. A single fighter with master tactics would be able to walk right through a wall of 5 falcons, but would run up against a problem when trying to do the same thing against 5 fighters with above average tactics. 4) Combatants' tactics skills would be checked to determine bonus or penalty to the "parting blow" when an opponent retreats a rank. 5) Row 1 fighters would gain the <guard> command (syntax: "guard <name>"), which would be used to physically interpose himself between a ranged attack (like thrown or GFB) and a row 2 party member. When this command was used, tactics would be tested vs the attacker's skill and, if successful, the guarding fighter would be automatically struck by any ranged attacks directed at his protected, even if that attack would normally have missed. Furthermore, any ranged attacks initiated by the guarded party member would stand a decent chance of striking the first row guardian (modified by tactics and the attack skill of the guarded). 6) Tactics skill would allow a fighter to back himself into a corner or position himself in a doorway so as to limit the number of opponents who might engage him at one time. Thus, a skilled Tactician might be able to kill a group of 15 ants four or five at a time, rather than all at once. There's been some comment that this ability is too close in function to split defense, which is understandable, so I'd like to clarify. Split defense governs how well you defend yourself against 2 or more folks, all of whom are swinging at once. This would actually limit how many attack you at one time. It's ridiculous, for example, for Ramik to not know to put his back to a corner to limit how many enemies can engage him at one time...yet time and again I have upwards of 10 ratmen pounding on my hide, all at once. At times like that, SD is useless. Tactics would not be. 7) The blocking of exits would be skill and attribute based, rather than just attribute based as it is now. The higher the tactics skill (with size factored in heavily) the more likely an exit will be blocked totally. Higher tactics skills would allow extra shots or bonuses to hit when someone tries to run through a block, and would allow an escaping fighter more of a chance to slip by unscathed. Tactics would be mostly Int based, with Agility playing a large part in its effectiveness. Int because "tactics" is a largely theoretical study, involving thinking your way ahead of the enemy. Agility because, regardless of your grasp of tactical theory, you still must be able to perform the required actions quickly and effectively. Weighting Int more heavily into this equation, I believe, would encourage a more diverse racial base for Dartmud's warriors, as Rowans and Elves would have a distinct advantage (in this area) over a dumb (but stronger and tougher) Orc or Catfolk. Eddard disagrees, and I'm sure he'll post about it. As far as a method for learning tactics, I propose that tactics work like learning fighting, strictly from experience, with the caveat that the experience must be vs. a partied group. I believe this, along with basing aptitude on int, would slow learning sufficiently so as to make abuse difficult. Eddard, ever wary of loopholes, has suggested that these abilities be granted not as a new skill, but rather as a function of a player's total number of fighting skill points, requiring a fighter to achieve a high level of skill overall in order to gain skilled tactical knowledge. I leave the issue open to debate. Okay…that's my proposal. I think most of these are good ideas, although I don't know how hard they'd be to implement. Eddard and I have discussed them quite a bit IC, and we've had some IC feedback from Merkle, too. On Raven's site, Fergus, Gimli, Phylogeny, Usthonque, Jin, Spiffy, and a fellow calling himself Rivera have all helped with comments and suggestions. Anyone who's interested in checking out the ongoing debate should go to http://www.surfon.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000008.html. I'd like to keep any new comments and further discussion here in the mud though. Thank you for your consideration, Ramik, The Decorated Landshark Champion |
| 122: [May 25 2000] Re: New Combat Skill Proposal: Tactics (Jin) |
| I think that this is a great idea. The implimentation of more new fighting code is sorely lacking. I understand that spell research is also on hold or at least slowed currently, but Fighters have little more than the same 14-16 skills that they have had for some time now to work with. I have also heard that the fighting code is cumbersome and difficult to say the least. This is why ideas such as this are so great. Even if it is determined that the skill cannot be written, perhaps the incorporation of this idea into an existing skill is possible. The same argument that is made for longswords being more desirable than katanas and the erasure of kimonos is the same here. It is not acurate historically or even to the medival fantasy theme that Dartmud is home to. To assume that 2 fighters who are as good as any who have ever lived cannot break the ranks of a party compiled of people of a much lower knowledge in warcraft is just silly. And to assume that those two fighters, even if not breaking ranks, couldn't realize and communicate to each other to split attackers in stead of having all of row one focus one one while the other remains unmolested is also just silly. An idea such as this renews most players enjoyment of their fighters and can deepen the possible scope of combat in many ways that would be wonderful. Just my humble opinion, PO Jin |
| 123: [May 26 2000] Re: Tactics (Taicre) |
| I like the idea of a tactics skill. I also think the attributes (int and agi) that would determine aptitude and usage are the right ones. The only problem I see with that is that it further unbalances racial fighting capabilities, since spyders are already the top of the fighter 'food chain.' Even taking that problem into consideration, I still think the addition of a tactics skill would be a good idea. I'm also happy to see something that looks like it will be a decent continuing discussion on this board. |
| 124: [May 27 2000] Split Defense (Katkt) |
| Overall, I like Ramik's suggestions. I would, of course, do them slightly differently than he suggest. I also think they should generally be implemented making use of existing skills, rather than a new skill. Each of them falls under one fighting skill or another to me already. Usually "fighting". I've given a fair amount of thought to his final suggestion regarding split defense, and this is how I would like to see it implemented. The "cover" change could be made separately from the other changes, since cover is likely to be hard. Given the mud's tacit assumption that every room is a wide open space, and people move around freely within that space, split defense mostly works. However, that assumption is wrong. I think split defense should work like this instead: Whenever you attempt to engage a new opponent who is already engaged with at least one other opponent, you have to make a fighting check to succeed. This check represents your ability to maneuver yourself into a position where you are able to attack, opposed by your opponents ability to keep his currently opponents "in your way". The opponents cover (see below), number of people engaged with him already, and his split defense skill relative to the fighting skill of people already engaged with him all make this check harder (a good opponent will tie you down so you can't control where you are and who else can engage you. A bad opponent you can maneuver into the way of people trying to attack you. Your fighting skill makes this check easier, as do any movement penalties (missing legs) suffered by the opponent. This skill check should be optimized so that, in a room without cover, with no movement penalties roughly 5 opponents of skill equal to mine are able to engage me, and as few as two opponents if I am really good, and they are not very good. 3 or 4 opponents of equal skill might be more realistic, but 5 is more playable, I think. In a room with cover, you can occupy a position of cover. It requires an action on your part to occupy cover, because there are some penalties associated with it. When you are in a position of cover, your split defense becomes much less important in determining how many people can engage you, and the size of the cover becomes more important. The smaller the cover, the fewer people who can engage you. Each exit from a room is a position of cover with a size equal to the exit size by default (this default can be overridden). Each room has no other cover by default, but can have additional cover added to it. When you attempt to occupy a position of cover, there is a check to see if you succeed, based on a comparison of your size, the cover size, and the size of the people already occupying the cover. When you are in a position of cover, you get some penalties when attacking because you are staying in the cover and not moving to attack to your best ability. These attack restriction don't apply to other people who are occupying the same cover you are. You can attack them freely with no penalty. For people outside your cover, however, you get a penalty when attacking them. They are harder to hit and you do less damage. Furthermore, you can only attack people who are attacking you. When you are in a position of cover, there are restrictions on your ability to leave the room. If the cover is an exit, you can only leave through that exit. If the cover is not an exit, you can not leave the room without first abandoning your cover. Exit cover and blocking. There is a similarity between blocking an exit and occupying that exit as cover. When you block an exit, you should automatically attempt to occupy it as cover. Even if you can't occupy it as cover, you can still block it (but you aren't blocking anyone who *is* occupying it as cover). However, you get the same penalties when blocking an exit that you get when occupying an exit as cover, but none of the benefits. You are standing in the open next to the exit, blocking the way. Katkt |
| 125: [May 27 2000] Blocked exits. (Taicre) |
| I think it would make things more interesting if a person blocking an exit could be attacked from the other side at a hefty bonus. |
| 126: [May 27 2000] re:Split Defense byKatkt (Talahaski) |
| Very well put Katkt. Only a few things I would like to add. Rooms type should influence the max number of people who can attack you at once. Therefor, if you are in a hex, you can be faces with a large party, but if your in an inside room, that number should be reduced. In addition, if you are in a tiny UD room where you have to stoop over or crawl, then the number of opponants able to attack you at once should be limited. In addition to room size, opponent sizes should make a difference too. For example, if you are in the open plains hex if you are a size 100 human, being attacked by 10 Ogres would be insane because there just is not enough room for 10 ogres to get around your body and swing at you. But, 10 or so size 20 halflings could very well circle you and all be able to swing at you at the same time. As for cover, any object within the room should be able to be a possible cover. It would be based on size of the object and size of the fighter trying to find cover. For example a size 100 human could find cover behing a loom or mill which may be in the room. But a size 250 braman would have trouble using that loom as cover. In the same respect, a tiny size 15 halfling may be able to find cover behind the Anvil in the room. Talahaski |
| 127: [May 28 2000] Re: blocked exits (Katkt) |
| I agree, Taicre. But given the discreet nature of space on the mud, I thought that any sort of code allowing people in one room to effect another room would be prohibitively difficult to implement in such a way that it added to the mud more than it detracted. Really to do that sort of thing well, I think you would need some sort of continuous space mapping, and attempting to implement that on DM would be doomed to failure. Katkt date |
| 128: [Jun 04 2000] Re: New Combat Skill Proposal: Tactics (Raven) |
I was planning on not replying to this mess, but I guess I will. On my web board, Ramik wrote: > the creators seem to have the time and resources > to totally rework magic into a sphere system to > add variety and color...you'd think they wouldn't > mind focusing on combat a little, considering it > needs help so much more. Do you see this happening? The sphere system was the wild idea of a lone creator, who hasn't coded anything that I'm aware of in over 2 years, and certainly has never coded anything resembling a major system. To reiterate what Desla has frequently said in response to these kind of requests, the creators here are unpaid volunteers and for the most part, tend to code things on the basis of whim. Before anybody suggests applying for creatorship with the sole aim of tackling the combat code, let me Just Say No right now. If the combat code is going to be rewritten, it'd have to be done by .... people who have the proven experience and ability to understand major systems in this game, and to actually complete a project on said systems without breaking too much stuff in the process. Now, some thoughts about the combat code: The combat code is 2200 lines by itself, without considering the weapons code and the bodyparts/health code. It has about 3 comments in the whole thing. I doubt if even the people who wrote it, actually know how it works. Every time someone even looks sideways at it, we end up with complaints for the following six months, and posts like this: >In the past, fighters were much more able to handle combat siduations. >Even now a fighter who has obtained mastery (agaawel) of all combat >skills is merely a shadow of the old warriors." for the following seven years. If the primary purpose of changing the combat code is so that a party of falcons is less effective than a trained fighter, then why did we have to mess with the combat code, when we could more easily have nerfed falcons? My suggestion is, if you want a Dartmud-like combat system which has been completely revamped and supposedly allows for mounted combat, tactics, and whatever else, that's what Accursed Lands was built with the intention of doing. accursed.org 8000 If, however, deep down inside, you actually do like Dartmud, and you don't want us to screw it up and piss off all the current players, don't ask us to rewrite combat. Here's another suggestion. If you think the mages have too much power, kill them, and keep killing them until the spells you dislike go underground. That would be roleplaying. That would be a revolution. That would save us the trouble of a pwipe. -Raven |
| 129: [Jun 04 2000] That said, (Raven) |
| That's how I really feel about it. However, it seems like what you really want is for us to look at the way parties, rows, ma, and sd work or don't work, and I guess that is something that would be reasonable to look at and potentially tweak. R. |
| 130: [Jun 04 2000] Mages, are you reading this? (Raven) |
| Sounds to me like they basically want us to nerf your falcons. Remember that NPCs use the same combat code as PCs, so if we make it so Ramik can more easily fight off a pack of ratmen, that means that pitfiends will also be more easily able to wreck your falcons... |
| 131: [Jun 05 2000] A mage's (long winded) point of view (Veia) |
| Well ok so I've played a fighter too and am dying to see what it's like if combat actually gets tweaked. I mean hell I stopped playing my fighter for ages cuz it's just so damn boring sitting there staring at some npc for hours trying to squeeze out imps. Whereas with magic I can sit anywhere and practice, usually managing to practice 2 things at once (i.e. low aura spell + charging pass). Yeah it'd be a shitload of effort to beef up combat but creators around here are supposed to care whether the players actually have fun and not constantly think about "oh gee I haven't done today's crossword yet" or something. I mean, the less fun we have here, the less we'll want to play, and the more all the creators will have to pay attention to their real lives and realize how much life sucks. :P That said, I think it'd give mages a kick in the pants if they couldn't just run up to some critter with a few falcons and boom it's dead. I mean what's the point in improving your skills endlessly just to find nothing that challenges them? It's like being the best skiier in the world and living in Florida or something. You have all these big badass skills and nothing to bother using them for other than kicking out some self-absorbed mage from his tower. And maybe a little challenge would make people stick together more instead of nipping at each other's heels going "Hey I'm better than you are" or trying to squeeze every last little piece of advantage out of anything that happens no matter how ridiculous. Ok I know there's gonna be a lot of comments about this post but try to keep death threats to a minimum. :P -V- |
| 132: [Jun 05 2000] Re: A mage's point of view (Raven) |
--- Veia wrote: > Yeah it'd be a shitload of effort to beef up combat but > creators around here are supposed to care whether the > players actually have fun --- We do care. What I'm saying is that no matter what we do to combat, the gripes it will generate will overpower whatever praise it may draw by a factor of 100 to 1. Basically, I'm looking for someone to convince me that what they want us to do to it will be a boon to fighters without causing all the mages to go sulk. |
| 133: [Jun 05 2000] re: sulking makes (Ophirphagus) |
| FWIW, I won't sulk. Although I should admit that I'm not a lsa addict. :-) |
| 134: [Jun 08 2000] Perhaps another approach. (Jin) |
| I understand Raven's point. A small benefit to fighters and a large headache to mages only equal having to cope with too many unhappy people. Having to cope with it WHILE also not getting paid. I would not look forward to it either. Instead, perhaps just one generic code that could be adapted. It would not really have to tie into the fighting code enough to make it unmanageable. For example, say a command style action. Unlimited skills, player based and researched and coded much like spells. For instance, Disarm. Works like thrown in that it is a command and always has the same conc hit. A successful attempt will equal disarm 1 randomly chosen weapon other than a shield ( they are after all strapped on ) from the opponent specified. Now, not knowing much about coding, I will focus on the good points and bad points to players only. The main pro is that this opens the door for unlimited combat skills. It resurrects the idea of "house" skills and "guild" skills by letting players be creative and giving them the control of who learns the skills while always providing everyone the same base chance to learn a skill. That is, skills can be duplicated. THIS IS A KEY POINT! If my fighter sees your fighter disarm someone and thinks, "Hey, I could learn to do that." And then does the quest, the skill should have the capacity to be duplicated. Now for something as basic as disarm that would be easy for a player to specify to a creator almost exactly what another player specified. For more imaginative skills, like flurry, break (as in ranks of a party), etc. the effect may be similar but the effects on the character performing the action may be different. Also, skills with less obvious physical effects, like warchant or rage, would be almost impossible to duplicate exactly for player to player. Now some fighters may say that the skills would be useless as fighter skills if they didn't incorporate the existing fighting code. I disagree. I a player thinks the skill is useless than they do not have to learn it. Again, it is the player's choice. Putting the choice in the hands of the player almost but totally closes the door for valid complaints. Another great aspect is role-playing one. Creating a system that not only demanded one person complete a quest for the skill, but then too also granted that one person the skill open the door for a great number of "restricted" skills. The Fighter's guild has there own skills, the Houses each have there own skills. These can be the same skills or not. Created by the same players or not. The only thing keeping them "restricted", much as reincarnation used to be, are the players that have that skill and the ability for other player to watch them fight and create their own skills. The only caution I would offer is that I think whatever the quest is, existing or new, it should allow only one person at a time and the granting should be a flag on the character file, not a physical object such as a research crystal. The reasoning for this is that is a mage, thief, or fighters who doesn't want the skill for themselves completes the quest and the prize is a physical one, It can simply be given to someone else. If you wish to have your character sneak in and ambush his/her way through, or if you wish to enter and then summon 8 animals that are fine. The only downside is that you now have a skill. A fighting skills. That should deter mage abuse and with the right parameters in place also thieves with high ambush and hide. The important think to remember through al of this is that the point is not to make fighters the most powerful, or given them an unfair advantage, or even just create something that will severely disadvantage other classes. The point is to encourage imaginative role playing and character interaction with others as well as accommodating a player's desire for more fighting options. Just a few ideas. Jin |
| 135: [Jun 13 2000] as a fighter (Maia) |
| As a player let me say that I really like dartmud. It is fun, and shows constant growth which makes it more fun by the day. I like it the way it is, and I like looking foward to the next change. That said, there is only a couple of changes I can really wish for. For fighters of course, since I personally like the concept of fighters and believe that fighters should be as fantastic and glorified as, if not more than mages. If there was a way of adding a few words to parrying, depending on how well an attack was parried (if the code allows this). Like if a great fighter were parrying some animal: fighter casually parries animals teeth with... or if a terrible fighter were parrying: Fighter barely parries animal's teeth with... If that's just not possible, then oh well. What I really want and really want the creators to seriously consider, is the ability for fighters to research techniques like mages research spells. I don't think there is a fighter in the mud who wouldn't want this. As a fighter, If i were to have my own fighter technique, let me say It will be mine! and mine alone! MAYBE if i liked another character well enought he or she may learn it as long as they would hoarde it as well. I say this because as a fighter, the only real pleasure is to be able to wreck things, BIG things, in new ways. I think that stands for just about every fighter deep inside. So what I'm asking for is that creators seriously look into this possiblily for fighters, ask players for input, and give feedback as to the feasablility of this happening. Even if it just weren't possible, at least I wouldn't have to keep my hopes up too long and I'd play on. thank you creators, this place is cool no matter what you may think. Maia |
| 136: [Jun 13 2000] Fighting techniques. (Ogma) |
| Seeing as spell research has been put on hold indefinitely for various reasons, it is highly unlikely that we will want to add more things for players to research. Ogma |
| 137: [Jun 13 2000] Not Unheeded (Raven) |
| I don't want anyone to get their hopes up, but I have been toying with a scheme which could potentially address some of these concerns. The bad news is that everytime I start to look at the old code, I get a headache so fast... So we're not ignoring you, but the fact remains that any change to fighting would be a major undertaking, i.e., it stinks like a week old corpse. |
| 138: [Jun 14 2000] Maia (Veia) |
| Hrm, hoarding skills. Don't mages get bitched out for that? -V- |
| 139: [Jun 14 2000] re:Maia (Kythalus) |
| Of course they do, but it certainly does add another layer to the basic "learn the skills" game here in dartmud. Kythalus |
| 140: [Jun 14 2000] Stuff (Ramik) |
| First off, thank you Raven, for looking at the code. I've heard so many horror stories over the years about what a dog it is, I really appreciate the effort you're putting in. Of course, no change will be without its opponents, but I have faith that you creator-types know what you're doing. Second, Jin and Maia: I really like your ideas, and they've been brought up before. If the code turns out to be just too twisted to fix, "performable actions" like Jin suggests might be the way to go. I believe something like thrown would involve the actual combat code less than trying to add a whole new "integrated" skill, so it might be more likely. Maia, I love and always have loved the idea of fighter skill research. As Ogma says, all research is on hold right now, but we can hope that if it starts back up for mages, it might be considered for us as well. Last, Kyth and Veia: I think the solution to skill hoarding, for both mages and fighters, is to allow more than one person to research the same skill or spell, as Jin proposed. The second, third, etc... person to research would be charged half again or double the charge to the original researcher, to represent that their idea wasn't an original one. Thus it would be very difficult and costly but not _impossible_ to duplicate research. After all...if I SEE someone use a polearm, I could probably figure out how given enough time. As an added bonus, this might get a few neato spells back into circulation that have been hidden away for a while...Deepen, anyone? ---Ramik ps. I'm really damn thrilled that you're actually looking at the code, Raven. To tell the truth, I though this whole campaign was doomed from day 1. Heh. |
| 141: [Jun 30 2000] Regarding 120 (Tailchaser) |
| As regards to note 120, Pelidor repopping i am in full agreement with this idea. The longer time between reboots makes this even more necessary. Pelidor is an excellent training tool for higher level fighters and his presence in the town also makes the higher level fighters availabe for emergency's. As no one has opposed this idea iwould ask that Pelidor be allowed to repop if killed prior to reboot. I myself have found it necessary to wait during the shorter reboots and lost alot of training time without him present. Please allow this repop of Pelidor as it will be a great benefit to all the higher level fighters. Thank you for your time, Fritti Lightfoot A.K.A. Tailchaser |
| 142: [Sep 12 2000] Pelidor Compromise (Raven) |
No repopping, because I kind of like having him valuable enough to not be slaughtered constantly. However, if you maim him, he will now pick up his sword and shield if you get him healed. R. |
| 143: [Sep 13 2000] Re: Pelidor Compromise (Ramik) |
| Raven, you da man. Any change is an improvement where Peli is concerned. ---Ramik |
| 144: [Sep 14 2000] New thrown stuff (Ogma) |
| Just to round out the list of ranged weapons a little, I've added some new thrown weapons: throwing axe chakhram and shuriken. Ogma |
| 145: [Sep 14 2000] Re: Ogma's new thrown stuff. (Ramik) |
| That's really cool Ogma, thank you. ---Ramik |
| 146: [Mar 11 2001] spears (Jaikhan) |
| Is is possible to get a spear skill? We can make them. Historically a superior weapon in so many ways. Easy to make and use. Deadly. A great stand-off weapon. An excellent mounted weapon. Orcs seem to love them. -Jaikhan |
| 147: [Mar 17 2001] re (Dimstar) |
| spears. I believe that they fall under hafted skill. |
| 148: [Mar 18 2001] Re: re (Khebemn) |
| No they don't. They fall under the disabled polearm skill. |
| 149: [May 15 2001] combat (Ramik) |
| Okay, understanding that this is _IN_NO_WAY_ a bitch or complaint, I was wondering how things were progressing with the new combat code (see note 137). No doubt everyone has their plates full with all sorts of other stuff, but I'd appreciate a status report of some sort if possible. Thanks in advance, Ramik |
| 150: [Jul 18 2001] Aim (Myth) |
| I believe that Aim Blows needs to be upgraded. There are two reasons. First, if I am hitting something that is standing completely still and not hitting back, I still have trouble hitting the aimed at bodypart. (This was evident in the target dummies when they were still attackable.) The second reason is that I have the same amount of trouble hitting the aimed-for bodypart if I'm fighting a skilled orc warrior or a very unskilled rat. My proposal is this: If the target is not defending with any part then it is much more likely that you hit them on the aimed-for bodypart. Secondly, aim should becomes more effective the higher the skill difference between yourself and your opponent. If you are more skilled, you should hit the aimed-for part more often, and vice versa. -Myth's Player |
| 151: [Jul 18 2001] re aim (Lateralus) |
| also i think 'aim blows' allows you to hit the aimed body part much harder than you normally would |
| 152: [Jul 20 2001] Re: Aim (Katkt) |
| Remarks on the anonymous board aside, I agree with Myth. Aim is underpowered. It does have some effect, but less than it ought to, and it's certainly not overpowered as it is. We should upgrade it to make it useful. I propose doing that in two ways. First, make it work the way it does now, but about 150%-200% as effective. Second, add an additional flag to aim, so that you can specify that you only want to hit the body part that you are aiming at, and have a fighters aim reduce his damage whenever he would normally be hitting a different body part. To clarify that last point, if a fighter is aiming exclusively at the right hand, his chance of swinging to hit the right hand would be the same as if he were aiming non-exclusively at the right hand, but whenever he swung somewhere other than the right hand, the damage that he did would be reduced, hopefully so much that his opponent would parry the blow succesfully. That way a competent fighter who wants to harm but not kill someone can attack them with their aim set to "only right hand", or some such, and be reasonably confident of not actually killing them (only destroying their right hand :-) A number of other uses of the ability to just hit one bodypart, even if it means you hit less frequently, come to mind.... Katkt |
| 153: [Jul 24 2001] Armor weight? (Katkt) |
| I think the resolution to Maia's armor concern is to make there be a composite suit of "human plate" (or general "normal-shape plate armor"), that has a weight discount, similar to the discount that spyder plate gets. Katkt |
| 154: [Sep 02 2001] idea worth not putting on general idea board (Pathos) |
| ok er uh yeah how about a tweak, or an update to fighting when and if fighting is ever changed, for better or worse lets say you are fighting a troll, he carries a huge axe and a shield you are holding an axe and a shield as well no matter if you could easily pummel him into dirt, lets say... he knows how to use that axe his knowledge of your combined 'tactics' allows him to avoid your attacks more easily now, if you were to use a sword.. and even if the troll has 1000 imps in sword, he is not using a sword so he wouldnt be effectively using sword tactics to avoid your swings with your powerful deadly sword this would help to train higher, for some weapons and also help to avoid some hits anyone get what i am saying? pathos |
| 155: [Sep 02 2001] Re: idea? (Ogma) |
| Um no. It a) has no basis in real combat, b) is a pointless tweak and c) unneccessary to get fighting skills to high levels. |
| 156: [Sep 02 2001] snap (Pathos) |
| 157: [Jan 16 2002] Snap (Mosiah) |
| Fighter skill neck snapping :P why not, a non anonymous way of killing besides metal swiming or throwing and fits the bill for fighters. -Player |
| 158: [Jan 21 2002] snap (Louie) |
| I tottaly agree with Mosiah. I think assasins should have more freedom to express their personality ! I mean , you hide , get out of hiding and bang a guy in the head as hard as you can ! Now , you tell me , where is the originality in that. I would love to use some needles , to stab one into the heart , or maybe neck snapping , pressure points that would temporarily paralize someone , maybe you could throw dust into someone's eyes to temporarily blind him , different poisons that would modify his starts ... and i could go on and on .... I know some ideeas can't be implemented , some might be usable with some modiffications .. but all require a bit of will twards it from the creators part! What is the reason to all this , you could ask ? I mean why to add new ways to kill people , like there haven't been enough people dead .. Well , instead of having one method that if succeed would lead to certain death ... i belive that is better to have many methods that are less damaging , meaning , one person couldn't kill someone using just obne method. This way , originality might appear .. some people will chouse to use a certain combination of methods to get the job done. Plus , this would also lead to cooperation between assasins .. :) Also that would make very hard for one person to have his/her "little war" ! Hell , thats about all i can think about is right now .. this post probably will be ignored by creators :) , like all my posts previously were ... *chuckle* .. but what one can do other than keep trying ... who knows , maybe i'll get smarter along the way and acctualy make a point .. Player of Louie |
| 159: [Mar 22 2002] Neck snapping and combat (Lachoneus) |
| I think the idea of neck snapping (along with all the other forms of assasination) are good ideas. While Dartmud has had years of life (thanks to dedicated creators), it has never had a high enough player base to warrant "epic battles" between two full Houses. Rather, our player base here is ideal for squirmishes and assasination attempts. That said, I also believe in skill caps, warring between Houses, a skewed economy in favor of the players, more spells for players (yea, even a plethora of spells), a general library of ALL the spells in the game, a revised combat system (no one wants to take that on) where various "moves" or styles are taught/learned and integrated into combat. But finally and most strongly... I feel our skills and spells should be learnable fairly quickly, that our new players be able to enter the game of thrones that has been a part of this game since castles were implemented. +Lachoneus+ |
| 160: [Mar 24 2002] Re: Last multitude of ideas. (Kaiote) |
| You forgot the bit about replacing all the code with a message that repeats every 5 minutes: * You are extremely smart and talented. * New players can join the game of thrones once they know enough about the game. Your proposals would basically turn everyone into the same combination of skills (all) at the same capped level and with huge bank accounts. No thanks. |
| 161: [Mar 24 2002] Thanks, Bromri (Lachoneus) |
| After a good talk with Bromri, I've decided to recind all the suggestions I've made above. I am obviously wanting to play a different game than Dart is, has been and ever will be... at least for my liking. Good luck to the rest of you and may you find happiness here... or at the very least, gleeful slaughter of your enemies :) +Lachoneus+ ps - Kaiote, eat my underrobes! |
| 162: [Mar 26 2002] from the last ideas (Maia) |
| I AM in favor of a total reworking of the combat engine. From what I understand, it's currently a mess, making it almost impossible to add new features and restricting creators to a very narrow range of tweaking. If enough players are willing to have this, maybe a creator is willing to pick it up? Yes, I suppose combat "works" as it is. But a lot can be gained from revamping fighting. - specialization: I am all for fighters who have to concentrate in one area of martial discipline. Fighters are currently all super warriors who can learn all forms of weapons and techniques easily. I would rather have difficulties learning one style of combat from another. It may limit me, but it would make each fighter more defined. - fighting styles: From what I understand about DM fighting, it's all strength. Once you have the skill to hit, it's all about how big and strong you are. You will never have the unarmored (or lightly armored) agility fighter. Mobility is key in fighting, and it is much easier to run away from incoming attacks than it is to stand there with the guts and skill to parry. - use of different weapons: Barring a few who saw the need to use a certain weapon to distinguish "a look", there are obvious "optimal weapons" in the game. If fighting and damage were changed, there may be a reason to use a rapier over a longsword or katana. - armor: currently you need to bust through it to kill your opponent. The option is not there to slide a blade into an open or less protected area. Since not everyone is wearing interlocking articulated plate, this shouldnt be unfeasable. Of course it would take a certain type of fighter to accomplish something like that. If there are fighters who can find a hole in your armor, maybe everyone will stop wearing full steel plate everywhere and be light enough to dodge. - dodge: a fighter who can't dodge is a dead fighter, or should be. If you fought an opponent with half your skill right now without a shield, you're likely to get your head lopped off. It seems strange to me that skilled warriors need to have a shield (or something to parry with) in one hand in order to feel safe. Hell I can parry most people's swords with a blade of grass if I had one in my hand, isn't that silly? I should get out of the way. It would add a new dimension to combat in DartMUD. Agility would matter. The best fighter will no longer be the aggy fighter who body changed into a braman. There's much more but I'll spare you all. These are simply old ideas I'm bringing up again because I'm bored. It may be inpractical to undertake a revamp of combat now, but goddammit it needs to be done sometime. I hope other players of fighters agree. I'm just spiteful of the lack of depth combat has in the game when contrasted to the overall depth of everything else. pisses me off. -Maia |
| 163: [Mar 26 2002] Combat rework (Ramik) |
| I agree in essence with your note, Maia...combat needs a reworking, and badly. However, I also recognize that there are simply too few active coders to spend much time on it. It seems as thought every 6 months to 1 year this issue comes up, is discussed, everyone agrees on the solutions, and we're told "we'd love to fix it, but we're not sure how, and we have neither the time nor manpower to figure out how." I seem to recall that Raven said at one point that he would try to take a look at the combat code, but I'm not sure what, if anything, has come of that. Raven? I guess my opinion can be summed up as "Yay fixing combat code! Boo harassing already overworked creators until they get pissed and delete us all out of spite." ---Ramik |
| 164: [Mar 26 2002] I like it, but... (Kakkt) |
| given how long it would take to do, and how little else could happen at the same time, it would be like an elementary school buying a bus, it would be stupid for like 20 years before they saved any money. I am all for getting the system changed, but I dont want our creators pouring over it, and it alone for months and years player of kakkt |
| 165: [Mar 27 2002] Reworks (Tzven) |
| Careful what you wish for, you may recieve it. If you think the whining when ambush, or any other skill for that matter, was revamped, can you imagine the moaning a small change to the combat system would garner? -Tzven, guilty of whining and bitching of other changes. |
| 166: [Mar 27 2002] Re: Reworks (Ramik) |
| I think the difference, Tzven, is that in the past, the people calling for the reworks of various skills (ambush being the most notable) were not generally the people who posessed those skills. That is...the ambush change was about people shouting "save us from the big bad ambushers" not the ambushers shouting "expand our skill to add variety and realism." Of course, that's not to say there wouldn't be complaints and whining, but it's a very different thing to have a system changed and expanded to make fighters more interesting (even if it lowers the overall power) and to have a system changed _specifically_ to lower the power level, without any concomitant expansion. One is a rework, the other's a nerf. ---Ramik |
| 167: [Mar 27 2002] Revamping and all that (Iemz) |
| Just a random thought: I dont know how the combat code works, and as far as my programming skills go.. well whether or not you call it 'skill' is debatable.. So I dont know if this would actually be beneficial, but maybe if some of you got together and drew up an outline, or maybe even some pseudo-code about the features your after, the creators might be a little more inclined to play with it. Give em something to work with besides, 'Id like to see this, this, and this.' Course some of you may have already done that for all I know. Just my two.. iron pieces? Iemz |
| 168: [Mar 31 2002] Revamping and all (Mosiah) |
| Heh I remember one day when flandor decided to look at the combat code.......how long was the mud down for again? -M. |
| 169: [Apr 25 2002] Combat mods? (Katkt) |
| I don't think the combat code on Dartmud needs a sweeping rewrite. Dartmud combat is really surprisingly deep and subtle if you really take a look at it carefully. It handles a tremendous variety of situations, and for the most part it handles them reasonably well. I think it should work differently in places, of course, but that's practically guaranteed in any system this complex. To some extent, the problem with Dartmud combat is that it does all these things quietly, behind the scenes, in a way that it's very hard to tell what is happening. And while it's possible to figure out a lot about combat in game with experimentation, it's much harder than it ought to be. Most of the changes recently proposed have some merit, but I think working them into the existing framework is a better approach than creating a new framework in which to put them. All of that said, there are some changes I would like to see. More posts follow. -- Katkt |
| 170: [Apr 25 2002] Other people's allocs (Katkt) |
| Most importantly, I think you should be able to get some information about the fighting style people around you are using. It should be possible to know if an opponent is aiming at your head (and spending a lot of effort at it), or that they aren't using any daring, or ... I propose that the show combat allocation command be modified so that you can use it on someone else, provided you can see them and that they are fighting. You should not get perfect information when looking at someone elses allocs, of course. The better your fighting skill, the better your information, the better their fighting skill, the worse. If the skills are equal, the information you get should be within about 30-40% of right. There should also be some (very rough) indication of how good the information you are getting is: Examples: show combat allocation:all eddard You really can't tell very much from watching this master warrior left hand: bonus: 102 daring: 74 speed: 90 aiming: 100 parry: 34 control: 22 null: 81 right hand: bonus: 12 daring: 7 speed: 9 aiming: 10 parry: 29 control: 16 null: 12 (notice that the numbers don't necessarily add up to 300) show combat allocation:all sasha You know exactly what this simpleton is doing left hand bonus: 100 daring: 100 speed: 100 aiming: 0 parry: 0 control: 0 null: 0 right hand bonus: 0 daring: 0 speed: 0 aiming: 0 parry: 150 control: 150 null: 0 I think this change is worthwhile primarily because it makes combat more interesting, and exposes more involvement in exactly what is going on to the players. I don't think it would be damaging in that it would expose too much information, or that it exposes information in an unrealistic way, provided a reasonable algorithm for disguising the allocs of a much better fighter can be found. -- Katkt |
| 171: [Apr 25 2002] Strength and agility (Katkt) |
| I agree with Maia that strength is too important. I disagree with Maia about agility -- I believe it already has a substantial effect on fighting. It's just hard to see what's going on with agility, because it's hard to find two situations that are the same except for the agility of one involved party. I agree with Maia about the effect of armor on agility. I propose that strength be downgraded to work in much the same way (and to much the same extent) that agility does. I propose that carrying lots of weight should reduce your agility, so that when you are fully laden your agility is roughly half of your unladen agility. It does make sense realistically (you can't do anything that requires agility as well if you are heavily laden). It does provide a new means to manipulate your allocs through agility, but there are other ways to manipulate your agility already, and making fully weight only half your agility limits the effectiveness of that. -- Katkt |
| 172: [Apr 25 2002] Details (Katkt) |
| Someone suggested that change suggestions be accompanied by pseudo-code. That might be a bit too much, but the theory is sound. A very well thought out proposal that is presented in detail is much more likely to get implemented than a general suggestion about a different way to approach things. -- Katkt |
| 173: [Apr 25 2002] Questions for Maia (Katkt) |
| Maia, about fighting styles, specialization, and use of different weapons. It's not clear to me what you mean. You can already specialize - by choosing only one weapon, and by specializing in particular alloc skills. It's definitely not a perfect system, but I'm not sure what you could do to it to make it better. How, exactly, would you have it work differently? Allocs are supposed to mimic fighting styles, I believe. It's definitely not a perfect system, but I'm not sure what you could do to it to make it better. How, exactly, would you have it work differently? Using different weapons. Different weapons do have different strengths and weaknesses. I think the problem, really, is that "offensive" is too powerful, and the weapons that are optimal for use with offensive are therefore the "optimal" weapons you referred to. [ this is a complex topic, and I have to go to work. maybe I'll think about it later. ] -- Katkt |
| 174: [Apr 26 2002] Re. part1 (Maia) |
Well It was pretty late at night (early in the morning?) when I posted my last note, and it's around that time again so forgive me if I'm still not making much sense. What I mean by fighting styles is this: Although allocations and skills do try to mimic real combat, they're far too plastic. Yes, we(fighters) can and do specialize to an extent in that we tend to stick to a certain type of weapon and concentrate more on certain fighter skills over others. But we don't have to. A fighter can easily learn all weapons and all fighting skills to great (and I mean Great) degree, many do. Allocations can and are easily changed on the spot Although this does make fighting skilled opponents strategic to those who know how to manipulate allocs, and is currently what saves our fighting system from being bland. What lacks in our fighting system is the depth that real combat has. What I mean by style is this: When you observe a skilled swordfight, you can gather a lot from it. As you've said Katkt, you can understand what they are trying to do, where they are aiming and so on. You can tell what school of martial combat they studied under. Many unique and stylized schools of combat exist and the fact that each of those has the same depth history and skill is what draws people to "fighting". -Maia |
| 175: [Apr 26 2002] Re. part2 (Maia) |
How can Dartmud mimic this? I don't really know. No mud I have ever seen has viewed combat in more light than simply the means to kill an enemy. Every weapon in existance has at least half a dozen unique and different methods of utilizing that weapon. Each is an art form in its own right. A start would be to limit fighters, Though this makes fighters less effective. To learn a single weapon in a single way could take a lifetime. If a fighter learned to use a katana two handed, spending all his or her energy working that up, he or she would be very skilled at it. But to learn to use a sabre one handed or even a greatsword is a whole new ball game. He or she may have the instincts for combat honed, but as far as ability with the weapon is concerned, its a start over from scratch. -Maia |
| 176: [Apr 26 2002] Re. part3 (Maia) |
Also changes concerning "optimal" fighter skills. What do fighters use now? a shield and a some variation of a longsword or katana, maybe a skinning knife. First of all, using a shield with a katana is the strangest thing I've heard of. Using a skinning knife as a devastatingly strong and fast weapon has always been a bug to me. There is no guarentee that sword and shield is a superior form of combat (though some SCA people may disagree). The weapons mentioned are used because they are either very fast, or they have the highest damage coefficient. Why different weapons have vastly different damage? I'm not sure. Someone decided a longsword hits harder than a rapier, which it does if you use it a certain way. Though they can both pierce your heart and kill you instantly with equal ease (the rapier might be a better choice in such a case) -Maia |
| 177: [Apr 26 2002] Re. part4 (Maia) |
So what can Dartmud do? Make all weapons effective in its own way. I know each weapon is has innate code concerning damage type and armor can resist certain damage types. But this code is not active. Making aim more effective and meaningful, with ability to target vital areas that can end a fight instantly or pierce through cracks in armor. Make specific weapons a different experience than another. If a fighter had to choose a certain weapon of a certain size to train in if sword skill was replaced with katana skill..and that fighter can only use what is a "katana" to him or her to full effectiveness...And fighters were limited to maybe 3 or 4 of these weapon "choices" to gain full mastery in. Change the allocation system completely. A fighter with only a rapier would have to split allocs between attack and defend. A fighter with 2 weapons can have one hand totally dedicated to attack and one totally to defend. This is vastly unreal. One handed fighting is amazingly effective, especially with a light weapon such as a rapier or epee. Two handed fighting is tremendously fast due to the levering action of the 2 hands and is obviously powerful. -Maia |
| 178: [Apr 26 2002] Re. part5 (Maia) |
Why Dartmud doesn't have the diversity in combat as the real world does is because the emphasis is on the defensive capabilities of the shield. Which is essential in warfare but sacrifices the mobility, agility and form that dueling may require. Shields in the real world are highly effective in doing what it can't do in Dartmud: block projectiles. Thrown and soon Archery will come out and they are not even really part of the fighting code. This is why Fighting needs to be rewritten. Because all the changes that would be cool to see to fighting will never come if fighting is not re-done. If fighting is re-done it will lose everything that makes fighting pleasurable as it is now. But it allows the opportunity to have a clean code in which creators can add new and cool things in seamlessly. That's what I'd really like to see from fighting. Way too long winded when tired. -Maia |
| 179: [Apr 26 2002] RE: weapons specialization (Ogma) |
| I have serious reservations about enforcing weapon specialization in code. I'm generally against limiting what people can learn. As for the various weapons....I've been attempting to balance them out a bit more, to make them all have different strengths and weaknesses. I recently tweaked broadswords to be usable. I'm looking at other weapons now. |
| 180: [Apr 26 2002] Another thing.... (Ogma) |
| I admit, two-handed styles really need some help. They should be usable in their own right and as effective as sword and shield or a two weapon style, not just used as a novelty style for practicing certain skills. |
| 181: [Apr 26 2002] Re: Weapons styles (Ramik) |
| Thanks for thinking about this and looking at it, Ogma...from day 1 here, all I've heard about combat code is how messed up it is, and I appreciate any time anyone tries to untangle it. ---Ramik |
| 182: [Apr 27 2002] Re: Part something... (Mosiah) |
| I kinda understand what you mean maia by the fighting being to plastic. I mean it's just there I always thought it needed some cosmetics to make it look a little better, perhaps a little blush here and there. I played on another mud that had their combat system redone, I didn't really like it when they redid it, they had weapon specializations now they don't and it kinda sucks but it works because they had mages specializing in longsword and and flails rather than the most usual mage weapons, the occasional dagger and the stereotypical staff. Ogma, I also agree with you on two-handed styles, a while back I messed around with a two-handed specialist but it's just lacking something and I can't put my finger on it. I don't know if I'm the one to comment on the fighting system because I have yet to break excellent skills fighting skills :P I dunno, perhaps get all the combat gurus in a room togather sometime with a couples creators and have a brain storming session rather than back and forth on the board.... -M. |
| 183: [May 01 2002] Commands (Mar) |
| I havent noticed any improve or attack difference from the 3 main ways to attack someone engage, attack, kill id really like to see something different about these 3 commands engage - to attack without the complete threat of wanting to kill, a command better used to spar and learn from a sparring partner. making engage target the better learning experience than the other two attack - to attack with warning by causing slight damage but never intending to kill, using this could temporarily improve attack bonus so long as they are not already tired kill - obvious enough to anyone.. to attack with severe rage and demolish the oponent, no real change other then the fact that you probally wont learn anything from doing it... (this command is seriously overused) just my open suggestion towards combat mostly since ive looked at these commands and used all of them..and want to see them separated some how and since no one else has posted anything about them comments always welcome... |
| 184: [Jun 10 2002] combat (Crack) |
| Is this how it works now?: Hafted---slower but more damage, vs. Sword---faster and less? This is how I always thought it worked, but I'd like to know for sure. As for 2h skills, it would make sense if your ability to parry were somewhat less than if you were just as skilled with shield, with the trade-off of being able to cause more damage with the bigger weapon. Again, this might already be the case, and it might sound stupid even bringing this up, but I really don't "know" anything for sure, never having been a creator. Thanks for any answers. |
| 185: [Jun 15 2002] :re combat (Quwe) |
| I don't know anything about combat, but I am guessing that the information you are asking is probably done by finding out yourself through experimentation or asking IC (like finding a mentor). Logic would suggest that what you are saying is true. Let's see if you are right. -Player of Quwe |
| 186: [Jun 17 2002] Re re combat (Crack) |
| I hear what you're saying, and my questions would seem to be almost stupid on their face, but without looking under the hood (or being told by someone who can ) there's no way of knowing for sure. Of course, this is probably exactly what the creators had in mind. We aren't supposed to know for sure how this sort of thing works. It'd just be nice to know if our intuition (most based on helpfiles) is right (or at least close.) |
| 187: [Jun 27 2002] Polearms (Mar) |
| I cant wait untill halberds are craftable... |
| 188: [Jul 03 2002] Control (Mar) |
| This is more of a complaint, but i dont want it to have devestating implications.. I find it soooooo easy to learn control that its next to unbearable! I can set my alloc for control down to 50 and STILL improve in it Is it because the NPCs I use to spar with have allocs that cause me to improve control constantly?! Setting the alloc to null will only cause me to get hit more! Mar mutters something about how easy it is to learn control. |
| 189: [Jul 03 2002] Re: Control (Raven) |
| I had that same problem as a mortal. Try setting it higher rather than lower. Or, get a teacher to teach you parry but not control. |
| 190: [Jul 03 2002] Re: Control (Phylogeny) |
| One other suggestion, if you haven't already done this: talk to an experienced fighter in character. You never know, maybe they've had the same problem and are willing to share a solution... Phylogeny, who might even have seen the same problem himself. |
| 191: [Jul 04 2002] re control (Mar) |
| yeah..raising it seemed not to work for awhile untill it went high enough to 180! sheesh, what a range control has... 50-180 im going to doubt seriously that parry (or any skill for that matter) has the range of control. |
| 192: [Jul 04 2002] re control (Blato) |
| Why would someone want to stop learning control? Why wouldnt I want as many control improves as I can get? I didnt think that it was a bad thing when you improve alot...am I wrong?? blato |
| 193: [Jul 06 2002] Re: control (Tesius) |
| If I'm not mistaken, Blato, control and parry should be around the same level. If one improves far beyond the other, it makes the one lagging behind harder to improve or catch up. I'm not speaking out of experience so I could be wrong. This is only what I've observed from hanging out with experienced fighters. p.o.t. |
| 194: [Jul 06 2002] re: control (Quwe) |
| it does not always work that way. It probably depends on your stats and race. Some warriors have problems learning control. Some warriors imp them evenly. |
| 195: [Jul 09 2002] Two-handed (Mar) |
| There seems to be a problem with two-handed weapons when you hold them in your hands properly you cant adjust the allocs on one hand! unless you hold the weapon in one hand and change them this must be a bad code in the combat area or bad coding in holding..but if one hand has to defend, and the other made to attack.... any suggestions? |
| 196: [Jul 10 2002] last (Arizel) |
| I think putting 1 speed on the defending hand will more or less fix this. Kind of a lame way to do it but I *think* it works, although it's been ages since I played a fighter so I could be wrong. |
| 197: [Jul 12 2002] Combat Mods (Raven) |
| 1. The mods you see are not yet complete... I needed to install what I had done, so we can work on other projects without messing stuff up. Patience. 2. Expect bugs and weirdness until the next reboot, if not longer. 3. Post your suggestions for hit message pairs here. (i.e. hit/with destructive force) The ones we have installed are just placeholders, and are kind of blah. R. |
| 198: [Jul 13 2002] combat hits (Perrin) |
| I was fighting Rye in Tobermore, and when I started hitting with my cestii, I started getting "You 0 Rye barely" instead of hit, I don't know if its a bug or not but thought I'd post it Perrin |
| 199: [Jul 13 2002] You 0 so-and-so (Raven) |
| That's going to happen until we reboot or kill off all the beasties, I'm afraid. |
| 200: [Jul 13 2002] Hit (Axeoth) |
| Bash with maul Slice with sword Pummel with fist Beat with stick/staff/club Cleave with axe! Axeoth the axemaster |
| 201: [Jul 13 2002] Hit 2 (Axeoth) |
| Smite with hammer/flail/maul Mangle " " Gash with sword/dagger/knife Cut " " Slash " " Stab " " I can't think of many things for Axes, but I'd like to see more than just Hacked and Chopped Axeoth the axemaster |
| 202: [Jul 14 2002] re: hit (Quwe) |
| Some swords cleave. |
| 203: [Jul 14 2002] re: hit (Sirio) |
| let's not forget rending and reaving :) |
| 204: [Jul 15 2002] hits (Perrin) |
| Alright we have hits for everything but brawling, what does brawling hit like? Perrin |
| 205: [Jul 15 2002] Archery (Mar) |
| Mar shoots Ogma with destructive force with his arrow! shoots for aroows? |
| 206: [Jul 15 2002] RE: Archery (Ogma) |
| Keep dreaming orcboy. |
| 207: [Jul 16 2002] Combat Damage Types (Vhack) |
| Since different weapons appear to hit differently, does this mean some armors would offer different protections against different weapons? For example, a heavy plate mail would provide great protection against swords and clubs, small daggers might be able to go through the plates to inflict full damage. Just curious, Vhack |
| 208: [Jul 16 2002] Attack descriptions (Flyte) |
| Maybe this is the wrong board per se, but I'd like to say the changes to the descriptive attacks seems great :) It's actually quite amusing to see a falcon pierce a creature's bodypart in a decent attack. (And yes, I have noticed for each attack type, there's several levels of attack. I really only noticed this with the animals I did get to summon, but beaks 'nick', 'pierce' and something else, dependant on the damage they do or similar. It's quite cute but I wholeheartedly approve of the more descriptive messages, even without the underlying code modification that hints at more profound interesting changes to come :) Flyte |
| 209: [Jul 17 2002] To the bone! (Mar) |
| No more destructive force! That sucks.. |
| 210: [Jul 17 2002] something of interest on offense (Gemtok) |
| how about instead of just "missing" or "barely hits" this if for pets that use thier heads for fighting... "technical miss" gets stunned by hitting a piece of armor wrong... can be a new use for 'stares blankly" during battle :) could also have for fighters .. hit wrong and hand or arm gets a stinger and is unable to swing for a few or drops his/her weapon. just some thoughts :) |
| 211: [Jul 18 2002] Re: Combat Damage Types (Raven) |
| Vhack wrote: >Since different weapons appear to hit differently, does this mean >some armors would offer different protections against different >weapons? Yes, and in fact that was the impetus behind the cosmetic changes you have seen thus far, although that particular effect is not quite fully installed yet. Look for it soon! R. |
| 212: [Jul 26 2002] Spiked Shield (Kuroryu) |
| Spiked shields need a new set of hits. Right now its still the same as the old ones. Perhaps the same set as Picks have? |
| 213: [Aug 06 2002] Re raven (Mosiah) |
| In a mud near you? -M. |
| 214: [Aug 11 2002] Ages ago (note 184, June 10 2002 by Crack) (Jherek) |
| Crack was asking if a) hafted was slower than sword, but potentially has higher damage b) is harder to parry with (in the two-handed version, that is) I can say for sure that parrying is harder - I currently have p/c at ootvb/hm, two-handed hafted at ootb, shield use expert, sword average. Sparring Tyca, I still can't defend myself well enough with thh to keep going more than 5-10 minutes, depending on how lucky she is with her aim (lately she's been uncanny in picking out and disabling my right hand :). With sword/shield, I can sit there and never get hit. I believe I can do more damage with thh, but I take more damage too. |
| 215: [Aug 13 2002] non weapon weapons (Kakkt) |
| if you were to hit someone with a boot or a salmon corpse I dont know what it would show now, but I have a few suggestions: smacks/slaps strikes bludgeons/crushes just because I think it would be funny to crush a giant bee with a boot. Player of kakkt |
| 216: [Aug 15 2002] Re: non weapon weapons (Thuvos) |
| I hope you can't still do an ambush with a salmon corpse, much less a strawberry or an egg. |
| 217: [Aug 18 2002] Balance thh vs ths vs sword/shield (Jherek) |
| Two-handed hafted is definitely weighted towards greater damage, but much poorer defence. Consider: Parry/control at HM/STN THH at Adept, THS at Excellent, Shield use Superb. Defending with shield in parrying hand, (and suitable allocs), Tyca simply doesn't hit me - everything is parried. However, with Aa sword skill, I can't hit her, no matter how high I put the allocs on the attacking hand. With THS, I parry around 50-60% of hits, and the ones that get through don't do much damage. On the other hand, I can hit Tyca, but only barely. With THH, I parry around 30-40% of hits, and I've finally reached the point where the damage heals quicker than I take it. On the bonus side, if I set the attack allocs high, I rip Tyca to pieces very quickly. Err, don't know if anyone cares about this sort of thing, but there it is anyway :) Jherek, just some orc. |
| 218: [Aug 20 2002] Grappling (Kuroryu) |
| Okay, here is a question. How is it possible for a human mage, no fighting skills, and no spell or alchemy augmentation, able to escape the 2 handed grapple of a very good orc fighter (VG fighting skill), with proficent brawling, on the very first attempt? My allocs were set to full attack with both hands, the human in question is not stronger than me, except maybe . by a single point. This human also had conc in the red or high yellow (at least Quite Dist). and was attacked by a well trained bobcat and a wolf at the same time. This human mage didn't hit me with any spells, did nothing but escape by moving on the first try. This seems VERY unbalanced. I have even spoken OOC about the mechanics of this with some people, and they agree. My reputation is now tarnished due to this attempt. I knew it was a risk when I did it. I had my reasons I will post IC and inform why. This is an OOC board. I just want to know how it is possible for this to happen. Or if it was a bug . Hopefully I won't be killed before an answer is given. thank you Catherine, player of Kuroryu |
| 219: [Aug 20 2002] Re: Grappling. (Phylogeny) |
| Yes, grappling has been weak for quite some time now; also note that VG and proficient are not 'very good' skills. Not since, oh, '95 would that be the case. Is it unbalanced? Perhaps; perhaps not. Phylogeny can hold braman mages in place... [And he's not the strongest spyder in the world.] Phylogeny. |
| 220: [Aug 21 2002] Re: Grappling (Ramik) |
| The key in your situation, Kuroryu, is that you were attacking while grappling. If you grapple without attacking, you're much more able to hold your opponent in place to recieve his well deserved...whatever it is. Sort of a hug, I guess. There have been complaints about the effectiveness of grappling for a long, long time now, but it's my impression that the "useless while attacking" clause is by design, and is not a bug per se. I think it ought to be changed, but yeah, it works how it's "supposed to." ---Ramik |
| 221: [Aug 21 2002] Re: Grappling (Ramik) |
| Okay, just a quick report of my findings this evening: Me (Fighting AGAAWL/Brawling AGAAWEL) vs. My Opponent (Fighting OOTVB/Brawling OOTVB) First, I had MO grapple me without attacking, which I was able to escape. Then, he grappled me while attacking, which I was also able to escape. Next, I grappled MO without attacking. He was unable to escape my grasp! Functionality! Success! YAY! Last, I grappled and attacked him. He handily escaped my grasp. Bah. My heart fell. I was unable to find someone whose skills were farther from mine to test this on, but considering his Brawling is approximately 1/3 of mine, I figure the results would be similar at lower levels. ---Ramik |
| 222: [Jan 03 2003] Improving (Mordall) |
| It seems from talking around and such that i am one of the only people that have had the problem i am about to describe. my parry and control arent different from each other, they are just lower than my sword fightin and shield. so i switched to hafted, all that happened was i got hafted imps. switched to brawling. nothing but brawling imps I am now trying out 2hs same basic effect except i am getting split defense imps now and again. i think i have hit a very hard point in my training, due to the fact that my weapons skills do nothing but climb and everything else is stagnet. i am probably just going to have to wait it out, but it seems to be getting worse... if anyone else has an insight on how to circumvent this problem or to point in an ic direction i would be most gracious. also i thought pelidor was supposed to be way harder than tyca... i cant hit tyca with a tin katana but i can kill pelidor with a rusty dagger... I am a newb and this may be just me venting frustration and this mayb not be the right board for this. So either way i will have learned something about the game by someone responding. |
| 223: [Jan 04 2003] Apts (Mosiah) |
| I once had a mohnkee that had good control and able parry and most of my other fighting skills were around good. You just need to mess with apts some and you should be able to close the gaps, try some of the different sparring partners around town and other towns. Unfortunately that was my last fighter, just a quick concept throw away char were I wanted to test something but you can close the gaps with some tweaking (I think). -Mosiah |
| 224: [Jan 07 2003] apts (Mordall) |
| Thanks Mosiah |
| 225: [Jan 09 2003] re Improving (Sui) |
| Is true that Tyca is harder to kill then Pelidor but that doesn;t make her more valuable to you. think of it this way: Tyca is a young strong person! She can beat you not because of her technique but rather because of hear "heart". Pelidor, on the other hand, is alot older and wiser. He is a bit weaker then tyca, moustly because of his age, but his technique is way more advanced then Tyca's. So, even if Tyca can beat you, you have alot more to learn from pelidor rather then from Tyca. A few hints for you: Try to change the size of your shield! If you defend too much you will not understand the defense lessons that pelidor is trying to teach you ... The way you hold your shield (or the weapon you defend with) also counts ALOT! There are certain "ways" to hold your weapon that would allow you to learn how to defend with that weapon , rather then to learn how to use that weapon! equip the First, keep in mind that the more a skill gets higher from your other skills, the easier will be to get improve in that certain skill and the harder will be to improve in the others left behind! So, a sollution for you would be to find a good teacher and ask him to stay with you untill you figure out what weapon you could use and in what way, in order to learn how to parry and how to controll your oponent's weapons. After you figured that out, try to figure out in what way you need modify your style of defending in order to keep improving as your skills increase. Good luck ! |
| 226: [Jan 09 2003] RE: Pelidor (Ogma) |
| Actually, Pelidor was bugged, which has been fixed now. He was not defending with his shield, but trying to attack with it because his allocations didn't get set right after he was modified a bit. He should be back to the old Pelidor people know and love (or hate). Ogma |
| 227: [Jan 09 2003] RE Pelidor (Axeoth) |
| Excellent! No more tough Tyca trying to beat the crap out of me while my puny axe tries to parry!! and and! No more killing pelidor on my first hit!!! Thanks for checking into that |
| 228: [Jan 09 2003] daggers (Kefka) |
| its not logical that i can use a dagger to attack with for 99% of my life then turn around and be better skilled with a sword i have never touched i dont have the knowledge of how to handle a large heavy object no experience with the weapon but am very skilled with daggers and still draw my heft longsword to bring down a fierce assault on my foe i suggest a dagger skill any weapon size that considers it a dagger (knife, dagger, bodkin, dirk) be in that skill its not likely this will be thought highly of or ever implemented but i wanted to share my idea on the concept of physical real life combat |
| 229: [Jan 09 2003] damage (Kefka) |
| this is not a very good OOC question and is considered learnable IC i wanted to know if there was a way to learn the attack and defensive bonuses of all weapon and defensive items? through serious testing i can tell a longsword is 3 times better offensively than a scimitar but thats because of my fighting technique..someone else may find a scimitar is better daringly than a longsword (-kefka who does not do the typical "sword brawling hafted offensive daring attack speed aim blows parry control fighting" style) |
| 230: [Jan 14 2003] Mordall's Imp Problem (Mordall) |
| I would like to thank those who posted in response to my post, the information has been very usefull, and thank you axeoth for a better understanding of 2 handed. Thank you ogma for informing us of the pelidor bug, my head was getting big from my run in with pelidor, it is now the proper size. You Guys Rock ! Mordall The Orc |
| 231: [Jan 14 2003] Re Mordall (Axeoth) |
| I checked to see the order of handling for 2Handed. Its been awhile since I made the mistake of allocating wrong or holding wrong: If you attack with left hand you must allocate to attack with left hand and put left hand first in "hold something (in/with) * hand and * hand" Otherwise you cannot attack if you were using the parry/control only hand first in the syntax. Yes syntax is important! |
| 232: [Jan 21 2003] re re mordall (Mordall) |
| Thanks Axeoth |
| 233: [Apr 10 2003] Is it me, or do we have projectiles now (Kakkt) |
| and noone else cares. I have seen the weapons, and seen them more or less used, but noone knows how to get the skill or where, and there is no discussion on it this is a little perturbing to me that almost noone has brought this up here yet, which makes me wonder if either a) noone knows enough to compile a post, or b) everyone but the handful of people with crossbows I have talked too knows so much already that it goes without saying. either way, could someone give me a ring if you find out where I can learn which end of the arrow is pointy, and how to bend the bow, etc. thanks Kakkt |
| 234: [Aug 04 2003] projectiles and parry (Rasha) |
| If one is great at parry (not me sorry to say), does that help you deflect projectiles? |
| 235: [Aug 11 2003] re: projectiles and parry (Nimbus) |
| Never aided in dodging a fireball or avoiding the occationally lobbed axe. A dodging or blocking skill would seem more appropriate (but then again agility is dodging ability so I don't expect a new skill forthcoming). -Nim |
| 236: [Oct 27 2003] Shield Usage (Angst) |
| Does having a high "shield use" skill totally destroy any chances of improving parry and control at a successful, more than one improve a day, rate? |
| 237: [Oct 28 2003] re: Shield Usage (Bromri) |
| Yes, now go away or I shall taunt you a second time. French taunter |
| 238: [Oct 28 2003] dumb (Angst) |
| reply |
| 239: [Oct 29 2003] re: dumb (Bromri) |
| Ask and ye shall receive. And most anything that quotes Monty Python is funny, if pointless. Lighten up. Bromri |
| 240: [Oct 29 2003] Bromri (Angst) |
| My apologies. If I had know my Python better, then I would not have been as harsh. I feel priveledged to be the butt-end of a good-humored Python joke. |
| 241: [Feb 04 2004] Addition of Fighting Indicator (Beretil) |
| While it is nice to see who is fighting who, Im not sure I like the new change. In parties to see who is attacking who its fine, but if your a fighter sparring in the streets, cowled, or wearing a lowered armet, your name is still displayed. In the past the person would have to wait a second to see a person engaged in fighting. Allowing an exhange of glances to see what the new person was holding. Then you could get a positive ID on them and know whether to run. I havent tested to see if you can look from another room and see if you can see the fighters name displayed, but if thats the case it just made cowls and armets fairly useless for fighters. All we do is spar, and suddenly sparring is much more dangerous while mages can still sit in a room in relative safety. |
| 242: [Feb 04 2004] B's Post (Yuli) |
| I actually agree. I never thought about that, but it would be good, like Danor said, to change it to say 'a figure in..' etc. It is a bit unfair at the moment. -- Yuli |
| 243: [Feb 04 2004] agree (Perrin) |
| while in a partied situation it would be most helpful. to the lone trainer out a night, it is a tad unsafe. though training in general is that way. but I agree should say something like *tyca attacking a warrior in a steel armet* or something along those lines would be better. but hey i'm always open for other points of view. Perrin |
| 244: [Feb 04 2004] re: previous (Iemz) |
| While I disagree with the comparison with mages I do agree that the fighting indicators should be changed to (attacking figure) or something similiar. Iemz |
| 245: [Feb 04 2004] attacking (Barre) |
| conc yes, please change that to warriors and figures you could make it check parties when partied with large groups to actually show the name to only the party members |
| 246: [Feb 04 2004] combat indicator (Jiles) |
| No longer shown if the viewer is not in the same room as the viewee. It will, however, still show defenders' names to people in the same room. Our reason for this is simply because the names of the participants would normally be revealed by the combat spam anyway. Jiles |
| 247: [Feb 05 2004] Combat Spam (Yuli) |
| Most people have set misses to off.. -- Yuli |
| 248: [Feb 05 2004] re: Yuli (Jiles) |
| Exactly. Set misses to off helping to hide the identities of sparring fighters was a totally unintended side-effect. The combat indicator change was made specifically to address this, as well as the more general side-effect of not being able to know that something is engaged in combat. Jiles |
| 249: [Feb 06 2004] re: previous (Iemz) |
Not only that, but before you had to wait a second or two for blows to be exchanged before anything was revealed. Now you can just spam through rooms and immediately know who's who. I really would like to see them referred to as a 'figure' instead. Iemz |
| 250: [Apr 25 2004] re: Lodged weapons (from complaint board) (Nimbus) |
| I didn't think it was appropriate to post what amounts to a discussion, to the complaints board. Complaint (or observation) was issued about two-handed weapons getting stuck in an opponent - leaving the attacker defenseless. The argument thus became that by the use of both hands, the odds of embedding a weapon should be nearly nullified. I have to agree with that. Think about it, most times a target's outter surface is fleshy and the bones shatter on impact. Unless an opponent were wearing certain types of armor (such as chain which may entange or trap an exiting weapon blow) or the flesh were thick and very sturdy, the odds of embedding would be improbable. I know, it's easy to carry spare weapons, but it seems rather silly to need to carry an arsenal when going into combat. Btw, there should be a probability for embedded weapons to break or stunk in a way that concentration is required to extract the weapon. -Nim |
| 251: [Apr 25 2004] re: last (Jiles) |
| Not sure how it works with swords and people, but I have lodged my 3 prong sling spear in fish so hard that I had difficulty extracting the spear even when placing both feet against the fish and pulling. Each prong on the spear is .4cm thick smooth steel. Jiles |
| 252: [Apr 26 2004] Bones, flesh (Fug) |
| I've found that it's relatively easy to get a knife stuck both in and between ribs of relatively large animals in the past. Animals such as deer and sheep. You can put a knife through the sternum of a chicken with enough force, but it will tend to stick too. Obviously, I don't know with what strokes you might kill someone with a sword, but the chances are, if you bury the blade in them, unless it cuts coming out too, it shouldn't be too difficult for it to stick, due to only having a blunt edge to pull back out through the wound. I'm not sure what weight of weapon you'd need to shatter bones with too, ribs are pretty flexible, and will bend and crack rather than shatter very easily. The weapons I've played with in DM which have stuck the most are axes, understandably since they only have one edge to 'cut' with, and only do so on the way in, letting the flesh close up behind the blade. I don't know how applicable it is to this discussion, but axes stick in wood at the drop of a hat. If you pierce metal, the metal will deform inwards, and will restrict the tool pulling back out. Besides, I never thought getting weapons stuck in things was frequent enough occurence to complain about, and most people have the initiative to carry more than just a single weapon anyway. If they've not got the initiative to pull the next weapon out, then they've no right to complain. :) Enough rambling. |
| 253: [May 24 2007] tail cestus (Blight) |
| I think us Mohnkee's are at a disadvantige as brawlers. We have 3 limbs that we can brawl with but only two we can were cestus on. I think that a tail cestus or spike that could be worn like a sharve. would make a big impact on the mohnkee population. I would also like to here what other players thought of the idea Blight The Mohnkee** |
| 254: [May 24 2007] Tail cestus (Katsumi) |
| Hm. I would say that the third limb already gives the mohnkee the huge advantage over the two limbed race. For example a human can only wear two cestus, a mohnkee can wear two, and still gets an additional limb to hold a third weapon of choice (even if it's not a cestus). There are plenty of brawling weapons a mohnkee can choose to wield with their tail. I'm not sure the inability to wear a cestus on a mohnkees tail really hurts them any. I would suggest experimenting with other brawling weapons to find an alternative. - Katsumi |
| 255: [May 24 2007] re:Tail cestus (Devet) |
| A barbed tail kinda thingy would be cool, even if i dont play mohnkees |
| 256: [Aug 11 2007] RE:Tail Cestus (Zyn) |
| Not that I would mind a brawling weapon for mohnkee's to be useable on the tail. But a cestus just doesn't seem like it would work in that capacity. |
| 257: [Oct 10 2007] Weapons tweaks (Ogma) |
| As you may know, I've been tweaking various weapons for a while to make styles other than sword and shield more viable. My latest tweak involves a change to swords, making them more able to defend when wielded in two hands. |
| 258: [Sep 08 2009] re:tail "cestus" (Chalk) |
| I like the idea of a tailspike or ball as well, but... I dunno. I agree with Katsumi. As mohnkees, having the ability to hold just even a parrying blade in our tail gives us a huge advantage. We're a good point between spyders, who conc out easy, and other two-limbed races who are restricted to... two limbs. If anything, a tail-specific weapon for a mohnkee would be cool, but I don't think giving us a particular extra advantage with it would be a good idea. IF anything, it should be like claw covers for catfolk. |