The Combat System

[Henkie]

As I have been curious for a while now and freiana has sparked the old curiosity again, her post (as can be read below) makes the question worthy of a forum poll!

I know I have said this before and I know I got into a huge argument about it then, but I really think that there is just a small group of people that thinks the combat system is broken, and they keep throwing out suggestions at the rest of us.
It's a great thing we all try to improve the game, let's put that first. But not everyone thinks of the same things when they think of things that have to be improved. What I would really like to know is what percentage of the players thinks that the combat system is broken.

So please, do vote and don't be afraid to spill your opinions. I urge you not to start discussing things 1 on 1 or 2 on 1 or whatever, just give your frank opinion and let others figure out the differences between opinions, this is more a 'give us your opinion for information purposes'-thing

[Doug R.]

I put "no," but while I don't think it's "broken," I think it is ill-fitting of a slow-paced game. However, it may be the best fit we can have. The fact is that Cantr is in it's 10th year, and there is a very palpable "culture" surrounding the game that has the power to knock aside any suggestion, good or bad, for no other reason than being challenged or changed. There might be a slow-paced combat mechanism that, had it been part of the game from the start, might be perfect for the game, but could never be implemented today simply because of the culture. In my opinion, radios killed any possibility for a slow-paced combat mechanism because they are a fast-paced communication mechanism. If we want combat to be slow paced, we need all the mechanics to be slow-paced, because combat is arguably the most important mechanic in the game (it's the only mechanic that can kill our characters without our permission). And, we can't really argue that Cantr is a slow-paced game anymore. Slowness is at the core of most player complaints, and I think we only invoke it as something to aspire to when we want to keep our characters alive.

[viktor]

i find the combat system currently in very good shape, we are not inaundated with marauding hordes of bandits but it is not completely impossible to get an effective conflict going. cantr is kept interesting by the hidden fact that it is quite mixed in many aspects, some parts are slow paced while others are fast, but just because it takes 3 earth hours to make progress on a project does not mean we need to do the same with combat, we have the ability for instant combat simply because it doesnt stress the server, calculating how much everyone in the world can dig/farm/collect each and every second would cause a crash and is why that aspect is 'slow', as well as the fact that with limited things to do other than rp when standing around, a lot of people will spend the majority of time offline so conversations could take days rarely interrupted for the occasional few with timed plans to prepair for like combat. any... 'tweeks' to the current combat system must be made small so as not to cause a disaster in the game or player base (like the tea incident, it was too powerful, but then a lot of work was wasted when it became inert and valueless.)

[Doug R.]

(like the tea incident, it was too powerful, but then a lot of work was wasted when it became inert and valueless.)

Not for much longer.

[Mr. Bones]

I voted no. Current system works fine. If anything else were added to go in favor of the pacifist clan then there would be no combat. Basically you have people who will not be happy until there is no combat and that's where the complaints come from. Typical violent group is 3 to 5 people, not "20 or 30" like I've heard some people claiim. Add in daily attack limits, tiredness, instant healing, chance of miss, defending, etc. and honestly it's not that big of a deal. People have their towns massacred because they suck at protecting their town. That's what you get for doing nothing but farming potatos and splashing each other with well water. Should have been prepared for an invasion.

[Spaztikko]

I voted no, it isn't broken.

However, I do recall reading the suggestion about an attack stance and hits being registered when the recipient logs in or whatever to keep combat essentially the same but adding a speed mechanic to the reception of such hits and also if such was implimented would work around the 1-day hit limit, rather basing it on if the hit has been recieved (up to one day) That I particularly enjoyed and felt would improve the game without destroying the possibility for slow pace.

No idea whether that was accepted or not, but I honestly feel that something like combat shouldn't be played out for days, what with radios being instant. If I want to slash someone twice it doesn't take me 24 hours to slash them again.

But seriously I think that suggestion should be how the combat system is worked upon.

EDIT: TL;DR: I think the combat system should be at it's core remain the same, have some method for speedy encounters to occur and be countered, but under no circumstances should combat become even more nonexistant.

[Marian]

I voted yes, even though like I said in the Wounding Cooldown thread, 'broken' might be a term that's too strong, or at least too subjective. I'm not going to repeat everything I already posted, but basically I agree with what Doug said.

Though I feel like there's a bit of a strawman argument being tossed around about how 'people who don't like the combat system are just whiners who don't want us to have any combat at all' .

When what we're actually saying is that we do want combat, just actually interesting combat that involves both players and fits in with the rest of the game.

....you know what, actually I will repeat part of I posted in the other thread.

It's a testament to the rest of the game that I keep coming back here anyway, but until we see the possibility of actual pitched battles in the town square without the possibility of an immediate and decisive victory for one side or the other within 5 seconds I'm going to continue to consider the combat side of things completely and utterly broken.

I still stand by that (well, aside from the 'completely and utterly broken' part but that's probably why we're having this pole so might as well let people see the original context), though it applies as equally to dragging as attacking, and when I bitch about 'the combat system' I usually mean both.

I just want to see some cool wars people is that so much to ask. Like, ones that I would mentally score to something from the LOTR soundtrack instead of Yakety Sax.

[freiana]

I voted no, but that's no news, I think.
When I just read through this thread I think my conclusion would be as follows;
The current system is OK, although it is not perfect. It doesn't need a complete rewrite, the core should remain the same, also because the game's balance could flip over if something like this suddenly changes a lot. That does not mean we cannot change small things (very much like Victor said).
Right now, there are not much wars going on in Cantr. It might be a good thing if there were more wars. However, I think we should all realize that this is something that is not (or at least, not solely) cause by the mechanism! WE are the players. WE don't start wars. We are just sitting in our towns gathering potatoes and hunting and splashing water in eachothers faces. If we want wars to happen, I believe our chars will have to be less content. We have to make reasons for war, instead of mechanisms for war.

[Doug R.]

We have to make reasons for war, instead of mechanisms for war.

I agree 100%. The problem is, the only reason for war is megalomania, since Cantrians have no inherent needs that aren't easily filled. I've seen three pretexts for war through my character's eyes since returning to the game:

1) The Blackrocks return to Noniwrok

Except for a very select faction lead by an arguable megalomaniac, the Blackrocks were welcomed. The Guardian faction that stayed handed them the forest willingly. When that single character was killed, everyone else fell into line behind the Blackrocks.

2) The murder of Adam Brinks by the Silver Knights and Stone Knight traitors

If this had happened pre turn 1800, the Stone Knights would have beaten the snot out of Silver Knights and THEN figured out what was going on. As it stood, Stone Knights were divided (some thought the murder of a megalomaniac by the Silver Knights was justified, even if it was THEIR megalomaniac), and the ones that wanted to do something about it figured they'd get their asses kicked by the Silver Knights without the full support of the clan.

3) FPA restricting hematite gathering in the mountains

The local towns banded together, showed up in force and tossed around vague threats. FPA destroyed the drills in a hissy fit. Local towns (to my knowledge) let the matter rest.

So, we have three situation were large(ish) groups of characters have adopted "war is bad" attitudes and acted accordingly.

1) - Our enemy is right that our leader was a crazy. We join our enemies and avoid war. / If we give the Blackrocks what they want, we can keep having our water balloon fights and swims in the harbor.
2) - Our neighbors murdered our brother, but since our brother was out starting wars with people, and war is bad, they did us a favor and we won't do anything about it. (Even if it totally destroys our long-established reputation as a group of hard-core badasses and makes us look like a typical bunch of boring pansies).
3) - We can get our hematite elsewhere, so war isn't worth it.

So for all of you out their claiming that you think war is interesting or that you want a good war, where the heck are your characters?

[Xander]

I agree with Doug, there doesn't seem to be a lot of people that interested in war, although maybe that's just how I see it through my characters, few of whom are in areas with such tensions.

And the word "arguable" isn't necessary in that sentence, Doug.

[Doug R.]

I think another reason for pacifism is the lack of "fear of the other." Way back when, when we had 3-4X the number of players we had now, characters were really spread out a lot more. Now we have fewer players, and those players most likely have their characters concentrated in the same large groups, because that's how spawning works. Of course you want to avoid a war when you have characters on both sides of it. That's just messy and inconvenient. You also know both sides of the story, and while your characters don't, you do, and your brain (and it's subconscious) is what's dictating the character's words and actions.

During the first Blackrock war, I had only one character involved. He didn't know anything about the other sides of the fight, and he bought all the propaganda hand over fist.

During the time of the Emeralds slaughtering people, I only knew the opposition side, so I was fully invested as a player (hence, my clearly biased word choice).

During the Adam brinks incident, I only knew the Stone Knight side. It would be interesting to know how many players that were in favor of doing something about it didn't have characters familiar with the Silver Knight side, and how many that came down against it had characters that did. I'm not tossing about accusations of CRBs, but it's a purely scientific question borne of scientific curiosity.

[Black Canyon]

In addition to the "war is bad" mentality, I think there is also nothing really that one group has that another wants..... the hematite example is a good one, however if it is all about those resources necessary to make weapons and such then the "have-nots" have no way to take from the "haves"...

Land seems to be plentiful.... there are multitudes of empty towns. And there is lots of distance between civilization hubs for the most part. I wonder if a desirable item or resource could be added to the game that would be rare enough and useful enough to make characters get off their potato-farming butts?

[Xander]

In addition to the "war is bad" mentality, I think there is also nothing really that one group has that another wants..... the hematite example is a good one, however if it is all about those resources necessary to make weapons and such then the "have-nots" have no way to take from the "haves"...

Land seems to be plentiful.... there are multitudes of empty towns. And there is lots of distance between civilization hubs for the most part. I wonder if a desirable item or resource could be added to the game that would be rare enough and useful enough to make characters get off their potato-farming butts?

I agree, perhaps some sort of rare metal or special healing food? one of my characters has some obsidian, which doesn't really have a use yet and is found in very few places (at least, I think it was obsidian), and whilst it does have one use, perhaps it could have a second use that would be of some advantage to those who control a town with obsidian?

[Mr. Bones]

I do know of a situation that may erupt into war that's motivation is political/philosophical and not about resources or just power.

Then, I don't think wars fought strictly for power are necessarily a bad thing either, as long as the aggressors don't get too carried away. It's easy to go in and slaughter everybody in these situations because to be real, dead enemies are the least troublesome enemies. lol. It is great though when a people can be conquered and are willing to role play assimilating into the new group, or the old leaders becoming political prisoners. I guess the real challenge here is making that happen.

Power hunger has never been a strange concept to mankind. Alexander the Great, Julius Ceaser, Octavian, Napoleon, Hitler, and many more representing every group of people under the sun have felt the need to expand their lands. Real estate changes hands, it's just our way.

[Doug R.]

I wonder if a desirable item or resource could be added to the game that would be rare enough and useful enough to make characters get off their potato-farming butts?

I think it's a good idea, but you don't need anything special. All you need to to have resources deplete and appear in other areas. This would:

1) Make static maps nearly useless for finding resources, making exploring again a viable occupation
2) Prevent the formation of unbeatable power-bases around iron-producing resources (i.e. static power structures)- eventually, they'll disappear and appear in a "have not's" town.
3) Give pretext for war. If the former haves still want to have, they'll need to move personnel into the new location. "Have" towns will restrict the gathering of their resources, causing jealousy and bitterness.

If we implemented a system of infinite tech upgrades on depleting resources, we could introduce a massive new consumption mechanic. For example, an area has 110,000 kilos of hematite. That gets depleted. The town can perform an expensive drill upgrade to get access to 55,000g more. When that's gone, they can perform an even more expensive drill upgrade to get 27,500g more. Eventually, the cost outweighs the benefit. Resources could regenerate naturally over time, and the upgrades could break when the resource pool is depleted.