Some rough calculations show that what I've been pushing in this thread (critical+autohealfood) is complete Disneyland, compared to what would happen if heal food was capped to only heal a certain amount a day. Because critical+autohealfood "takes away" a lot of gank and sleeper-killing, whilst adding a small skill-dependent chance of deadly damage output. The cap on healfood, instead, rolls in a permanent 100% chance of reduced maximum damage absorption for all characters regardless of skill and preparedness, while doing little or nothing to help with gank and sleeper-killing (depending on whether we're talking about a daily cap with autohealfood added or without autohealfood added).
I'm one of those people who like the idea of more realism in healing, and so, on the one hand I see slow healing as the right and realistic way to go. But if combat stays just as it is now and this cap is added, it logically follows that huge numbers of characters will die who otherwise wouldn't have; vastly more than under the critical+autohealfood system with its small chance of instant kill with powerweapons that scares so many folks just because it's explicit, and more than under the current system.
I'm having reservations about the cap idea - while it's "realistic" in intent, in the actual gameplay it might cause the death of way too many important characters... just think about it, adding that would be a bloodbath for all sides in combat. No battle would last longer than a couple "volleys" from each side. And if we make it a pretty large number per day, then it's kind of like, back to square one where everyone is eating kilograms and kilograms of onions... with questions such as "so what was the point of doing that, again?" naturally arising.
Battle dynamic , Evil and Nice.
Moderators: Public Relations Department, Players Department, Programming Department, Game Mechanics (RD)
-
Cogliostro
- Posts: 766
- Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 8:05 pm
-
Gran
- Posts: 1720
- Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:53 am
I forgot to write my thanks to who wrote the dialogues for SMAC. That quote that I mixed, although a bit roughly put, is excellent. Continuing into the discussion...
In this case, which is not based around any particular case nor player, I would personally recommend to the player to get some sleep. Really, if your character is going to die, there is nothing much to do about it. But, hey! Always look in the bright side of life! You now have a free slot.
Attacking in groups, making ambushes or "ganking" is a very common form of association among individuals, and there is nothing "clickfestinist" or whataver be called about it it. If someone disagrees, then has never seen any actual combat. People not only can be online at the same time to cooperate, they do. And often roleplay while do. If the maximum amount of roleplay that a player saw in battle was some *:)*'s, then I'm very sad for that player. That means what you are looking for ins't tactics, but CRB.
And really, on what concerns sleepers, I don't see on why there should be any reasons to protect the OOCly. If there is a reason for your character survive, your character should work his way to survival.
Being from a zone in which there is a constant and serious problem of inactivity amongst the population, what I can say is that sleepers are no more than a manifestation of one's refusal to lose that char. They don't even play them, but they leave them to rot. But if a character is sleeping enough time to be alredy dead to the community, it is because he should be.
If you speak about just temporary inactivity, as in the first scenario here commented, then all I can say is that players have yet to understand that character death means nothing else then the end of that play. Therefore, you must give it a hell of a ending.
Combat *is* risky, at least for your chars. If more risk is needed, then it should be done live, and this is onlky way it could be felt "risky", as this is no more than a simulacrum.
Also, the hopes of a loner should be none because: First. it would hardly fit a lonely personality. Second. He would mos likely be killed, and should be aware. Third. This is not about the hopes of the character, it is about the hope of the player. Differences present. Yet, this has nothing to do with a particular proposed hipothetical non-existant character which is not even based on any past experiences in the game.
No matter what, the collective will always reign over the individual when talking about force. This is a rational conclusion, and people still don't see it. We need to open their eyes, not to keep them dreaming. Critical hit would only benefit particular chars which were created and debated about in the particular scenarios here given. Still, the existance of such rare case should not redeem this suggestion as they are, after all, rare.
I don't think, my dear Cogliostro, that anything is sacred. Even though I didn't complete the quote, the only reason of I took the reference was because it was not relevant to the debate. However I am sensitive to the overall relevancy of a suggestion.
Cogliostro wrote:Good point about the fact that the "eat" button is always available, not just at some specific time. But in that scenario you're hidden from continued attacks and so have the luxury to eat your healfood whenever you prefer. What if you are not? Simple, then by the time you (a hypothetical episodic player) login, your character is already going to be dead, and you don't get a chance to use the healing food you prepared.
In this case, which is not based around any particular case nor player, I would personally recommend to the player to get some sleep. Really, if your character is going to die, there is nothing much to do about it. But, hey! Always look in the bright side of life! You now have a free slot.
Cogliostro wrote:Clickfesty aspects of the current combat system are problems if you see clickfestiness in general as a problem. I do! Maybe you don't, thinking instead that these are just acceptable and/or cute parts of the game that make Cantr what it is. I mean that's a valid point of view, that nothing should change about the combat since we're well used to it. But I don't share that view at all. Though I must at the same time recognize that it can't all be fixed all at once with some shiny new totally "asynchronous" combat system (just too much work for ProgD to handle). One of the worst "clickfesty" aspects is the ganking tactic, that many players think is actually a feature ("look, we're a group, so we're building a society too...kinda") but it isn't. As Seko explained, when the ability to single-hit-kill with powerweapons was nerfed because we rightly wanted to protect our peaceful players from losing their time investment in their characters too easily, same thing should have happened to ganking. But it didn't, since nothing was figured out to really help with it at the time. But wait! Auto-eating of heal-foods eliminates ganking; as long as you are prepared, those strikesquards (which most of the time are coordinated through MSN/aim and thus are CRB) will not make you lose your character while you were away from your computer. You see why I'm suggesting those two (critical and auto-healfood) together almost as a single idea now?
Attacking in groups, making ambushes or "ganking" is a very common form of association among individuals, and there is nothing "clickfestinist" or whataver be called about it it. If someone disagrees, then has never seen any actual combat. People not only can be online at the same time to cooperate, they do. And often roleplay while do. If the maximum amount of roleplay that a player saw in battle was some *:)*'s, then I'm very sad for that player. That means what you are looking for ins't tactics, but CRB.
And really, on what concerns sleepers, I don't see on why there should be any reasons to protect the OOCly. If there is a reason for your character survive, your character should work his way to survival.
Being from a zone in which there is a constant and serious problem of inactivity amongst the population, what I can say is that sleepers are no more than a manifestation of one's refusal to lose that char. They don't even play them, but they leave them to rot. But if a character is sleeping enough time to be alredy dead to the community, it is because he should be.
If you speak about just temporary inactivity, as in the first scenario here commented, then all I can say is that players have yet to understand that character death means nothing else then the end of that play. Therefore, you must give it a hell of a ending.
Cogliostro wrote:I'm glad we see eye to eye on the limited combat options. It's always either hit and hide, or hit and drag. That's about it! All we have. It's not as if adding critical hits to this (just a spice-up, really) would in any way change the pie's nutrional value. But it might (I hope) change the "taste" it leaves with players - a psychological tweak, making combat "feel" risky, even if it actually isn't. You're calling this riskiness an advertisement for bad players, but how can that be? How can that be, man? Are you actually telling me that bad, loner characters should not have even the slightest glimmer of a hope in front of them in their pathetic and short Cantr-lives as sporting distractions for oldbie town leader characters? Come on. That's really not up to you, is it? I mean look at the pages and pages that have been written by people who want to play: suiciders, self-mutilators, transvestites from space allergic to onion, and people from the hunger strike union. All of those people got to insert their 2c and make sure their character is not inconvenienced, but you're telling me that it's a BAD IDEA to have anything in the game that might, under rare conditions, let a little antisocial loner have a tiny chance to do something against that wonderful society you're building up???
Combat *is* risky, at least for your chars. If more risk is needed, then it should be done live, and this is onlky way it could be felt "risky", as this is no more than a simulacrum.
Also, the hopes of a loner should be none because: First. it would hardly fit a lonely personality. Second. He would mos likely be killed, and should be aware. Third. This is not about the hopes of the character, it is about the hope of the player. Differences present. Yet, this has nothing to do with a particular proposed hipothetical non-existant character which is not even based on any past experiences in the game.
No matter what, the collective will always reign over the individual when talking about force. This is a rational conclusion, and people still don't see it. We need to open their eyes, not to keep them dreaming. Critical hit would only benefit particular chars which were created and debated about in the particular scenarios here given. Still, the existance of such rare case should not redeem this suggestion as they are, after all, rare.
I don't think, my dear Cogliostro, that anything is sacred. Even though I didn't complete the quote, the only reason of I took the reference was because it was not relevant to the debate. However I am sensitive to the overall relevancy of a suggestion.
Last edited by Gran on Mon Jul 27, 2009 5:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Navegar é preciso; viver não é preciso"
-
SekoETC
- Posts: 15525
- Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 11:07 am
- Location: Finland
- Contact:
-
Dudel
- Posts: 3302
- Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:21 am
Cogliostro wrote:All of those people got to insert their 2c and make sure their character is not inconvenienced, but you're telling me that it's a BAD IDEA to have anything in the game that might, under rare conditions, let a little antisocial loner have a tiny chance to do something against that wonderful society you're building up???
YES IT IS BAD!
Once the PLAYER has success with this... THEY TRY AGAIN!
"Fail? OH WELL, try again... EVENTUALLY I'll get lucky!"
Gran already said this!
BLOODY HELL, YOU DON'T READ TO FREAKING WELL!
The PLAYER is the problem NOT the game mechanics. You GET "clickfested" by those NOT INTERESTED IN RP!!!! Or at least not interested in RPing WITH YOU. You will get that REGARDLESS and MORE OFTEN with the crithit+heal food.
I'd give you examples but I'd just be repeating people and then you would be repeating yourself.... which you've been doing OVER and OVER and OVER again.
I don't like EITHER of these ideas...
HOWEVER, I am for making combat a little more "risky" etc as I just had an awkward weak fighter with a battle axe join a "hunt rebeard party" with the HOPES he would die.
I like Seko's ideas... a couple of them.
Auto-eating + daily cap
Provided you heal AT LEAST 1/2 or 1/4 the FIRST TIME your character eats. It would have to be SOMETHING at least moderately helpful.
- Yes, by allowing wider range of damage (esp. from weaker weapons) but still disallowing one hit kills
I think not actually "doing more damage" but rather being allowed to attack 2 or 3 times with a weaker weapon a day. Several HOURS between each etc... talking 8 - 12 hours instead of the 24.
- Yes, by making wounded people able to deal [more] damage
- Yes, by enabling automatic retaliation
These two go together in my opinion and should be toggled options... well at least the second.
ACTUALLY the "auto heal" and "auto retaliate" should be BOTH toggle options and NOT set default "on".... it should also be character by character and NOT player by player... if possible. If not set "character by character" I'd 100% suggest AGAINST this.
Those ideas I like, Cogliostro. You're ideas on this matter stink worse then hitting a skunk with a 4x4 and then crashing into a pile of manure all on a humid day.
I know I said I was "done" but stuff in here by SOMEONE was irkin' me, man. I see the thread initiator as part of the problem none of us want because he SEEMS to be trying to "assist" said problem.
Cogliostro wrote:Because of it, I sometimes had to pop out, hit one person, then pop back inside again, just to check "did they hit me? no? ok, here I go again." and it's ridiculous because due to my laggy connection each step would take a while to carry out.
Hello Redbeard!
If you wanna be an asshat then don't pick on big active areas with lots of "oldbies" who could wake up and murder your character while you sleep.
BETTER YET, DON'T PLAY "Redbeard" and be SMART about your character's behavior.
I REPEAT, this is a PLAYER problem and can NOT be solved with a game mechanic one way OR the other without it being a DRASTIC change.
-
Cogliostro
- Posts: 766
- Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 8:05 pm
Anyone can see for themselves that the suggestions we're discussing don't have to do with any particular kind of character; witness how the critical hit and the auto-healfood both apply uniformly to all kinds. Auto-healfood, in particular, is a massive boon for "goodie" characters. Critical, is a tiny but fun spice for those who do choose to engage in combat.
So it's really weird that you'd be harping on that so heavily and not looking at the suggestions themselves, their effect on gameplay. It's just that in my opinion, with any combat change it's worth considering different "applications" as it were, and that is why I spent time talking about Readbeard vs the Townsmen and other purely hypothetical examples. In my time playing Cantr, I've been on all sides of that play in almost every role, that's why it's so realistic and compelling in my retelling of it, that some even want to accuse me of "catering" to some special kind of character.
For those especially concerned with it, I officially state that Redbeard wasn't any real character I play, and I'm not preparing to attack your town, and that is not at all why I am suggesting critical+autoheal. For real, guys, I'm not. You better be pleased!
Seko, life (in Cantr) would remain just as risky after the addition of autohealfood. Just try and enumerate for yourself what exact risks would be gone after that addition. It would become less clickfesty, that's the advantage. I'm not for removing risks for sleeper characters or anything like that (damn I knew I'd get in trouble for using that word - you all just love to hate the sleeper ). I talked about sleeper-killing, which is exploiting the game mechanic for killing characters who are AT THE TIME asleep and hence can't apply their healfood. In my opinion we should be removing stupid things from combat, i.e. ganking or what happens when you lag and someone hits you right before you attack someone else, etc. You guys still defending ganking are talking about group attacks now; but those are in no way being "forbidden" or removed by the addition of autohealfood. What is being removed is the stupidity of losing your character - BECAUSE - you were not online to click "eat" after suffering each attack. If you had been, then you wouldn't lose him. That is stupid, and you know it.
Certainly, sometimes players are online at the same time, who said that was impossible? But that is quite unfair-looking if it happens on a consistent basis for a given group of people - the current situation with almost all such mobile ganksquads. Let's just look at it truthfully, they are being coordinated via MSN/aim, and suchlike, outside the game. What great roleplaying, right? They hit Mr.Goodman all almost at the same time and killed him, chalk up amazing society building points for the gankers. See, group attacks would still work just the same as now, but they wouldn't always have the ridiculous ability to kill on the spot just because the victim was not logged in to click the healfood.
Highbrow philosophical debates about loner vs society are out of place here. We're just talking about the gameplay mechanics, not about what SHOULD and what OUGHT, and who COULD and WHAT, and WHY and where it all led. Let's talk about that in another thread!
So it's really weird that you'd be harping on that so heavily and not looking at the suggestions themselves, their effect on gameplay. It's just that in my opinion, with any combat change it's worth considering different "applications" as it were, and that is why I spent time talking about Readbeard vs the Townsmen and other purely hypothetical examples. In my time playing Cantr, I've been on all sides of that play in almost every role, that's why it's so realistic and compelling in my retelling of it, that some even want to accuse me of "catering" to some special kind of character.
For those especially concerned with it, I officially state that Redbeard wasn't any real character I play, and I'm not preparing to attack your town, and that is not at all why I am suggesting critical+autoheal. For real, guys, I'm not. You better be pleased!
Seko, life (in Cantr) would remain just as risky after the addition of autohealfood. Just try and enumerate for yourself what exact risks would be gone after that addition. It would become less clickfesty, that's the advantage. I'm not for removing risks for sleeper characters or anything like that (damn I knew I'd get in trouble for using that word - you all just love to hate the sleeper ). I talked about sleeper-killing, which is exploiting the game mechanic for killing characters who are AT THE TIME asleep and hence can't apply their healfood. In my opinion we should be removing stupid things from combat, i.e. ganking or what happens when you lag and someone hits you right before you attack someone else, etc. You guys still defending ganking are talking about group attacks now; but those are in no way being "forbidden" or removed by the addition of autohealfood. What is being removed is the stupidity of losing your character - BECAUSE - you were not online to click "eat" after suffering each attack. If you had been, then you wouldn't lose him. That is stupid, and you know it.
Certainly, sometimes players are online at the same time, who said that was impossible? But that is quite unfair-looking if it happens on a consistent basis for a given group of people - the current situation with almost all such mobile ganksquads. Let's just look at it truthfully, they are being coordinated via MSN/aim, and suchlike, outside the game. What great roleplaying, right? They hit Mr.Goodman all almost at the same time and killed him, chalk up amazing society building points for the gankers. See, group attacks would still work just the same as now, but they wouldn't always have the ridiculous ability to kill on the spot just because the victim was not logged in to click the healfood.
Highbrow philosophical debates about loner vs society are out of place here. We're just talking about the gameplay mechanics, not about what SHOULD and what OUGHT, and who COULD and WHAT, and WHY and where it all led. Let's talk about that in another thread!
-
Cogliostro
- Posts: 766
- Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 8:05 pm
Especially for Dudel, we roll back a little to get more definition: a clickfest or a clickfesty practice is a term I coined to talk about problems in the combat system. It's not when whoever doesn't RP with you, and has nothing to do with that. It is a reference to those aspects of the game mechanics that involve furious clicking on buttons by the player, in what was designed to be an asynchronous web-game, and the effect of such clicking giving unfair advantages to the best "clicker", instead of let's say the most skilled character. Staying awake all night to babysit your battles and click "EAT" on the healfoods falls right under that heading - it's a clickfest. Cantr combat has many faults of this kind, I'm just pushing to address some of the ones that I think are the worst with a few simple (programming wise) changes within the current system.
-
Dudel
- Posts: 3302
- Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:21 am
OI! AGAIN...
The "clickfest" is only a "problem" when the other PLAYER doesn't PAUSE!
AGAIN, AGAIN, AGAIN... The problem YOU seem to "see" isn't actually there. A "clickfest" implies SMASHING my mouse button to "succeed" and combat DOES NOT require this!
I agree that "lag hurts" but it hurts MORE THEN COMBAT.
I agree that combat should be "less safe" and "looked at".
I agree that having a character killed while you sleep is shmity and it would be nice to "fix this".
I don't agree with ANY FORM of ANY TYPE of ANY one hit kill... EVER.
I don't agree with having a character get hit and then 1 millisecond after full auto heals, especially when its a character that doesn't even care/want to heal.
I don't agree with letting the "bad guy" have the chance to live while taking on A TOWN OF PEOPLE while he is ONE. (That is "realism for you")
I DO NOT AGREE to make Cantr "more realistic" then it "is now" and wish this "argument" for ALL suggestions to be utterly IGNORED as valid.
Cantr is a GAME and GAMES are SUPPOSED to be fun! Auto-deaths would, AND DO, RUIN the fun of Cantr.
There are other and BETTER ways to make "combat more interesting/risky/etc/whatever" without having even the SMALLEST CHANCE to auto death a WELL RPed AND WELL BUILT CHARACTER because "someone" wants things for "the group" to be a bit more "risky" so "other types" of characters would be more "prevalent" and/or "stand a chance".
I REALLY don't see how any of your suggestions help the current system any.... except for "auto healing" BUT ONLY if done correctly.
Healing food BY AUTO HEALING would need a cap of 1/2 total damage could be cured "that way"... or something.
This prevents the characters from having a massive stock pile of stuff and not paying attention to health.
INSTO-DEATH IS NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER GOOD, EVER IN ANY GAME... EVER, EVER EVER!
It actually ruins the fun on both sides when you think about it.
The "goody" lost his character to some rampaging prick while the "baddie" didn't REALLY get the "satisfaction" of killing someone... he "got lucky".
The "clickfest" is only a "problem" when the other PLAYER doesn't PAUSE!
AGAIN, AGAIN, AGAIN... The problem YOU seem to "see" isn't actually there. A "clickfest" implies SMASHING my mouse button to "succeed" and combat DOES NOT require this!
I agree that "lag hurts" but it hurts MORE THEN COMBAT.
I agree that combat should be "less safe" and "looked at".
I agree that having a character killed while you sleep is shmity and it would be nice to "fix this".
I don't agree with ANY FORM of ANY TYPE of ANY one hit kill... EVER.
I don't agree with having a character get hit and then 1 millisecond after full auto heals, especially when its a character that doesn't even care/want to heal.
I don't agree with letting the "bad guy" have the chance to live while taking on A TOWN OF PEOPLE while he is ONE. (That is "realism for you")
I DO NOT AGREE to make Cantr "more realistic" then it "is now" and wish this "argument" for ALL suggestions to be utterly IGNORED as valid.
Cantr is a GAME and GAMES are SUPPOSED to be fun! Auto-deaths would, AND DO, RUIN the fun of Cantr.
There are other and BETTER ways to make "combat more interesting/risky/etc/whatever" without having even the SMALLEST CHANCE to auto death a WELL RPed AND WELL BUILT CHARACTER because "someone" wants things for "the group" to be a bit more "risky" so "other types" of characters would be more "prevalent" and/or "stand a chance".
I REALLY don't see how any of your suggestions help the current system any.... except for "auto healing" BUT ONLY if done correctly.
Healing food BY AUTO HEALING would need a cap of 1/2 total damage could be cured "that way"... or something.
This prevents the characters from having a massive stock pile of stuff and not paying attention to health.
INSTO-DEATH IS NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER GOOD, EVER IN ANY GAME... EVER, EVER EVER!
It actually ruins the fun on both sides when you think about it.
The "goody" lost his character to some rampaging prick while the "baddie" didn't REALLY get the "satisfaction" of killing someone... he "got lucky".
-
SekoETC
- Posts: 15525
- Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 11:07 am
- Location: Finland
- Contact:
Auto-healing would help people stay alive longer if they were prepared, but I doubt that people will go around carrying 15 kilos of healing food, or even close to that much. After that it will get clickfesty because the person will have to pick up more to keep up with the attacks, so if there was auto-healing, I think there should be a cap. It could be at 15 kilos so that if someone is carrying an inventory full of healing food, they'd be able to eat that but not the extra they pick up afterwards, or it could be 10 or 12 or 14 kilos because normal people have some equipment. 2-5 would be more natural, but if it was suddenly changed to such numbers, it would alter the game tremendously, so I would rather start with a limit between 10-15 kilos (who eats that much anyway?) and if it's noticed that it's not ruining the game, it could be gradually lowered.
It would be silly if people who want others to rp would start holding back their strikes in order to avoid killing with criticals, so I think we have enough opposition here to reject any suggestion that could lead to insta-kill. However, what if people could occasionally stumble and fall, or be struck unconscious and this would allow others to make a conscious choice about finishing him off while he's weak? Then people couldn't accidentally kill somebody.
It would be silly if people who want others to rp would start holding back their strikes in order to avoid killing with criticals, so I think we have enough opposition here to reject any suggestion that could lead to insta-kill. However, what if people could occasionally stumble and fall, or be struck unconscious and this would allow others to make a conscious choice about finishing him off while he's weak? Then people couldn't accidentally kill somebody.
Not-so-sad panda
-
Cogliostro
- Posts: 766
- Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 8:05 pm
Yes, combat does require furious clicking at the moment: when your character is under a "barrage" of attacks from enemies,(let's say they happen a few dozen minutes apart because the other players are not MSN/aim cheaters, but just logging in on their own time to hit us), you must if you want to survive sit there and click on the "EAT" button as soon as possible after each attack happens. Now just imagine it's more than one player doing the same thing for their character. That's what we mean by a clickfest. I don't know why that simple scenario never occured to you before. What scenario were you thinking of? I don't know what you mean with players "pausing".
If your character does not want to auto-eat healing food or regular food, you'll be able to click a checkbox to make it so. The suggestion was to have that checkbox per food item; so all food items are consistently marked either as stuff you will autoeat when the time comes, or stuff you are saving, for whatever reason.
You wrote many times that deadly critical hits would ruin the game, but no matter how many times it's said and in what font, it's just not true. What you're saying is that it would create the possibility of some unpleasant situations for some players where their character unfortunately dies. Yes. So what? At the same time it creates the possibility of many euphoric, exciting situations where the same character survives and comes out the victor. That really cuts both ways and can't be criticized in that naive way of "no,no,no!my character might die."
I think a lot of you guys writing about societies etc. need to really get off the high horse. I don't recall that anyone appointed Dudel or to a lesser degree Gran
the arbiter of what kinds of characters are desirable in Cantr and what other kinds aren't. That part of it is really not up to you, is it now? So why are you writing here as though it's a meeting about what constitutes a valid Cantr character? We were talking about adding danger to combat for everybody and removing clickfestiness from healfoods, also for everyone. Others can see that point quite easily, just not you guys for some reason, who are talking about societies etc.
If your character does not want to auto-eat healing food or regular food, you'll be able to click a checkbox to make it so. The suggestion was to have that checkbox per food item; so all food items are consistently marked either as stuff you will autoeat when the time comes, or stuff you are saving, for whatever reason.
You wrote many times that deadly critical hits would ruin the game, but no matter how many times it's said and in what font, it's just not true. What you're saying is that it would create the possibility of some unpleasant situations for some players where their character unfortunately dies. Yes. So what? At the same time it creates the possibility of many euphoric, exciting situations where the same character survives and comes out the victor. That really cuts both ways and can't be criticized in that naive way of "no,no,no!my character might die."
I think a lot of you guys writing about societies etc. need to really get off the high horse. I don't recall that anyone appointed Dudel or to a lesser degree Gran
the arbiter of what kinds of characters are desirable in Cantr and what other kinds aren't. That part of it is really not up to you, is it now? So why are you writing here as though it's a meeting about what constitutes a valid Cantr character? We were talking about adding danger to combat for everybody and removing clickfestiness from healfoods, also for everyone. Others can see that point quite easily, just not you guys for some reason, who are talking about societies etc.-
Cogliostro
- Posts: 766
- Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 8:05 pm
Seko: it could only apply when hitting with 100% force, maybe. If you're using less, then there is no chance of a critical - that kind of thing. Even though I am not sure I understand what is meant by people who want to roleplay. What are they roleplaying exactly, shooting crossbows and swinging claymores without any chance someone might die from being hit by one?
I noticed Dudel was objecting against healing becoming "instant" after the character being hit - that's a valid point in one sense, he's saying that it might look odd that after you hit somebody they are instantly healed. How unrealistic! But in another sense, the gameplay one, it makes perfect sense: just consider the same situation where you the player are awake and you clicked the heal food. Did you heal instantly or no? Yeah, you did. So what is the difference? No difference. It would merely make it be, for now while we're stuck with this sytem, a bit more fair to all types of players, by not requiring you the player to be logged in.
I think the ability to carry some healing food in preparation for an upcoming attack against the character should be balanced enough without any capping being strictly necessary, in that it doesn't completely stop the character from being killed (healing food runs out fast, especially if it's a group attack), but at the same time it grants some kind of chance to this unfortunate character, while the player is not logged in to watch over him. Later let them log in and rush to their hideout to get more heal-food - I think that's normal, and we can't do much about that at the moment. Changing the whole combat system (including movement during combat) being out of the question for now...
BTW, I find it frustrating that objections like "no,no,no" are listened to on equal footing with ones where people explain the reason for their disagreement. We should really be filtering all that chaff to look at the salient points only, not the numeric balances of for vs against. That's why I think polls are pretty useless. We have to find out what will make the game more interesting and dynamic for everyone, by brainstorming different alternatives. Voting or listening to cries of "no,no,no" only leads to anything that is suggested being tangled up in conflicting player preferences. (and there's nothing wrong with them conflicting, they should be conflicting)
I noticed Dudel was objecting against healing becoming "instant" after the character being hit - that's a valid point in one sense, he's saying that it might look odd that after you hit somebody they are instantly healed. How unrealistic! But in another sense, the gameplay one, it makes perfect sense: just consider the same situation where you the player are awake and you clicked the heal food. Did you heal instantly or no? Yeah, you did. So what is the difference? No difference. It would merely make it be, for now while we're stuck with this sytem, a bit more fair to all types of players, by not requiring you the player to be logged in.
I think the ability to carry some healing food in preparation for an upcoming attack against the character should be balanced enough without any capping being strictly necessary, in that it doesn't completely stop the character from being killed (healing food runs out fast, especially if it's a group attack), but at the same time it grants some kind of chance to this unfortunate character, while the player is not logged in to watch over him. Later let them log in and rush to their hideout to get more heal-food - I think that's normal, and we can't do much about that at the moment. Changing the whole combat system (including movement during combat) being out of the question for now...
BTW, I find it frustrating that objections like "no,no,no" are listened to on equal footing with ones where people explain the reason for their disagreement. We should really be filtering all that chaff to look at the salient points only, not the numeric balances of for vs against. That's why I think polls are pretty useless. We have to find out what will make the game more interesting and dynamic for everyone, by brainstorming different alternatives. Voting or listening to cries of "no,no,no" only leads to anything that is suggested being tangled up in conflicting player preferences. (and there's nothing wrong with them conflicting, they should be conflicting)
-
SekoETC
- Posts: 15525
- Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 11:07 am
- Location: Finland
- Contact:
-
Cogliostro
- Posts: 766
- Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 8:05 pm
Yeah, it might also introduce a legal distinction in some towns: between 'deadly force" and just regular old force. Who knows.
Remember that adding autohealfood inevitably will very heavily nerf the chances of "Redbeard" type characters to kill somebody. So even if we agree it's a good idea to reduce clickfestiness in the game, we have to compensate somehow for yet again nerfing those types of characters so badly. Enter the critical hits.
The exact percentages need better brains than mine to be worked over, it needs to be not just "okay looking to everybody and Dudel too", but enough of a chance to balance the inevitable nerfing caused by autohealfood...
Remember that adding autohealfood inevitably will very heavily nerf the chances of "Redbeard" type characters to kill somebody. So even if we agree it's a good idea to reduce clickfestiness in the game, we have to compensate somehow for yet again nerfing those types of characters so badly. Enter the critical hits.
The exact percentages need better brains than mine to be worked over, it needs to be not just "okay looking to everybody and Dudel too", but enough of a chance to balance the inevitable nerfing caused by autohealfood...
Last edited by Cogliostro on Mon Jul 27, 2009 9:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
SekoETC
- Posts: 15525
- Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 11:07 am
- Location: Finland
- Contact:
Hey, here's an idea, how about changing the one hit per day rule to one hit per hour and dividing all damage, shield and tiredness values by 8? 
That would give people more time to react because they would be less likely to get killed instantly even if some people tried to gang rape them. Although then there would be a need for criticals or something else since otherwise someone barricading oneself into a building with a ton of healing food could never be taken down.
That would give people more time to react because they would be less likely to get killed instantly even if some people tried to gang rape them. Although then there would be a need for criticals or something else since otherwise someone barricading oneself into a building with a ton of healing food could never be taken down.Not-so-sad panda
-
Peanut
- Posts: 1155
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 3:01 pm
SekoETC wrote:Hey, here's an idea, how about changing the one hit per day rule to one hit per hour and dividing all damage, shield and tiredness values by 8?
That's what crowbars are for.
-
SekoETC
- Posts: 15525
- Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 11:07 am
- Location: Finland
- Contact:
Yeah but currently people can fill certain rooms with resources or corpses so that no one can fit inside, and they can leave the door unlocked so that no one can break it. Allowing dragging from outside the buildings would solve that but if there are several people in the room, it should pick one at random.
Not-so-sad panda
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest