Battle dynamic , Evil and Nice.

[Piscator]

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 does make you think that repeating yourself over and over again, posting messages in a row and in a length that is a pain to read, makes your arguments any more true?

About the one attack per hour rule, I don't think that would be a good idea. We shouldn't encourage players to stay up late just so they can use the next attack tick. Your effectiveness as a fighter would only depend on how often and on how many different hours you can log in. People who can only log in once a day could only do 12,5% of the usual damage and even the most fanatic player couldn't be online 8 hours a day.

[Arenti]

PLEASE NOTE: If your idea of a good time is to leave a trail of corpses behind you, Cantr II is not the game for you.

Why do I have the feeling some people are trying to change that?

[SekoETC]

But people who can log in several times a day are getting an advantage even with the current system. Someone could dock to a town, hit someone for 50 damage and another person for 30, maybe a third one for around ten and undock before anyone can reach them. With the one hit per day rule, they'd be encouraged to stay out of town for the rest of the day and rest. Or the same thing with someone barricading oneself in a building. If the person could attack each hour but for less damage, there would be an increased chance of someone else being online when they attack. Sure sleepy people would be likely to get attacked several times before they notice what's happening, but the total damage would be lower than what currently results from a single hit. Like you said, no one can be online around the clock anyway.

[Dudel]

PLEASE NOTE: If your idea of a good time is to leave a trail of corpses behind you, Cantr II is not the game for you.

Why do I have the feeling some people are trying to change that?

That is/was/are exactly my point(s).

I like Seko's idea for decreasing the total amount of damage while upping a crit hit to what a "normal strike" is now, with a BASE 1-2% CHANCE (That is about average for most RPGs crit hit range) and letting players hit once every 2-3 RL hours.

And I'm cool with healing food auto-healing provided it doesn't 100% heal and doesn't do it right after the attack.

If you, the player, are there to be a "clickfest" you can RP IN RESPONSE.

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?

And there in lies the problem! YOU, the player, are NOT RPing but INSTEAD "clickfesting".

SO MANY TIMES BEFORE: It is THE PLAYER, not game mechanic, which is the "issue".

RPing is my "pause"... so now you know that Cantr is about RPing and not about...

PLEASE NOTE: If your idea of a good time is to leave a trail of corpses behind you, Cantr II is not the game for you.

ALSO: What Gran and myself are, generally, getting at is "we want less psycos and suicidal newspawns". This would ENCOURAGE BOTH!

[Piscator]

But people who can log in several times a day are getting an advantage even with the current system. Someone could dock to a town, hit someone for 50 damage and another person for 30, maybe a third one for around ten and undock before anyone can reach them. With the one hit per day rule, they'd be encouraged to stay out of town for the rest of the day and rest. Or the same thing with someone barricading oneself in a building. If the person could attack each hour but for less damage, there would be an increased chance of someone else being online when they attack. Sure sleepy people would be likely to get attacked several times before they notice what's happening, but the total damage would be lower than what currently results from a single hit. Like you said, no one can be online around the clock anyway.

I think I might have come up with a better idea (probably not a new one and not thought through thoroughly yet, but anyway...)

Most of the problems of the current system seem to originate from hitting being immediate. (I know, some people want to keep at least some actions that are instantaneous, but in combat that is quite problematic as we know.) So let's instead of hitting a person outright only initiate an attack. You would give the command to attack a person in the usual fashion, but the actual attack would be performed a) after a day or b) when the target moves or strikes back.
That way people would only get attacked when they're concious (if they log in at least once a day) and hit-and-run tactics would become impossible.
It would also allow for more than one attack per day, provided the target is active and responds to the attack.

[Arenti]

I don't think that will work right, as when you attack a town and have to wait for a day before your attack lands, you can just be dragged inside easily ,without being able to do anything as they have a day to drag you inside.

[Dudel]

I don't think that will work right, as when you attack a town and have to wait for a day before your attack lands, you can just be dragged inside easily ,without being able to do anything as they have a day to drag you inside.

Error message: This person can not be dragged, he/she is initiating an attack.

[Arenti]

I don't think that will work right, as when you attack a town and have to wait for a day before your attack lands, you can just be dragged inside easily ,without being able to do anything as they have a day to drag you inside.

Error message: This person can not be dragged, he/she is initiating an attack.

Wouldn't that be unfair for the people in that town? Besides it would only give the stronger chars a larger advantage as a quick attack on a group of people is mostly the only way a small group has a change to win a fight.

[Gran]

I think that all this argument on fairness, that it would be fair if a lonenly character had a higher chance of killing an attacker is just petty. You know what would be fair? If all players had the same connection speed and all lived under the same time zone and under the same routine, so that all could log at the same time. You know what? It does not happen and cannot happen. So nothing of brining fairness, learn to accept that the activities under that mask called "character" can be terminated if the player wants it or not.

The talks about Cantr being intensive are just sounding wrong. I almost feel like you were saying that Tamagochi is Hack n' Slash. And it isn't. Cantr isn't Counter-Strike. Cantr isn't Diablo. Cantr hardly has any chance of giving you RSI. So all the "clickfest" just doesn't work.

And, being direct, because I want to reduce the amount of text, if a player has the unluck of being hit before his hit is processed, just sorry. "Sorry if you are using AOL, player, you are indeed a very sad bastard. Honestly, your connection not loading a page of text on the net is very sad." This is all which can be said off that.

If people want more safety to their characters, what I disagree when based of one's feelings over that character but I feel necessary when talking about CRB abuse, then a limit of how many attacks a character could receive over a certain time should be imposed.

Also, when we talk about encouraging interaction, it is not about me or Dudel talking about what is right or wrong. I've heard Wiro talking about his chars many times, Joo's rapists, Seko's psychos. There is no censorship to be made over well-played characters, and none should be made. It is about the many times I read "Oh, chars are too individualistic, they do everything by themselves" "There are few churches" There is no beaurocracy" "There is few companies" "People always want to be the best so no one wants to be the hard working guy who just lives a simple life and goes to a bar after a hard day", so there is a general idea that social interaction and building should be enforced. It is not just out of my own head.

You're trying just to picture it the way you want. You're still making a mess with real interaction and CRB, just to try to make a point. I really, really wanna ask, no sarcasm here, no joke, for you to stop triple posting, take off the smileys out of your text and try to do some more discussion. 'Cause otherwise this ain't moving anywhere. This topic is moving like three gears packed all together. This thread may eventually just die because of this and, well, and I will well go play my guitar! Try to calm down a bit, because this is getting me tired.

[Piscator]

I don't think that will work right, as when you attack a town and have to wait for a day before your attack lands, you can just be dragged inside easily ,without being able to do anything as they have a day to drag you inside.

Indeed. I said it wasn't completely thought through yet. I guess besides fleeing and attacking, a drag attempt should also trigger the attack. You would be in the building, but you would have a whole day to get out again.

[Cogliostro]

Hey Piscator, when people responding to you obviously have not read anything you said in the OP but only skimmed, you gotta repeat yourself. Or else you'll never be heard by those people, who are responding to their own idea of what you'd said not what you actually said. Simple! I see that you have nothing to pick on logically with what I say and argue, so you're now picking on the length of my posts or their frequency. Who cares, man. I'm passionate about this game and any ideas that might make it better.

Let's have an "executive summary" of everything said so far.

Original Proposition:
- make healfood be automatically eaten upon being hit, checkboxes next to food items in inventory which allow player to select which foods will be autoeaten, which skipped and saved (if any).
- add a small skill-dependent chance of a critical hit (2x-3x damage, with powerweapons potentially killing victim on the spot)

Results we figured out for autohealfood:
- many clickfesty aspects of the current healfood implementation are removed.
- less "ganking" if character is prepared for it, group attacks still possible and deadly.
- One "negative result": fatality rates in general will be greatly reduced, "evil" and aggressive characters are nerfed.

Results we figured out for critical hits:
- more exciting, dangerous combat situations due to players knowing any hit with a powerful weapon MIGHT be deadly. (many people agreed with that, not just me)
- low critical chances ensures that actual battle-outcome remains unchanged in the vast majority of cases.
- we use the fatality increase that follows from this suggestion to balance the natural decrease caused by autohealfood.


After this, we heard objections. They were:
"It will ruin the game." Later, the theme was elaborated and became more like this: "It will change the current system and I like the current system." GranAttack contributed a similar objection, that "clickfestiness in the combat" as I call it is not in his view a problem, but a feature, and it is all the way it should be. So the current system is good for what it does and doesn't need help being less clickfesty or more dangerous either. Fine, that's your opinion; but still it's lacking anything substantial that would show how the proposed idea doesn't work as intended, or how it ruins something in the game.

"It encourages the types of characters that we hate." Personally, I fail to see how that works. I say it doesn't encourage anything like that. But let's say you were correct there, and it did. So what? Sorry. Who cares what characters you hate? All kinds should have a place, read the front page about the Cantr game design goals.

"No,no,no (in bold),my character might be criticalled and die." Such an objection is inconsiderate to the other player who killed your character. He is probably enjoying his heroic lucky strike in exactly the same proportion as you are suffering from its effects. Automatically, that objection cancels itself out. This is a thorny, whiny objection, which easily spins out of control with endless posts about how I don't know what I'm talking about, how Cantr is not the game for me, about society building and all that... Meanwhile, those writing this have no idea what I do with my characters, and it's none of their business, and has no bearing on what's being discussed in this thread. We want reasons why the idea is not goint to work, if you think it's not going to. Just posting negative emotions or insults against the originator is not going to help the idea get any better.

"Cantr does not have insta-kills, this adds insta-kills, so it's not good for Cantr." This objection is short-sighted. Insta-kills and criticals are two different things. With insta-kills you are always capable of dealing 100+ damage with a powerful weapon, and this was unbalancing the game, many older characters dying too easily. So we rightly removed it. Now we are saying, let's bring back a small chance of a deadly hit, which would mean that powerful weapons are treated with the respect and wariness they deserve in combat, would alter the psychology of combat somewhat, and yet would not unbalance the overall statistic like before. This objection in effect states that criticals are a step back to when there were insta-kills, and so it's bad. But it is not a step back to anything, it's a step forward to where combat is less predictable and exciting again, all without the unbalancing caused by former instakill possibilities.

Did I cover all the objections so far in the overview, or have some been missed? Let's have them all in overview form so it's easier to read. The discussion is becoming a little circular, so I think it'd be good to clearly summarize everything arrived at so far and leave it be a good while, maybe to be revisited later or used as "thinkfodder" for other suggestions.

[Dudel]

You suggested the idea of auto deathing even at 5% or lower and the implementation of healing food because you feel combat is too "safe" and "clickfesty"

I say it is not "clickfesty" and there should be a player PAUSE, which you still don't seem to get. (That is the part where you STOP and WAIT for the other guy to "play along"). I also say that the idea of auto death is not a good idea even in a small amount.

You don't seem to understand.

I, and several others, explain that auto-death IN ANY MANNER, even when "slight" would STILL encourage people to be psyco skitzo murous d-bags making them even more powerful then they already are.

You do not understand.

I give you simple math.

You still do not understand.

I give you an example why my math is and my reasons for it.

You say I misunderstand what "auto death" means and how "rare" a crit hit would be... and don't understand that people inside "magic buildings" are INVINCIBLE ALREADY. You say again that adding the fact that they could randomly kill random people in one hit wouldn't be a bad thing and the case I gave example would be "so rare" that no one would notice. Even while this tactic and event happens rather often in Cantr already.

Ceaser adds to my comment with Tea making tiredness obsolete and bringing chance of crit hit back up, you don't understand.

Arenti disagrees, in general, about auto deathing.

You say it would be bad if people could 100% all the time but doing it once in awhile is "okay" cause RedBeard "needs a shot" and its "too safe" for the "hunters" to go kill said "redbeard". You try to link your idea to whispering but whispering doesn't kill characters so your point is invalid. You also suggest that people stop "getting emotional" about "Redbeard" and just accept how auto-kills are a good idea.

Arenti just doesn't like the idea of killing in Cantr and you agree but say SOMETHING must be "done".

SEVERAL people, including me, agree that SOMETHING should/must be done BUT NOT ANY form of auto/insto/etc death. Some are also not in favor of auto-healing.

SEVERAL OTHER IDEAS were suggested, which you ignored to push forth "auto/insto/crit/whatever deaths". Insisting that killing off WELL RPed Characters "in favor" of Redbeard and "the like" is a good thing.

A LOT OF PEOPLE dissagree but you get snippy and smart assy with your posts with and long winded annoyances to simply repeat yourself.

...after that it just became retarded and annoying to hear you say the same shit over and over while not seeing IN ANYWAY how arguments against were bad... so I gave up on reason and just tried yelling at you. That didn't work.

Gran explains things better but you get stupid and all you do is mock him.

blah blah... Cogliostro reiterates himself... blah blah blah Cogliostro doesn't read and claims the the opposite of the rest... blah blah blah.. Cogliostro is an idiot.

Summary:

Combat DOES INDEED need a "look at" and could do with being more "interesting/fun/etc" but ANY form of auto death isn't the way. Auto-death IN ANY FASION... be that "ganking" (something you don't seem to like) or magic number crit randomness lucky fucktard death.

YES, Cantr is in a state where it must either torture or trick its players into RP cause there gets people LIKE YOU who don't see the "harm" in killing a bunch of well established characters in favor of the latter who don't add ANYTHING to the game except corpses.

My brain is telling me to tell you to... "Go play an RP room in Runescape and shut the hell up about killing characters that contribute while rewarding those that do not."

NOT contribute to "the good guys" or the endless recourse gathering as some are well enough NOT NICE and do indeed steal, I've one myself. The PROBLEM is this isn't for the WELL RPed characters. It is for those that don't more then *smiles* SWING MY WOMPN' STICK!

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. Mad

NOW I'd also like to say this:

You keep saying "so many people agree" when I SAW TWO! Seko and Ryega... that was it. And all Ryega said was "I like this" and left!

[Cogliostro]

Just outta curiosity, however did you get to be so sure that all the characters who will die from critical hits will all be well-roleplayed, wonderful contributors? And that the ones doing the killings will all be good for nothings in the roleplay sense? The critical hit itself works equally for everybody. I guess you have never met a well-played, forceful villain? I don't really blame you there, with rules like the current, playing one is almost impossible. But they still manage to exist!
Yours is a totally moot point, since we aren't the prude comittee here on our sunny bench deciding who we like and who we don't like. We don't have any say in what characters what players want to play. Dislike the ones you dislike all you want - privately, or even in the general forum. Don't you see that it's got absolutely nothing to do with what we were taking on here?

I don't remember any math from you guys. Maybe you don't know what math is? Math is when you can correctly analyze the interaction of stochastic variables, look into Joo's posts for examples. It's not when you and Ceasar get a panic attack over the realization that tea can replenish energy. Come on! We knew that, and that's a completely normal part of the game, since tea and other things like it are in no way infinite.

I've found only one other point in your writings, and that is that I'm falsifying the situation by claiming many people agree with me. I was talking about a specific thing: that many people agree a critical hit chance has the potential to bring much-needed excitement and danger to combat situations. People who agreed on this included Seko, Miri, and a lot of others less explicitly, so I wasn't trying to falsify anything in your face. I included it to clarify that I wasn't the only one with this idea, I'm just its designated defender and reasoner for the moment. Numerical consensus, like I explained, is really unimportant. Look at the whispering implementation, and how many people moaned there even worse than you're doing here? It's just nature for people to moan over the exact things that are done or suggested for their own good, which they don't see. All they see is the loss of unfair advantages or abilities they're used to having.

Still interested in any specific serious objections I may have missed or glossed over, to include in the summary overview.

[Piscator]

Well, since you seem to like repetition.

The critical hit itself works equally for everybody.

This is just not true. It works equally for people who attack someone. With the current system (and the proposed changes won't do anything about that) it is easier to attack somebody than to defend against an attacker. So all inta-kills will do is further advantage the attackers.

No,no,no (in bold),my character might be criticalled and die." Such an objection is inconsiderate to the other player who killed your character. He is probably enjoying his heroic lucky strike in exactly the same proportion as you are suffering from its effects.

So you really think people will dance around and scream "Woho, I rolled a 20, I rule!"?

But that's not the point. The point is that you can't do anything against a critical hit. If you put a year of real life time into a character you deserve a little more explanation as for why he died than "Tough Luck". Characters should kill characters, not a die.

Anyway, although Dudel might not be completely accurate in every detail, he reproduces the general feel of this discussion pretty well.

[Arenti]

Well I think it's clear that almost everyone is against this. So I hope this will be rejected soon.