Essential and Critical changes to Combat System

[returner]

From another thread regarding the unfairness of the combat system:

I agree with the problem, but not with the solution. The outcome of a fight should roughly depend on the relative strengths of the parties involved, not on who strikes first or on who has the most tea in their inventory.

Agreed!

One proposal I suggested over 4 years ago was this:

Firstly, reduce damage inflicted to about 20% of what it is currently. Then introduce turn-based attacks, meaning if I attack you, I have to wait for you to attack me back before I can strike again, or I can wait 1 day. (bear in mind we are only doing a fifth of the damage now).

That way you can spar with someone to the death, provided they are online and awake. IF they need to log off, then the fight can be continued later.

A little more realistic I guess? or at least a bit more fair.

I love this suggestion! However, maybe there should still be a limit to sparring, maybe 5 times or something.

That's essentially what I meant by:

delaying the actual attack until the victim had a chance to log in (or a certain time has passed)

My idea was that after announcing an attack you would either have to wait a full day or until the target moves (including attacking, running away, perhaps talking) for the combat move to be finished. But as I said, a workable system that covers every eventuality would likely be very complex.

[Piscator]

I would appreciate it if we could keep this thread for just discussing this idea. In the past, similar proposals have been shot before they were even half-baked, because they didn't seem workable (yet). So please, keep this thread for discussing and developing the idea. We can decide about wheter or not to accept the idea when all details have been discussed.

[returner]

I would appreciate it if we could keep this thread for just discussing this idea. In the past, similar proposals have been shot before they were even half-baked, because they didn't seem workable (yet). So please, keep this thread for discussing and developing the idea. We can decide about wheter or not to accept the idea when all details have been discussed.

I agree 100%. Let's keep this on topic and draw out some hard numbers and figures for implementation.

[returner]

Probably the best part of this suggestion is that THOSE who WANT to fight, can. And rather than a murder drawing out over days and days, it can be done in a more realistic and fair manner.

No more will we see the days of:
Person A: 'I am going to kill you! I will, just you wait.. it'll only take a week, but you wait..'
Person B: 'Bring it on!'
Person A: 'I will!'
Person B: '*taps foot* Alright then! Let's do it!
Person A: 'I shall! You're a dead man!'
Person B: 'So how annoying has the weather been lately, huh!'


----------
THE FACTS
----------

I propose the following implementations:

1) Divide all current damage by all weapons to 30%.

2) Leave everything re: one attack a day, the same.

3) If you are hit by someone, you can instantly hit them back. The 1 hit a day rule is instantly voided (provided you haven't hit them within that day already).

4) If you hit someone, they can hit you back straight away. But the last person to hit, must wait 1 day OR for the person to strike back.

5) Tiredness is reduced to 3% per attack (which is proportional to the amount of damage suggested)

I think that's all that needs to be changed, right? Am I missing anything?

[SekoETC]

Those sound good, it would make the game advance faster for people who log in several times a day, while people who don't or can't fight back would take less damage from a single attacker.

But that would mean that killing a sleeper alone would take at least a week even with the best weapon. (If we assume that the weapon currently does 50 damage and 30% of that would be 15, which would mean you would require 6.66 daily hits to reach 100%) So I think it might be a good idea if you were gradually allowed to hit harder for each day the other character goes without fighting back (if you don't start feeling guilty about it). It could be accomplished like this, only the 0 through 30% radio buttons were enabled for the first hit against a person. If the person struck you back, the one hit limit would be lifted and you could again hit them for 0 to 30%, but if a day or more had passed, the 40% radio button would be enabled, next the 50% and each day it would enable one more until it got to 100%. But if the other character struck back, it would reset back to 30%. It could be seen as characters first swinging in a smaller arc not to leave their defenses open, but growing more brave as the target doesn't fight back. Also if someone hit back after over a day had passed, their first hit would have the same upper limit the attacker would've been granted next to balance things out. So if someone has hit you seven days in a row and you haven't fought back until then, instead of 30% you'd be allowed to hit them for 100%, while in their next attack they'd only be allowed to use 30%.

I would also suggest small tiredness from entering and exiting buildings (less than 1%) and increased tiredness from dragging.

[FiziKx]

...and, this would pretty much kill the idea of the: "death to the weaklings!" 'Sparta-like' roleplay that I was hoping so much to be somewhere in game. or would it?

[returner]

Exactly Seko, tiredness should be applied to all aspects of the game so people who are awake 24/7 and playing their characters 24/7 (ie me) are limited. In fact, this suggestion of mine limits the intentions of my characters and I hate it but it's not fair to others who've spent real-life years on their characters to have them killed in seconds.

ALTERNATIVELY: What if, for every 10 years, you gained an extra 10% health?

So a person in their ninties has 170% health? Which is fair, considering they deserve more defense against some shitty 13 year old PK'er.

This could be an alternative to my orginal suggestion, easier to implement and benefits everyone.

[Dudel]

BUT...

This suggestion doesn't remove the current "Cantr tactics" that are the reason for this suggestion and so many others.

If a character hits someone and then HIDES they get 40% next time cause the other dude couldn't hit back... etc etc etc. All it does is slow things down and make the game play more tedious for both attacker and "defender".

Decreasing tiredness, even proportional, would actually increase the likelihood of successful and "critical" (getting passed a shield, etc) hits.

While less damage would be done this would only mean that "dragging people off" (which is the standard measure to kill in Cantr) would take a LOT longer then normal.

Ganking, etc (charging into areas with a gang of Characters) would simply need more people but still be 100% do-able. And with dragging, etc this wouldn't matter as the "leader" or whatever could be hoisted into a car and then attacks by angry towns people generally ignored while "the bady" gets away.


You are correct in that this slows things down but it DOES NOT "solve the problem" that 90% of people forum complain about upon loosing characters.

[SekoETC]

People hiding in buildings can be difficult to deal with but people outside could still predict that the person is going to come out after the violence tick the next day, so you could be prepared for the attack. If you're not going to be online at that time, you should go inside or onto a road. You'll have a full day to do that. You shouldn't be standing outside unalert when there's a hostile person hiding in a building waiting for the next chance to strike. You'd have almost a day at trying to break the lock, except that you can get dragged inside but most likely not unless the attacker is a part of a team. You'll have that day to radio other towns for help or jump onto a vehicle and drive to get reinforcements.

Currently it is possible to kill an attacker within seconds when you know when they're about to strike, I know because one of my characters got killed that way. Although if people were only doing 30% damage (or 40% if I'd hit them the previous day and they hadn't had a chance to strike back until now) it would make it more difficult for them to kill me within seconds, but I would also be doing much smaller damage, think 15 instead of 50. That would mean that a single attacker wouldn't be a threat to a town that has healing food stocked up. They could be a nuisance but not a threat, unless they drag some weakling inside or onto a boat.

And if going in and out of buildings included a small bit of tiredness, running back and forth to snipe at people, then going back to safety would make the attacker more tired.

I think tiredness should also affect blocking chance (currently the chances of someone hitting past the shield or missing are set numbers, only the amount blocked with a shield is affected by tiredness) and hitting chance. If you swing at several people in a row, you're likely to start making errors as you get exhausted. But at the same time, I don't think damage from a successful hit should be affected by tiredness as much as it is now. If you swing at people with all your might, the weight of the weapon is going to cause damage even if you were exhausted.

[returner]

Seko, what did you think of my alternative (and {I think} improved) suggestion re: 10% increase in total health every time you hit a new age-group?

This protects our older players who have survived wars and have much to give to the game. Plus the idea of weakness at old age is a very OOC concept - it is not present in Cantr and thus one can only assume you get stronger at old age. (unlike in the real world)

[SekoETC]

I think that old characters are already powerful enough as it is because they often have better equipment, better social networks, more healing food stocked up, more buildings, more vehicles, thus also giving them also more hit points would further imbalance things.

If we wanted extra protection for old people, I would suggest something like allowing people to protect somebody so that if someone tires to hit that person, you'd have a random chance of getting between the attacker and target and absorbing the blow with your shield or body. Since the attack was originally aimed at the other person, the attacker would be able to hit you a second time since the first hit was unintentional.

[Piscator]

If a character hits someone and then HIDES

That's why my idea would be to let the attack happen when the other one reacts.

A steps out of the building and announces the attack on B. B wakes up and chooses to retaliate. Both strike simultaneously. Only then could A walk back into the building.

While I see that it might be annoying to have to wait up to a whole day until you know the outcome of an attack, it's not much different than waiting on the outcome of a lockbreaking project. You could imagine it as both opponents circling each other, looking for a chance to strike.

This would also make it unnecessary to reduce damage.

[returner]

Perhaps there should be a maximum of 1 kill per day. That'd solve the issue we are complaining about (being that 2 people can wipe out a town)

[Dudel]

Perhaps there should be a maximum of 1 kill per day. That'd solve the issue we are complaining about (being that 2 people can wipe out a town)

Again, that just slows down the process... not stop the problem. Make people wait for the spot to open up in more days, etc etc etc.

Piscator, while I like your idea I don't. The delay is annoying and results in that other people could drag off the "attacker" before anything was done.... and it also means "the defender" can point out "the attacker" to allow others to attack. This is just.... ugly.

[returner]

Perhaps there should be a maximum of 1 kill per day. That'd solve the issue we are complaining about (being that 2 people can wipe out a town)

Again, that just slows down the process... not stop the problem. Make people wait for the spot to open up in more days, etc etc etc.

Piscator, while I like your idea I don't. The delay is annoying and results in that other people could drag off the "attacker" before anything was done.... and it also means "the defender" can point out "the attacker" to allow others to attack. This is just.... ugly.

The only thing you can do, other than stop all violence in the game or completely overhaul the system, is to slow it. So what's your point? You seem to disagree with everything and not actually provide your solution to the situation.

Thus: What is your cure-all solution to the situation?

If you don't have one, how else are we to prevent towns being wiped out OTHER THAN introducing mechanisms that slow attacks?

Please answer in full before you disagree with anyone elses' ideas in this thread, cheers.