3 or 5 attacks per day- slightly more realistic.

[Kreed]

The reason for the limit is that people cannot babysit their characters 24 hours a day.

Red Herring, in what way would babysitting your character 24/7 help against getting hit. Anymore than checking in now and again does? I thought the reason for the klunky one hit rule was to prevent single handed masacres.

If you wish to kill a whole town you have to work together with someone else... As i like it. No one should be a "one man army".

Red Herring, how will being able to hit two to four times create a "one man army"? Bearing in mind that the last hit or two would be fairly ineffectual and that a well armed person would still have to have great luck to manage to kill ONE person in a day, let alone a single handed masacre.

Have some guts people. There should be some chance that you could be killed by another individual, wheres all the people who usual throw down the realism card?

[the_antisocial_hermit]

The reason for the limit is that people cannot babysit their characters 24 hours a day.

Red Herring, in what way would babysitting your character 24/7 help against getting hit. Anymore than checking in now and again does? I thought the reason for the klunky one hit rule was to prevent single handed masacres.

Uhm, it doesn't affect whether you get hit or not, but whether you can defend yourself and heal yourself and get to safety if you have the means.

[Liljum]

If you wish to kill a whole town you have to work together with someone else... As i like it. No one should be a "one man army".

Red Herring, how will being able to hit two to four times create a "one man army"? Bearing in mind that the last hit or two would be fairly ineffectual and that a well armed person would still have to have great luck to manage to kill ONE person in a day, let alone a single handed masacre.

Have some guts people. There should be some chance that you could be killed by another individual, wheres all the people who usual throw down the realism card?

With a good weapon you can kill another character in 3 strikes.

If you have a good weapon and a lockable house, you can kill one character a day without being hit back, and your safe inside without any risk of your lock being picked anytime soon.

So, kill the ones with crowbar first and the risk of not succed in killing the whole town is little to none...

So, in about 3-4 days you have killed 3-4 characters and taken care of all good weapons and tools they carried.

And in most towns there is not more than 3-4 characters with a crowbar.

So, my vote to this is no thanks!

And i really dosen't like the automated hitting system either. Do you hit back if your at sleep in real life? Mostly you would wake up and be confused and it would really take a while until you respond to the aggressions towards you. And by then the aggressor will be long gone.

[El_Skwidd]

Do you sleep 24 hours a day in real life? Or, at best, 20 hours and 40 minutes?

While I think a combat system redo may be in order, I don't know if this is the way to do it. While assassinations would actually be possible, so would one man taking over a town like Liljum said.

Of course, that gives rise to the fact that 10-person, relatively unorganized societies are doomed to fail anyway and that there's safety in numbers.

Meh, I still don't entirely like it.

[SekoETC]

The reason for the limit is that people cannot babysit their characters 24 hours a day.

Red Herring, in what way would babysitting your character 24/7 help against getting hit. Anymore than checking in now and again does? I thought the reason for the klunky one hit rule was to prevent single handed masacres.

If my character isn't the primary target, I might have time to flee or drag the attacker into jail when I notice them starting to hit others. But I admit, much depends on chance. Another thing we would need with multiple attacks, is defending others beside yourself.

Anyone of importance is likely to carry a bunch of keys, some of which are still valid. Successfully murdering a character like this would lead into a bunch of keys falling on the ground. On a fast connection, it takes about a second to load the page. Another second to click-click-click on all the keys. Then you just start running in and out of buildings, if it's locked then you have the key. If it's not locked, try to lock it, if it shows red then gtfo of there.

In real life, it would take more than two seconds to search a dead person's pockets for keys. You might not even know if the person is dead or faking it, just waiting for a chance to stick a knife at your ribs for revenge. Also if you have dozens of keys, you wouldn't automatically know which ones fit. You would have to try them by chance, one by one. You might even mess up and try some several times.

Concerning people not hitting back if they've just awakened, that's true. But that's where we need the awareness attribute. If you see someone getting hit right next to you, you're gonna be wide awake and if they get to you next, you'll be prepared. But if they sneak behind you when you're farming for taters, you wouldn't even realize what happened.

Hehe, one point is that even though *I* would like to massacre a town (actually, I've tried something like that twice), I wouldn't want someone else to do it to my character. I think deep down inside, we all feel the same. But wars can be fun. Violence can be fun. You just gotta have the feeling that there's a chance to survive, no matter how slight.

[Kreed]

If you have a good weapon and a lockable house, you can kill one character a day without being hit back, and your safe inside without any risk of your lock being picked anytime soon.

So, kill the ones with crowbar first and the risk of not succed in killing the whole town is little to none...

So, in about 3-4 days you have killed 3-4 characters and taken care of all good weapons and tools they carried.

Thats using the best weapon, being a skilled fighter AND having a ton of luck.
I'd say that the last sentence is practically impossible. Also everyone else can hit you the same amount.
Remember this thread is'nt saying that you have three good hits, its saying you have ONE normal hit and then a rapid deteriation.

[Talapus]

Remember this thread is'nt saying that you have three good hits, its saying you have ONE normal hit and then a rapid deteriation.

What I was thinking was, 3 attacks go without tiredness...

[psymann]

Tell me- why are we preventing something that does happen in real life, a 20 year old killing someone?

Because it's a game. It's not real life. It's Cantr life.

It should be possible, difficult, but possible, to kill someone in one day. Not 5. That's a little silly

It should be possible, not even difficult, but possible, to collect 300g of wood in about half an hour. Not a day. That's also a little silly. If you start picking up on every "silly" thing in Cantr, you're going to be here a long long time.

The length of time to kill someone is in keeping with the length of time taken to do anything else - everything takes a Long Time.

I think 3 attacks will be suitable, it makes the murder situations more realistic instead of having to roleplay over a number of days

For the people who want more attacks per day, why not say that you can attack any person three times, but that each attack does one third as much damage as it does at the moment. Then people who want to role-play attacking them frequently can do so, without making characters die left, right and centre.

Yes, remove the imposed limit altogether and make attacks limited by tiredness and based on each characters strength. So that each attack is less effective

That would be another alternative to the one I just mentioned - as long as after only a handful of attacks, the attacker could do 0 damage.

I'm all for people playing their full 200 minutes, but the majority of the world can't, and the game is promoted as a slow

Agreed, which is why either my simple suggestion, or Kreed's cleverer one, should be implemented at the same time, if this was to be added.

would rather see auto retaliation

Don't like that. I will choose when and whether I attack back. Imagine someone attacked, and said "Oops, sorry, got the wrong person" and it was a friend - I don't want to automatically attack them back!

This game is as i whant it, killing-spree free.

I second that.

If you want to go on a killing spree, make 180 attacks per day, kill loads of people, steal stuff all day long, and generally have a fabulous time causing trouble to people, then I have a simple solution for you:

http://www.warofempires.com

Then when you've released your adrenaline, come back to Cantr and continue hitting people once a day!

psymann

[Kreed]

I'm not so sure now, I'd really like to see an slight increase in the potential for violence and I've realised this might actually decrease it. If tiredness became the ruling factor in hitting there would be no more running round smacking everyone in sight and legging it.

[Piscator]

If you add autoretaliation, people wouldn't run around and smack everyone either. They simply wouldn't live long enough. Make sparring a project or an activity and there shouldn't be much problems left. Be honest, how often do you hit the wrong person? If you do, you deserve a little hit on the head.


And I think psymans idea of three attacks with reduced strenght is worth thinking about. We already have the option to reduce the power we hit with. If we perform a 30% strike, why shouldn't we be able to save the 70% left to deal them another time. It would enable us to hit someone as a warning, and hit him again for real without having to wait for the next day.

[Kreed]

I'd just like to take this oportunity to be completely facetious here as my wife wont let me irl!

New suggestion; we should get rid of that nasty violent combat system.
Weapons should be split into three groups;

Bone weapons ect should now give a "boo boo"
Bows and spears should now give an "ouchie"
And iron stuff and crowsbows should give a "WTF"

Everyone getting hit should get a bunch of flowers the next day coresponding to the equivalent politically correct non-injury!

Those mean animals need fixing too, instead of attacks they should have a cuteness rating instead.

Also with a game slow as this is I've noticed that people are having conversations much to quickly and its throwing the balance with the sedentary pace of the game, I suggest no more than ten sentences a day max! This will also help with server load!

[Piscator]

Yeah! And change the background colour from green to pink!

I'm not completely sure I that get what you mean, really.

[tiddy ogg]

Oh yes Creed. Replace wolves and elephants with hamsters and kittens, hawks with canaries.
All weapons to have rubber tips.

Iguess, however, this should all be in the Spoof Suggestions thread.

[The Sociologist]

No. It's against the whole principle of the game.
I'm all for people playing their full 200 minutes, but the majority of the world can't, and the game is promoted as a slow , "few minutes a day" thing, so, as Seko says, you must give the defender a chance.

Thank you. Well put.

Regarding this suggestion No, No and again No.

[new.vogue.nightmare]

I have to take a moment to laugh at all the people who seem to think that removing this limit will cause bloodshed and massacres all over Cantr. 180 attacks a day? Characters dying left, right and centre? All this change would do is allow you to choose to whom your attacks go. I fail to see how it is possible to strike three to five people once each, but not at all to strike a single target three to five times.

The one strike per target per day was implemented before tiredness was in the game. It served its purpose then, limiting the number of attacks to the number of potential targets in the area. Without it, yes, one person would then be able to singlehandedly take on an infinite number of sleeping opponents.

Nowadays, I believe it has outlived its usefulness. With the limit removed, you would still have the same number of attacks, except in areas with only one other person. You would still gain tiredness and your attacks would lose effectiveness as you continued. Now, the advantage would not be given to people who want to strike as many people as they can, instead balancing it out so that people who would rather only hurt one person can focus on a single target. Missed attacks could now be made up, although with slightly less effectiveness than the original would have, due to tiredness from the first failed attempt. I personally cannot see a single drawback to a change like this. And as for the fear of killing someone who has keys to the entire town, I have this to say: If someone has the resources to obtain that many keys legitimately, and neglects to shield themselves to survive more than three attacks, perhaps they don't deserve to hold those keys. History has always shown that careless leaders usually don't last very long.

The only way I can think of to make it better, and perhaps allay some fears of the OMG NOW PEOPEL CAN KILL MY CHAR!!1 crowd, is to add a small accuracy penalty for subsequent attacks to a target, in the sense that after a character is struck they would be better prepared for another attack from the same attacker.