Disarming Skill.

[Drael]

To clarify my first question. We already have deterioration. We can even repair our possessions.

As for point two, there have been a few possible models for game dynamics and all of them seem improportionally strong (and hardly practicable for the above mentioned reasons).

Okay, suggest a mechanic then, seeing as you have infinite insight!

[Piscator]

Besides, where would the disarmed weapon go? To the ground? In this case "disarm weapon" could as well be called "steal weapon". I see masses of newspawn trying to disarm town leaders and running off with their weapons. Even if there were only a 5% chance.
The only other option I can see is that the weapon is destroyed or damaged, but I can't see many people in favour of this. And that wouldn't be disarming either.

Well, that are basically the two options I see. Either the weapon drops to the ground, where you could pick it up immediately or the weapon gets damaged or removed entirely, which would technically not be the same as disarming. Those effects could be reduced by lowering the chances of success of course, but that would make the outcome of the action to unreliable.

And as for which weapon is affected, either the best weapon someone is carrying could be chosen or just a random one. And there would probably have to be some kind of exception for tools and ranged weapons.

That's the current state of discussion as I see it. Feel free to clarify or make a better suggestion if you have one.

[BlueNine]

To clarify my first question. We already have deterioration. We can even repair our possessions.

As for point two, there have been a few possible models for game dynamics and all of them seem improportionally strong (and hardly practicable for the above mentioned reasons).

Okay, suggest a mechanic then, seeing as you have infinite insight!

I know this wasn't directed at me, but you are getting overly defensive about any criticism to your, quite ridiculous suggestion.

However, it has made me think of a possible alternative to disarming...disabling. Instead of causing one/all weapons to fall/disappear, it could simply stop them from attacking for the day (could possibly require 2 people to disable) this would provide a much simpler method of incapacitating a subject without all this "where do the weapons go" problem

[Drael]

I know this wasn't directed at me, but you are getting overly defensive about any criticism to your, quite ridiculous suggestion.

Okay, if you say so. Anyway, id rather use the thread to talk about what could work, or be constructive with it.

However, it has made me think of a possible alternative to disarming...disabling. Instead of causing one/all weapons to fall/disappear, it could simply stop them from attacking for the day (could possibly require 2 people to disable) this would provide a much simpler method of incapacitating a subject without all this "where do the weapons go" problem

Well that would be alot simpler, I agree. If it only stops them for the day, it should probably effect all weapons. One could even call it something like "wind/stun", and just have it cause maximum tiredness maybe.

[Rebma]

Maybe I'm forgetting, but what exactly are the pro's to this anyways? Disarm, disable, stun, whatever the heck you're calling it.

I'm not sure I see any.

Although disabling would work better, its frightening to think when pirates attack, they can also stop your ability to fight for yourself. Kinda not fair, no? Same as with random thieves coming about and disarming an entire town. The only thing that would deter that is only being able to do it once per day, period, not per person.

Well, I see you say it'd count as one hit a day, so say for example we're using this for good, say a pirate docks to your town, and you want to stop him from being able to hit (disable)...Chances are, there will be more than one pirate, so if you can only disarm one, that gets you nowhere.

I know you will say, one disarm/disable per person, but then I'll just have to direct you back to my first scenario with pirates and thieves being able to abuse this. Its a vicious circle that gets us nowhere.

Btw, bluenine is right. You're getting overly defensive, and if it was anybody but pisc you were throwing insults at(because yes, we -all- noticed), you'd have had an issue on your hands. And yes I know, constructive, blah blah. I talked about it above.

[Drael]

Maybe I'm forgetting, but what exactly are the pro's to this anyways? Disarm, disable, stun, whatever the heck you're calling it.

Well could add a strategic element to warfare, it would useful for justice/theives, it would offer combatants more options allowing them more easily play, certain warrior types (yes you can RP and I do, but events add flavour). I think It could be interesting.

Although disabling would work better, its frightening to think when pirates attack, they can also stop your ability to fight for yourself. Kinda not fair, no? Same as with random thieves coming about and disarming an entire town. The only thing that would deter that is only being able to do it once per day, period, not per person.

Here you have a good point. Surprise (people sleeping) could make this overly powerful. In the real world, this would be realistic, some level of surprise, but in Cantr.... people sleep all the time. (In fact one of characters is thinking of writing a book about odd phenomena, sleeping while working, timeshifts (lag)...perhaps suggesting its a demonic force) Ill think on it, and see if I cant come up with ideas, but that could be a showstopper. It shouldnt work all the time, and should only be as powerful as an attack to be balanced. You wouldnt want people to be able to simply log on before their enemies and thus gain too much advantage. It just isnt viable to create sentries like in RL. And if disabling is too weak it becomes more pointless. Perhaps you could have it only acheivable by multiple people, but then its only useful for criminals, not general warfare....sorta pointless.

[Rebma]

Here you have a good point. Surprise (people sleeping) could make this overly powerful. In the real world, this would be realistic, some level of surprise, but in Cantr.... people sleep all the time. (In fact one of characters is thinking of writing a book about odd phenomena, sleeping while working, timeshifts (lag)...perhaps suggesting its a demonic force) Ill think on it, and see if I cant come up with ideas, but that could be a showstopper. It shouldnt work all the time, and should only be as powerful as an attack to be balanced. You wouldnt want people to be able to simply log on before their enemies and thus gain too much advantage. It just isnt viable to create sentries like in RL. And if disabling is too weak it becomes more pointless. Perhaps you could have it only acheivable by multiple people, but then its only useful for criminals, not general warfare....sorta pointless.

Yes, that's what I mean. Even if say I am awake in a town with 10 other awake people, and you and three buddies show up, even if I'm awake you still have the upper hand. You still have surprise. If I was sleeping it wouldn't really give you too much more of an advantage, since I wouldn't have the reaction time there anyways.

I can sorta see the advantages to stop random newspawn thieves -if- they've grabbed a weapon, but they're never much threat anyways.

If you can think of a way to add to this so balance it out so that it's beneficial more evenly with the justice side, that would be great.

As of now the only interesting thing I think of this, is in towns where pirates attack with people awake, it gives the town a better chance to react, though, if the attackers have the ability to, they kinda cancel each other out. Poop.

Maybe someone else has an idea on balancing this.

EDIT:just randomly equated disabling in my head with dragging, a project that depending on people strength and skills, could require more than one. In fact it's effectiveness would be on par with the same stats required for dragging, and that's one less thing a code would need to be made up for. That brings your multiple people thing into play.

[Drael]

just randomly equated disabling in my head with dragging, a project that depending on people strength and skills, could require more than one. In fact it's effectiveness would be on par with the same stats required for dragging, and that's one less thing a code would need to be made up for. That brings your multiple people thing into play.

Flash of brilliance That works, and would be like wrestling or pinning. Still not quite as useful in combat, but its both sensible and easier to add. It could still also play into strategy somewhat.

[BlueNine]

just randomly equated disabling in my head with dragging, a project that depending on people strength and skills, could require more than one. In fact it's effectiveness would be on par with the same stats required for dragging, and that's one less thing a code would need to be made up for. That brings your multiple people thing into play.

Exact thought I had as I was reading through...I always envisaged disabling as more of a policing/detaining move rather than an actual combat move. Also like the idea of 2 (or more) people holding someone from attacking while another one "works the body" so to speak

[Piscator]

Sounds like a good approach. How far should the effect of such a disabling project go? Should it only prevent from attacking or from defending (aka no shield & sure hit) too? Should you also be able to access the victims inventory?

I'm asking the last question because there has been call for a way to strip someone of their items without killing them (knockout thread). This way people could be very thoroughly disarmed too.
I see though how this could be problematic. A team of two strong people could strip a whole town off their possesions if not some kind of time limit is introduced.

[Caesar]

Perhaps you should make it only possible On one person at a time, and make the ones doing it automatically get hit, as they have to get close to be able to do this. The project will only work when the persons have a combined level of skill/strength enough to actually hold the other person.

Then the person would have to be stripped of items by yet another person.

And a time limit seems like a good idea to me too. Perhaps Make it a project that you have to finish, like taking two/three hours?

[Xervicx]

I don't like this idea to much... it makes it to easy for soemone to come in and just take someone's weapon. They'd also have to implelment an equip feature in Cantr, so they would actually be able to disarm someone. Either that, or the person would have to choose hwo to disarm them.

This is just to troublesome to me. Anyoen carrying a whip could then acquire an armoury of weapons by walking into a town and taking everyone's weapons. It would have to have a very low success rate.