Dragging and killing is too easy. Should need more people...

[returner]

I've reposted this suggestion with recent posts here:
http://forum.cantr.org/viewtopic.php?p=393274#393274

[Dudel]

I've reposted this suggestion with recent posts here:
http://forum.cantr.org/viewtopic.php?p=393274#393274

Question: This "suggestion" removes the "ganking" and "hit and run" tactics of cantr or just makes them more tedious? O.o

I don't see how this would help the problem at hand, especially with REDUCING tiredness as tiredness is supposed to be a key factor in deciding who's "fit to fight".

Just in crease the amount of tiredness and/or it's effect on things. This will make people have to AT LEAST be a bit more selective on who they drag/hit.

[returner]

What are you talking about? Did you even read the suggestion? Tiredness stays proportionally the same.. right now it's 15% tiredness for 100% damage.. now it's 3% tiredness for 20% damage, which is proportional.

Also it ensures that no one can be killed in two hits.

How about you read the suggestion before you delude others and ruin a potentially good implementation.

[Dudel]

What are you talking about? Did you even read the suggestion? Tiredness stays proportionally the same.. right now it's 15% tiredness for 100% damage.. now it's 3% tiredness for 20% damage, which is proportional.

Also it ensures that no one can be killed in two hits.

How about you read the suggestion before you delude others and ruin a potentially good implementation.

I did read it, thank you.... otherwise I'd not have noted the tiredness at all.

All this does is add more tedium to the game. Makes it even more slow and doesn't remove ANY of the current combat staple behaviors. Instead, it makes the combat staple behaviors just take longer.

[returner]

I did read it, thank you.... otherwise I'd not have noted the tiredness at all.

No, lol, you did NOT read it properly or you wouldn't have said this:

I don't see how this would help the problem at hand, especially with REDUCING tiredness as tiredness is supposed to be a key factor in deciding who's "fit to fight".

Yes, tiredness is reduced, but proportionally.

This suggestion has two benefits:
- Gives time to respond
- Makes it fairer for players who aren't as active.

If you'd like to discuss my suggestion further, please do so in the relevant thread. IF you want to continue HIS suggestion, continue here, but talk about his.

[BZR]

1. Introduce toxines from drinking tea and usingmedicines (maybe the drunkness bar)

2. Increase dragging tiredness

[Dudel]

1. Introduce toxines from drinking tea and usingmedicines (maybe the drunkness bar)

2. Increase dragging tiredness

Now those ideas I could get behind!

[returner]

How about increasing dragging tiredness through locked doors?.. as it takes more effort in real life to unlock a door, drag person through, and lock door in real life than it does an unlocked door.

Perhaps the answer to our problems lies in increases in tiredness, aka limiting the amount of actions a player can do in one day.

The only concern I have with this is that the game will eventually become very similar to turn-based games, where you accrue turns for attacks and you can't play if you don't have turns.

Hm...

[Cogliostro]

You're going at it from a completely biased standpoint. Instead of thinking about how to make the game's battles more dynamic and exciting, you're trying to figure out more ways to nerf combat so that nothing bad could ever happen to characters. No, we WANT bad thing happening to characters, and we should be thinking about how to give the evildoers a fair gameplay chance to do their evil, as much as about preventing ganking and insta-kills.

[returner]

You're going at it from a completely biased standpoint. Instead of thinking about how to make the game's battles more dynamic and exciting, you're trying to figure out more ways to nerf combat so that nothing bad could ever happen to characters. No, we WANT bad thing happening to characters, and we should be thinking about how to give the evildoers a fair gameplay chance to do their evil, as much as about preventing ganking and insta-kills.

Sorry, I don't know who you represent when you say 'we' but this game is certainly not to be used to leave a trail of dead bodies.

If you honestly believe that the game is only fun if players lose their characters to murderers such as yourself, I highly recommend you unsubscribe from the game immediately.



Now who's coming at it from a bias standpoint?

[Dudel]

Cogliostro is correct, to a point. You do want SOME things to happen but his usual manner is auto-kills and "make combat risky" (which it already is).

[Cogliostro]

I represent reason and a little game design expertise. Look at the ancient ying-yang symbol. Do you see it being all white, or all black? No, it is a balanced form that includes interpenetrating "good" and "evil", at the same time, in constant turmoil and movement. You have a bunch of good intentions, but you don't know what you are dealing with, what kind of machine it is. For a game to be exciting (meaningful, tragic, deep, profound etc.!) it has to consider things that are a bit more complex than simply eradicating the characters or even players who don't fit in with your personal idea of dollhouse fun.

Have a look at any armed conflict in Cantr. The actual combat part is tedious and drawn out, without the slightest sense of "action" and excitement to it, and the risk consists of being dragged away to a locked place. In what scientists are now calling "pretty gay", we have already nerfed away the possibility of deadly weapons, powerful villains or (take note) noble defenders. They're dangerous weapons in name only, and no one who knows the game mechanics fears hits from them. You can always use heal-food, etc. Flash mobs and gank attacks I have always argued against - they are unfair for all involved, the people who need to coordinate themselves OOC for it, and the victim, who's killed and doesn't have a chance to use heal food or respond.

[Drael]

Bad things do happen to characters, thats fine. Bad things happen a little too often with whole towns killed by mindless non roleplaying PKers, using game mechaninc related tactics.

I have no problem with charries dying, or even people playing evil characters, at all. A well played psycho could be fun, although there are few of those in cantr.

My problem is a) its so easy right now that two newspawns with some stolen weapons can do it b) The current system results in a style of combat which is strange and unsatisfying, and rewards currently active people ie cowardly stealth attacks on the tick.

Some open combat should occur, and combat shouldnt depend on whom drags who into what room. Its dull, cowardly and weird.

If combat relied on the strength of the forces, not these other odd and unsatisfying tactics then open combat could occur, which will also allow better roleplay in combat.

No time to RP, when your dashing into locked rooms.

I also beleive that criminals should need to be more organised than two newspawns to take over a town. Maybe a few more people would make the RP more interesting.

What if you dont want to play a cowardly sneak theif? What if you want to play a feirce warrior conquerer, a gloating bloody full on psychopathic killer or a noble knight???

It doesnt really make sense then to be hiding in a room and sneaking around dragging people does it? Youd want to be in the open, with other people, roleplaying the conflict.

I do agree though, that combat could be more dynamic. I understand it isnt a priority to the stated purpose of the game, but a few more variables might make things interesting. Still, i dont support auto-kills or the like in a game which is also heavily a society simulator, role-playing enviroment and also essentially a social game..

In cantr though IMO, combat should be more about roleplaying the thing (he clutches his bloody arm etc), than tactics or mechanics, which at the moment, it isnt, its too rushed and dull.

Cantr is one of the few _true_ roleplaying games there is on a computer. Its a rare enviroment to actually pretend a role. IMO we should relish in that, allow some freeform to come out, nuture the cultures that emerge over long periods. Its great and its unique. And yes, if someone wants to be a psycho, fine, but that should also be about RP, and the game should be effectively shared with those other great aspects players come to cantr to enjoy.

Its about precisely the opposite of removing characters who dont fit my ideas, its finding a way to share the game between both styles of role-play, while emphasizing the role-play, not the on tick, drag, hide and run silliness.

[Dudel]

Drael, I agree but it can't be fixed as Cantr doesn't have the man power to do so. The only thing that can be fixed is the RPers... which I'ma firm believer of letting everyone (even those newspawns) play as they wish.


In order to get something honestly "satisfying", rather then avoiding combat which real RPers do anyway, would be starting from scratch and that ain't happening with Cantr any time soon.

[Cogliostro]

How is it that the victims of town attacks always call the aggressors mindless non-RPers? I detect quite a bit of bias and ressentiment in that.

Perhaps they eschewed RPing with you, because the game itself demands that, for the pirate attack to be effective at all. But that doesn't mean they are non-RPers in general, how would you know? You don't, you only presume, accuse, and quite mindlessly want to nerf everything more and more every year.

It's really bad as is. I would like to play some excellent villains, but I no longer can since that would require me to babysit the character, take advantage of ticks, gank people with OOC-coordinated strikes and so on, all of which I find deadly boring.