Combat Rewrite II

[Joshuamonkey]

Years later the ex-thief ends up in the same town as the person who had set up auto-attack on them, gets auto-attacked the moment they see each other....

The auto-attack could have a limited time span.

When discussing this proposal, I always assumed that the auto attack would be like a project, in that if the character moved, it would be canceled automatically. In that way, auto-attacking would only work for a passive character.

I like that idea.

quote="Suggestion 3"]- Weapons and shields (and armor) are equipped RPG style. When a person attacks another character, damage is applied to both parties depending on their current equipment and stats.

Isn`t this the same as a counter attack?

I never, ever understood it this way, and I don't think it was ever meant to be taken this way. I certainly wouldn't have given it my endorsement to go public if that were the case. GAB, can you weigh in please, because if that is what it means, I have a big problem with it. If that's not what it means, we need to either clarify or remove the language.

The reason why weapons would have to be equipped is to avoid unvoluntary counter attacks. If you select a weapon or ready your fists, you counter-attack. If you don't, you don't. The attacker would be able to see which option you chose and would know what he'd have to expect.

I guess that's what it means.

For seeing a list of characters that your character knows, I think it would be nice if it worked like a search; it would take some programming work (like all of this).

[Piscator]

Well, that's exactly how it was meant. If you attack another person you deal damage to that person and also recieve a certain amount of damage, depending on the equipped weapon of your target. Whether or not we call it auto-retaliation, it's essentially supposed to be the same.

How did you understand it?

[oxyquan]

I voted for 3, but not agree with auto-attack.

+1

[Joshuamonkey]

The problem is, without auto attack, suggestion three doesn't solve the main problem of people quickly attacking and then leaving (or dragging).

[Chris]

For those who don't like auto-attack... what else is there? In the current system, you as a player have to watch your character every damned second to keep him/her safe. .

So all thieves will now be considered guilty of assault too? That`s my only concern. That and getting killed by a slave driver, for hitting back when I didnt make that choice.

That is why I suggested more than one defensive response (posture), chosen in advance. If you were captured by someone who would punish you for hitting back, you could choose "block" or "flee" ahead of time.

I don't understand the "all thieves will now be considered guilty of assault" statement. The auto-defense would be triggered by a hit, not by picking something up.

[Doug R.]

Well, that's exactly how it was meant. If you attack another person you deal damage to that person and also recieve a certain amount of damage, depending on the equipped weapon of your target. Whether or not we call it auto-retaliation, it's essentially supposed to be the same.

How did you understand it?

I guess I misunderstood it entirely. I really liked that version too. Now I don't. *goes to change vote*

Actually, if I misunderstood it so badly, perhaps it should be revised for clarity and the discussion locked until it's done. I really don't think it would be getting this much support if people understood it as intended.

I really loved the idea without the auto-retaliation. +2 to that.

[Piscator]

So what did you understand? I really don't get what other meaning one could read out of it.

[oxyquan]

The problem is, without auto attack, suggestion three doesn't solve the main problem of people quickly attacking and then leaving (or dragging).

Auto-attack isn't a good solution against this tactics. We don't need bots. Suggest destroying buildings or something like that, but not damn automation.
Yeah, let's automate everything... pfff...

[Doug R.]

So what did you understand? I really don't get what other meaning one could read out of it.

We were so involved with specifying the state of a character at the beginning of attacks in the other proposals, I had just assumed that it was a clarification of the states of the characters at attack initiation. There is no word, like retaliate, or counter attack, in that sentence that would have drawn my attention to what was really being said. I didn't clearly understand the statement as written, and made a very incorrect assumption as to what it meant. I'm going to clarify the language now.

[Doug R.]

The problem is, without auto attack, suggestion three doesn't solve the main problem of people quickly attacking and then leaving (or dragging).

Auto-attack isn't a good solution against this tactics. We don't need bots. Suggest destroying buildings or something like that, but not damn automation.
Yeah, let's automate everything... pfff...

I don't consider telling your character to attack someone the next time they appear to be automation. It's a purposeful, premeditated, and directed mechanism, and it's utility is minimized if it's intended for off-line use. -However- I do consider automatic retaliation to be automation in every sense of the word. You don't know who is attacking you. You don't know why they're attacking you. You don't know if a reprisal is appropriate. There is no premeditation behind it at all. It would just become one of those mechanisms that often make no sense socially.

The reason why I like proposal three without the auto-retaliation is because, while it doesn't solve all of our combat problems, it has the following benefits:

1) Adding the near-death state will go a long way to alleviating the mass murder problem. If there is a minimum of one day incapacitation, any attacker could be long gone before anyone wakes up, and if they're healing food was stolen, they'd be in no shape to pursue. Maybe we could even take it a step further and specifically disallow character death unless it's at the hands of the player, i.e. death only occurs when the player chooses not to heal their character. I'm not saying I'd definitely want this, but it's something to think about. Cantr is a story, and players lose interest when they lose their favorite characters.

2) Adding the Attack-on-site function neutralizes the advantage of bunkered killers, another major pain in the ass. Making this a passive-only function (i.e. movement cancels it, etc,), makes it very difficult to abuse, and also make putting a time limit on it unnecessary. The 7-day expiration of events means that people last seen more than 7 days ago couldn't be targeted anyway, and if you want to essentially abandon your character to maintain such a state of vigilance, then the character must really really want to hit that character. The more power to them.

3) Making attack protection expire if the attacker is struck makes duels/battles possible and paves the way for realistic roleplay.

4) The above three fixes eliminate major headaches of the current system with minimal actual changes. The combat system itself is nearly identical and familiar. Yes, it still has the problem of attack and drag tactics, but dragging can be overhauled separately. For what it fixes, option three without auto-retaliation is actually a very inexpensive change for what it addresses. Suggestion 1 attempts to address all of the current system's problems, and it's a monstrosity that will introduce an entirely new set of problems. Suggestion three fixes many problems, is familiar to what we have now, and doesn't introduce any new significant issues if implemented as I suggest.

[Mykey]

For those who don't like auto-attack... what else is there? In the current system, you as a player have to watch your character every damned second to keep him/her safe. .

So all thieves will now be considered guilty of assault too? That`s my only concern. That and getting killed by a slave driver, for hitting back when I didnt make that choice.

That is why I suggested more than one defensive response (posture), chosen in advance. If you were captured by someone who would punish you for hitting back, you could choose "block" or "flee" ahead of time.

I don't understand the "all thieves will now be considered guilty of assault" statement. The auto-defense would be triggered by a hit, not by picking something up.

Yeah I mean if they were struck they would automatically deal damage back. Sorry, I jumped to some conclusions there. I like your idea of stances too.

So what did you understand? I really don't get what other meaning one could read out of it.

We were so involved with specifying the state of a character at the beginning of attacks in the other proposals, I had just assumed that it was a clarification of the states of the characters at attack initiation. There is no word, like retaliate, or counter attack, in that sentence that would have drawn my attention to what was really being said. I didn't clearly understand the statement as written, and made a very incorrect assumption as to what it meant. I'm going to clarify the language now.

I`m really glad we are dissecting and discussing these proposals, instead of just being hit with a new system. 3 Cheers for the prog D everybody!

[Piscator]

-However- I do consider automatic retaliation to be automation in every sense of the word. You don't know who is attacking you. You don't know why they're attacking you. You don't know if a reprisal is appropriate. There is no premeditation behind it at all. It would just become one of those mechanisms that often make no sense socially.

Actually it's pretty much the same level of automation as the use of shields. If we can accept that a char will use the shield he's wearing when we attack him, accepting that he'll also use the weapon in his other hand is not that much harder. If you don't want to retaliate, you can leave your sword sheathed. I find it difficult to imagine a situation where you might want to retaliate against one person, but not against another. Either you're expecting a fight and are a bit on the nervous side (which includes lashing out against someone who might just be poking you to ask you a question) or you are not, in which case you leave your weapon where it can't do harm. Towns might even start to enforce laws against carrying weapons openly to prevent accidents.

[SumBum]

I strongly dislike the idea of automated retaliation for many of the reasons already stated. I am in favor of being able to choose to attack someone not in the area as soon as they reappear. I would suggest against giving it a time limit, though. In the case of a barricaded char, all they'd have to do is wait 7+ days then step outside again. I realize that could be considered a little ridiculous, but I've witnessed players with far more patience than that.

It would be nice if you could select an "absent" char to attack and carry on with your life, otherwise your char could be sitting there doing nothing for X amount of time (7 days if we go with that limit). Allow chars to keep working on projects etc until the target re-enters the area and combat is initiated - then the project work stops. Have it set so that the char waiting to hit someone can cancel their intention and if they leave the area then the attack is automatically canceled.

[Mykey]

-However- I do consider automatic retaliation to be automation in every sense of the word. You don't know who is attacking you. You don't know why they're attacking you. You don't know if a reprisal is appropriate. There is no premeditation behind it at all. It would just become one of those mechanisms that often make no sense socially.

Actually it's pretty much the same level of automation as the use of shields. If we can accept that a char will use the shield he's wearing when we attack him, accepting that he'll also use the weapon in his other hand is not that much harder. If you don't want to retaliate, you can leave your sword sheathed. I find it difficult to imagine a situation where you might want to retaliate against one person, but not against another. Either you're expecting a fight and are a bit on the nervous side (which includes lashing out against someone who might just be poking you to ask you a question) or you are not, in which case you leave your weapon where it can't do harm. Towns might even start to enforce laws against carrying weapons openly to prevent accidents.

Very good point, as long as you can choose a default stance to stop it, I`m all for it.

[Doug R.]

-However- I do consider automatic retaliation to be automation in every sense of the word. You don't know who is attacking you. You don't know why they're attacking you. You don't know if a reprisal is appropriate. There is no premeditation behind it at all. It would just become one of those mechanisms that often make no sense socially.

Actually it's pretty much the same level of automation as the use of shields. I

Yes, you are correct about that. However, there's still a world of difference:

1) Using your shield doesn't hurt/kill anyone.
2) Using your shield doesn't create inappropriate or contradictory situations. Since no one but the attacker and defender actually sees if the shield is in use, results that deviate from the mechanistic event can be role-played differently with little disruption (damage, or lack of it, is the exception, but attacks that wouldn't have caused damage anyway, like sparring, are free to be role-played differently).
3) Using your shield doesn't violate the law in any town I've ever been in.
4) There are very few situations where you wouldn't want to use your shield, but plenty where you wouldn't want to use your weapon.
5) Using a shield doesn't cost the character anything. Using a weapon costs energy.
6) Being able to adopt a stance or equip a weapon in no way allows for an appropriate response to any situation other than the one anticipated. If my guard character secretly is worried about an incoming galleon and adopts a combat stance, should he be allowed to then slaughter half the town when they decide to have a pillow fight?