Combat Rewrite II

[Mykey]

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?

Hopefully the pillow would be in a training category, but 5 is a wonderful point. I whole-heartedly share your concerns

[Doug R.]

7) I also anticipate a situation where an invading force would have their weakest members attack first, tiring out the defenders before the stronger members attack, allowing them to do maximal damage with almost no risk. In that way, the problem we have now with surprise attacks would actually be made worse.

[SekoETC]

I don't think there should be automatic retaliation by default because of several issues - if I got attacked by someone with far superior equipment or several people supporting him, I certainly wouldn't start fighting back because it would only mean digging myself into a deeper hole; the issue with tiring someone out with attacks that aren't really meant to hit in order to make way for the best fighter when you're already worn out; the issue with hitting someone who's just a mentally unstable person when it doesn't fit your character's personality to hit and so on. People should be allowed to set a damage threshold to be able to ignore insignificant hits and opt out of auto-attacking certain people, such as slave owners and mentally limited people, and if there was going to be auto-retaliation then it should be possible to auto-escape into a building instead.

[Piscator]

5) Using a shield doesn't cost the character anything. Using a weapon costs energy.

Only if we say so. Causing tiredness to the defender is plausible, but by no means necessary. Also, since an attack would now cause damage to the attacker, we wouldn't have to rely on energy to limit the number of attacks anymore and might even get rid of it completely.

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?

Seriously, if it is common knowledge that a guard with a sword in his hand will strike when attacked and it's possible to see whether he's holding a sword or not, and the whole town still insists on hitting him with a pillow and doesn't even stop after the first person got hurt, they deserve to be slaughtered.

The only case where the mechanism could be abused is when a person wants to commit suicide by attacking a guard, but that's something that happens in real life, too.

edit: Concerning 7, see 5.

[SekoETC]

It would seem that it was going to lead into people rp'ing their attacks instead of actually using the mechanics. And what then if somebody struck you with a pillow and you were wielding nothing, would you automatically punch them with a fist? That would be ridiculous. Unless one would have to clench their fists in order to adopt a battle stance and not "equipping" fists or anything would turn off auto-retaliation for you. In that case it might actually even work...

[Mykey]

5) Using a shield doesn't cost the character anything. Using a weapon costs energy.

Only if we say so. Causing tiredness to the defender is plausible, but by no means necessary. Also, since an attack would now cause damage to the attacker, we wouldn't have to rely on energy to limit the number of attacks anymore and might even get rid of it completely.

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?

Seriously, if it is common knowledge that a guard with a sword in his hand will strike when attacked and it's possible to see whether he's holding a sword or not, and the whole town still insists on hitting him with a pillow and doesn't even stop after the first person got hurt, they deserve to be slaughtered.

The only case where the mechanism could be abused is when a person wants to commit suicide by attacking a guard, but that's something that happens in real life, too.

edit: Concerning 7, see 5.

No to getting rid of energy entirely, Yes to curbing it greatly.(A person can engage in many duels a day but not an infinite amount.) Certainly more than 3 before becoming limp. (Maybe tiredness, I prefer the term stamina, could rebuild much faster, 50% a tick? )

Pillow = training category please.

SekoETC had a wonderful suggestion of setting a threshold of damage before retaliation, please re-read it.

[Mykey]

After a lot of digestion I`m starting to lean towards the current system even though I`ve voted for option 2.

Would is be possible for someone to post the base damage for every weapon at efficient skill at average strength. I`d like to post a suggestion using the current system with some minor tweeks.


Most notably, a critical hit possibility. I only remember what damage was before skills, strength and tiredness. And I think an iron shield blocks 30 damage but I can`t even be sure anymore. I may be being egotistical, but the current system, with a critical hit feature, a curb on tiredness, and better balancing of the weapons would in my opinion, probably be the best bet. Armors would be great too.(chain mail, leather jerkin, steel plate armor, ect.)

Anyways, I`m very confident I could post some very logical, reasonable numbers to make the current system work. If I only possesed the raw data.
I would definitely keep the K.O. and ransacking feature though. Those are great.

This whole engagement, automation thing is getting messy quick.

[Doug R.]

Since many people seem to like everything about suggestion 3 except the auto-retaliation part of it, I will ask them to vote for suggestion 3 anyway. If it's chosen, we will take it back to the GAB and present several variations of it for people to vote on, some with and without auto-retaliation.

[Doug R.]

Piscator, you seem to be arguing yourself deeper into a hole.

Also, since an attack would now cause damage to the attacker, we wouldn't have to rely on energy to limit the number of attacks anymore and might even get rid of it completely.

[/quote]

So, you would allow an attacker, who is by definition online at the time of his attack, to be able to attack everyone in town for as much as his stash of healing food would allow? That just sends us back to the stone age of Cantr when one man could slaughter a town. How is this in any way better?

Seriously, if it is common knowledge that a guard with a sword in his hand will strike when attacked and it's possible to see whether he's holding a sword or not, and the whole town still insists on hitting him with a pillow and doesn't even stop after the first person got hurt, they deserve to be slaughtered.

"They deserve it" is a really, really weak argument. The situation I cite is an extreme one of for the purposes of illustration, but there are many situations over a broad spectrum of severity that this argument would apply to.

[Piscator]

The argument is as good as the scenario. If you can provide a more plausible example, I can maybe give a better answer.

The point is that an attacker would be able to see whether or not he would have to expect an counter-attack, so unless he is extremely careless, there's no way someone could be target of an counter-attack by accident. This means from the defender's perspective that the only people you would attack unwillingly are those who want to be hurt. I can see this being (ab)used to commit suicide, but that's pretty much it.

So, you would allow an attacker, who is by definition online at the time of his attack, to be able to attack everyone in town for as much as his stash of healing food would allow? That just sends us back to the stone age of Cantr when one man could slaughter a town. How is this in any way better?

- Daily healing and energy regeneration capabilities will be limited.

I think the above part of the suggestion should suffice to limit the number of attacks, even if tiredness from attacking would be reduced or eliminated. This was however an extreme scenario and by no means necessary. It would be enough if being attacked wouldn't generate tiredness.

edit: By the way, was it auto-retaliation or auto-attack that was widely objected to? It's not always clear which was meant.

[SumBum]

I would vote for 3 with a revision about the automatic counter-attack and if it included some of the changes to dragging.

[Doug R.]

edit: By the way, was it auto-retaliation or auto-attack that was widely objected to? It's not always clear which was meant.

I believe that most of the voiced problems (including mine) are with auto-retaliation. Some people objected to both the auto-retaliation and the auto-attack, though I'd prefer to call the auto-attack something else.

[Spider]

I don't like proposal 3 since I feel it takes choice away from me but since it's likely to win I looked back at it and am confused over these two points:

- Weapons and shields (and armor) are equipped RPG style. When a person attacks another character, the defender immediately counter attacks. Damage is applied to both parties depending on their current equipment and stats.

- The one hit per day rule is canceled if the victim attacks back.

So these two points seem to go against each other. If the character is attacked, the character immediately counter attacks so that means the one hit per day rule is canceled or is counter-attacking a different kind of attack?

[Doug R.]

Good point. Maybe that's why I never understood the suggestion as it was intended.

[Addicted]

I'm now thouroughly confused. *goes off to sit in a corner and cry*