New Combat Factor: Probability

[Leo Luncid]

This suggestion may be similar to Pie's "you cant shoot me, I was behind a building," but instead of having it work in a 3-D perspective, maybe combat should like the Dungeons and Dragons roleplaying game: probability.

Example:
You see Thasto hitting you with a steel dagger.
You see Thasto taking cover from you behind a jeep.
You attempt to hit the Thasto with a longbow, but the shot instead hits the jeep, damaging it.

There would be a "taking cover" option under the objects page, and you would have to choose who are you taking cover from. This would even apply with melee weapons.

Example:
You see Wibel taking cover you from a table.
You attempt to hit Wibel with a greatsword; you accidently smash through the table but succeed in hitting Wibel. (He would take less damage than he would if you hit without hitting the table, obviously.)

The probability of hitting someone would increase or decrease depending on how much cover it gives to the person defending. If it were to have the defender to take full cover from a large object, such as a building, the offender would have to take his time going around the building in order to hit the defender, thus maybe decreasing the chances of hitting the defender. This may apply to both ranged and melee weapons.

Example:
You see Ismal taking full cover from you behind a building.
You attempt to attack Ismal and followed him to where you suppose he was hiding.
You can see Ismal taking cover from you behind a cot.
You attack Ismal with a long bow and succeed.

Actually, now that I think about it, this could be a bad suggestion since it could be difficult to implement, and some other reasons. But telll me what you think.

[Pie]

I, don't like it that much. Its putting to much power into chance, and chance creats caos, and if there is caos, the unamed ones will never come back!!!

[Sho]

Implementation would probably be a pain, and the benefits aren't too clear. It would give hyperactive players yet another advantage, I think, which I think is generally agreed to be undesirable or at least benefit-neutral.