Combat, OOC Info, Helpfiles

[Kinaed]

I'll update the combat help files as mentioned here to include information about how to set your defense and so on. Thanks for mentioning that. :)

[Leech]

You've never been married.

Let's not get personal here, bub.

In the end, I'm of the party that considers combat the part of a MUD that is meant to be a 'game'. It's meant to be difficult, quick to know but hard to master, and provide a challenge to your head. It advances the story by simply happening, not by how it happens. Quite honestly, I've never been one to provide a lot of fancy emotes in combat - there's only so many ways I can describe getting my ass beat, or beating yours. I enjoy the fact that it isn't all left to code, because...

1. It gives characters something to tell other characters when they TEACH them combat skills, instead of 'emote tells you how to old it in the way that the old grandmaster Knights once did - crouching eagle style, they called it'.

2. It provides a challenge, and the chance that somebody less skilled then you can still give you a whooping if you haven't bothered to ask a trainer which defense is best against some axe-wielding savage. I.E, Dagerian.

So it may come down to a difference that is non-arguable - I don't care for fancy emotes telling you exactly how I stab your face, and you do. As for the painter thing, you and I will have words. Harsh, sexy words. Mostly because I spent hours of my life while playing a painter character studying medieval painting so that I could answer that exact question when somebody asked. >.> In my opinion, playing a character who does something you know nothing about is a good reason to learn. It'll give that pipe-toking wise-guy scene a lot more substance too. All it takes is a quick look to wikipedia.

Edit: As a thief, I usually change my action to describe where I'm hiding - whether it's in a crowd, behind a crate, ect. I'm not sure if that reveals your position here - if it does, it shouldn't.

[Kinaed]

Setting your action shouldn't break hide, nope.

[Jei]

I want to note that I didn't read anyone else's posts here really.

I just want to say that I think it would be nice if both defenses could be set against certain opponents(which was previously suggested in this thread) but also against various weapons held by a single person.

Right now, dual wielding is all the rage. It kinda makes two-handed fighting impractical, you either need to dual wield or use a sword and board type of style.

So, instead of bitching, what solutions do I have?

1. Make a skill, or just make it a feature o 'defense' to set a certain defense to each combatant you're facing, as well as how you intend to defend against the weapon in each of your opponents' hands. So if you're fighting Cloud with his Buster sword, you might use.. I don't even know, footwork I think. And if you're fighting Tifa you'd use dodge. But if you're fighting a dude with an axe and a dagger, you can set that you're defending yourself accordingly. This could be a skill, I have no idea what it would be called, maybe multi-defense or something like that. Or it could just be a feature of defense. This would prevent dual wield from currently being the best way to fight, offensively at least.

2. I'm ignorant here, but shields should probably appropriately be one of the better defenses, since you're inherently giving up a second weapon. So maybe it's stronger vs. more kinds of weapons, or just doesn't have a weakness. Or however the current system is, I forget how it works.

3. If you're two-handing a weapon, I think this should be a separate command. It should be a command like 'second', except you type something like 'double-grip' or something while you have a weapon in your hand already wielded that ca realistically be dual wielded. I'm doubtful about a dagger or whip being dual-wieldable, whereas a polearm, staff, sword and axe all seem like they could. The point of the command? Well, maybe it gives a bonus to accuracy and/or damage to make up for your lack of 'versatility' given by dual wield and by giving up a shield slot, thus making you less defensively competent. Now, for fairness' sake, this should probably require a technique called two-handed or whatever. Dual wielding obviously has dual wield, shield block has block and so this should have a skill as well.

This would allow each type of combat to be possible.

Another idea I just had is a 'finesse' skill. So.. sort of the opposite of two-handed. This would provide a better bonus to accuracy, but only certain weapons could use it and only when the weapon is wielded in one hand. So... daggers, rapiers.. umm.. whips? I'm notsure what else, might be used and some kind of bonus would be given to accuracy, the bonus dependent on the skill level of finesse.

The last issue I have with combat right now is mattack can be used pretty much always. So a person could have a shield and sword, two swords, a giant two handed sword, or just bare hands and always can use mattack. I don't know the specifics of mattack, but this means a dual-wielding mage could have 3 or more forms of attack available at any time which seems kind of unbalanced to me.

That being said, if mattack can be used in all situations, I think unarmed should as well. After all, if I have a sword and a dagger in my hands, I can still kick you in the nuts or headbutt you, right?

Thoughts on this?

[Kinaed]

I'm peculating on your ideas. I think some are good, and I'm actually a little concerned about dual wield. At the very least, I think it should offer some sort of defensive penalty.

Finesse I kinda like, but I'd rather that a person didn't have finesse with all weapons. Also, I'm not sure if I agree with the suggested affects.

[Enix]

...sooo..those that use a learn master slot to raise dual wield above 25 get a defense penalty for dual wielding? Seems a bit of a waste to even have it then. Dual wielding is not the end all be all, despite the common belief. They way the defenses are set up there is one defense that basically works well against both weapons, no matter which dual wield setup you have.

[Dice]

Enix: this is not true. At best you're likely to get a defense that works well against one weapon and a defense that works okay against the other. And that's the best case scenario. You'd have to learn master three defenses to be assured of that. With less than three defenses learn-mastered, you're just as likely to get stuck with being okay against one weapon and nerfed by the other.

Dual wield is sort of the 'nuke' of the current combat setup due to the fact that you can only set one defense at a time. It gives you a second chance to get a nerfing weapon, which is a hugely powerful bonus. And... because nobody really knows which weapon works well versus which defense, it's even more powerful.

[Enix]

Well I know which defense's work well against weapons, because I sat around and tested them with the trainers. Regardless, its still something that makes no complete sense to penalize someone who duel wields, especially when they had to use a learn master slot to learn the ability. If that is the case, you might as well up the offensive portion as well. Same goes with two handed weapons.

If the combat game is rock, paper, scissors based, then that means it is a guessing game. You can also check your defense by typing -combat-. I will tell you now that Dodge is a defense that was typically viewed as not popular...well that is the defense that is what you are claiming as (an okay defense), reality is its more than just okay, because it basically nullifies the whole dual wield.

While I can understand the argument, at the same time I can see why it would be unfair to those who decide to play the dual wielding type. And really, I don't even see that many, so I am unsure where it became "the rage"

[Kinaed]

Regardless, its still something that makes no complete sense to penalize someone who duel wields, especially when they had to use a learn master slot to learn the ability.

Balancing a system is not the same thing as 'penalizing' someone. The intended benefit of dual wield is to be able to select which weapon you use during a fight without removing or swapping weapons. Any benefits beyond that, especially if it adjusts the underlying mathematics and statistical results, may need adjusting to fit in with the intended system. If they don't, or if the benefits are hugely different than the intent, then the implementation needs to be fixed.

That most certainly isn't a matter of punishment. The psychological feeling of punishment is, in my view, related to a sense of expectation and comfort with the system (and maybe, for some people, a teeny-tiny sense of entitlement). That is undesirable, but not really something we should give more than a nod to - priority wise, having a working, mostly reasonable system with no stand out extremes is too high to do more than acknowledge the social problems of changing something in game.

Certainly, if I changed it, it wouldn't be because we're targeting anyone who dual wields. I don't even know which styles players are playing with. Rather, we'd be responding to a player report that something is broken and their view on why it is broken.

Also, spending XP does not, in itself, give someone a right to win a fight regardless of combat variation. The system is designed for more skilled players to generally win, but a specific skill combination being a silver bullet is precisely what our rock-paper-scissors system is intended to curb.

[BingoX]

The system is designed for more skilled players to generally win

That's intentional?