@ Kinaed: Yes, but steel and iron protect more than leather but with the same MV reduction, correct? What motivation would someone have to wear leather over iron or steel?
I was under the impression that drinking recovers moves.
It seems like you guys have your minds made up about armor. Fair enough. It does not really bother me that much - I would not personally attempt a straight-out assassination attempt with the way combat timers are now anyhow, and I can think of one or two ways to get around armor, which may be interesting if I have the time to work it out, although those methods would not be easily reproducible.
I mainly posted because I read Jei's thread, in which he was told that only one or two people had agreed with him about armor, so I simply wished to add my voice to the crowd.
@Clockwork: Awww, I meant no offense, and took none. Poison would be good. As for straight fights, well, I think my post about the inability to coordinate multiple fights, timers, people not sleeping ingame, etc, sorta covers that.
Feedback on new combat system
I agree with Tribalware, Enix and Estelle.
In particular the following is pretty much the reason I hate how armor is in the first place:
Think about it this way - when you create a game, you want to promote variety. Currently the only viable combat concept is a character whose concept revolves around him realistically wearing armor. Thus, if someone were to want to make a combat-type, what would he make?
I've had to compromise the concept I'd like: a light, quick character who takes the risk of sustaining heavy blows by not having armor and trading off by being more agile and faster.
If new combat wasn't basically just who could take the most punishment, armor would be a lot more acceptable, without being so... required. If combat was made more realistic, in other words, where you get in a few solid blows and kill your opponent.. that would be better. Instead, the miss chance is something like less than 10% regardless of skill, IIRC. Skill only mitigates how bad of a graze/slash/severe slash you get. I just.. well, obviously I've been opposed to new combat from the beginning.. and what kidn of makes me laugh is my character has both the coin, means, reasons and status to use armor, and I only am because if I don't, I run the risk of being ganked by a group of people. Hell, even with the armor new combat is so favored of number of people above skills of the participants that all it would take is 2-3 people of whatever skill level to destroy me. I'd love to hear the immortals say that that isn't necessarily the case and for it to be true, but based on the notes I read about the combat system I really don't think they could.. and that's pretty ridiculous, IMO.
I understand the concept of overwhelming odds, I just don't think that 2-3 people against a single opponent should be overwhelming odds if the single opponent is grandmaster-ly skilled, unless of course 1+ of the attacking side is also grandmasterly skilled, or all three are upper masterly skilled.
Anyway, as I mentioned earlier, my opinions about both new combat and the seemingly requirement of armor are pretty well known, so I'll cut it short at that, but I did want to whole-heartedly agree with Estelle's statement that the recent changes pretty much allow for only a certain archetype if you want to do well in combat.
In particular the following is pretty much the reason I hate how armor is in the first place:
Think about it this way - when you create a game, you want to promote variety. Currently the only viable combat concept is a character whose concept revolves around him realistically wearing armor. Thus, if someone were to want to make a combat-type, what would he make?
I've had to compromise the concept I'd like: a light, quick character who takes the risk of sustaining heavy blows by not having armor and trading off by being more agile and faster.
If new combat wasn't basically just who could take the most punishment, armor would be a lot more acceptable, without being so... required. If combat was made more realistic, in other words, where you get in a few solid blows and kill your opponent.. that would be better. Instead, the miss chance is something like less than 10% regardless of skill, IIRC. Skill only mitigates how bad of a graze/slash/severe slash you get. I just.. well, obviously I've been opposed to new combat from the beginning.. and what kidn of makes me laugh is my character has both the coin, means, reasons and status to use armor, and I only am because if I don't, I run the risk of being ganked by a group of people. Hell, even with the armor new combat is so favored of number of people above skills of the participants that all it would take is 2-3 people of whatever skill level to destroy me. I'd love to hear the immortals say that that isn't necessarily the case and for it to be true, but based on the notes I read about the combat system I really don't think they could.. and that's pretty ridiculous, IMO.
I understand the concept of overwhelming odds, I just don't think that 2-3 people against a single opponent should be overwhelming odds if the single opponent is grandmaster-ly skilled, unless of course 1+ of the attacking side is also grandmasterly skilled, or all three are upper masterly skilled.
Anyway, as I mentioned earlier, my opinions about both new combat and the seemingly requirement of armor are pretty well known, so I'll cut it short at that, but I did want to whole-heartedly agree with Estelle's statement that the recent changes pretty much allow for only a certain archetype if you want to do well in combat.
Maybe I was jumping the gun a bit, while I do agree with Jei in regards to the dodging rate should be a bit higher for more...dodge type characters, I still think that perhaps the new combat code has not been fully utilized by the player base. Meaning I dont think there have been many, if any group attacks as of yet.
This falls in line with Estelle's comment however on establishing RP times and stuff like that. While its difficult, it can be done.
So i guess until that whole avenue is really explored, my comments on this will cease for a bit, as I understand the intent behind Kinaed's explanation. Can only say for now that we should see.
This falls in line with Estelle's comment however on establishing RP times and stuff like that. While its difficult, it can be done.
So i guess until that whole avenue is really explored, my comments on this will cease for a bit, as I understand the intent behind Kinaed's explanation. Can only say for now that we should see.
-
Tribalware
- Posts: 27
- Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 12:31 pm
if im being counted as support one way or the other i should probably clarify my general level of understanding regarding new combat/armor which is low, and also that i speak from the position of someone who is unlikely to be able to afford armor and therefore naturally biased.
it would also seem though that the players who helped test the armor system were players (Paere, marisa etc) who would be in a better position than others to benefit from highly powered armor with few drawbacks. Paere points out he spent an outrageous amount of money on his last set which is a point i take, however his character, unlike a lot of others, is also one in a position to acquire that wealth see?
i know jei feels very strongly about this whereas i really do not, but as i said this is coming from someone who hasnt gotten stuck into combat enough to perhaps notice some of the injustices (or lack thereof) which the new armor system provides in practicality. but from an outside perspective something i can see remaining confusing to me (which has been explained to me somewhat) is the fact that armor penalizes mv when walking but not when fighting, this seems strange to me.
to me it seems to come back to the issue of power centred around a top tier of players which makes the game feel inaccessible in all its glory to those of us like myself who genuinely don't want to play a noble and who will be unlikely to purchase armor but may well want to engage in combat. but honestly - i can take the hit, the top tier of players im talking about have probably been here investing time for a long time but what i WOULD like to see from these armor clad heroes with all the clout is more direction for lower level rp.
one thing i do really think might help is NPC combat - whats the status on that? if knights and such could take lowly leather clad staff swingers like me out with them to slay problem populations or evil cave dwelling beasts etc then that might give the two echelons a chance to connect - touch points. Maybe il elaborate on that under the correct post.
it would also seem though that the players who helped test the armor system were players (Paere, marisa etc) who would be in a better position than others to benefit from highly powered armor with few drawbacks. Paere points out he spent an outrageous amount of money on his last set which is a point i take, however his character, unlike a lot of others, is also one in a position to acquire that wealth see?
i know jei feels very strongly about this whereas i really do not, but as i said this is coming from someone who hasnt gotten stuck into combat enough to perhaps notice some of the injustices (or lack thereof) which the new armor system provides in practicality. but from an outside perspective something i can see remaining confusing to me (which has been explained to me somewhat) is the fact that armor penalizes mv when walking but not when fighting, this seems strange to me.
to me it seems to come back to the issue of power centred around a top tier of players which makes the game feel inaccessible in all its glory to those of us like myself who genuinely don't want to play a noble and who will be unlikely to purchase armor but may well want to engage in combat. but honestly - i can take the hit, the top tier of players im talking about have probably been here investing time for a long time but what i WOULD like to see from these armor clad heroes with all the clout is more direction for lower level rp.
one thing i do really think might help is NPC combat - whats the status on that? if knights and such could take lowly leather clad staff swingers like me out with them to slay problem populations or evil cave dwelling beasts etc then that might give the two echelons a chance to connect - touch points. Maybe il elaborate on that under the correct post.
My take on the whole debate, and I had to catch myself and revise it (huge pro armor being badass), is that we have to take a step back and think what will make the game more fun to play for everyone.
So working from the premise that combat should be accessible so that people might have fun doing it, plate armor should not confer a benefit that cannot be countered /in/ combat.
The basis of the argument is that if someone really wants to rp a super awesome fighter guy, they should be free to do it.
The problem with the above statement is that it is somewhat self defeating. If a player wants to rp a super awesome fighter guy, what is that if not a knight? If someone wants GM fighting skills but not be a knight, then who is that character and what does he do? Does he run a dojo or something? The scenario I see is that the player in question does something else too, which just doesn't seem right. His day job is a troubadour, or merchant. He spends his days working on /not/ fighting, yet he is a top notch combatant.
In the end I'm led back to my initial conclusion, but for a different reason. Plate mail should be the end all tell all. It should only be available to knights and nobles, for the same reason that I can't walk down the street with an M4 on my back. It might be legal but I'm going to have people asking me pointed questions. Nobles should not be very good fighters, more of an ornamentation thing.
The bottom line is I have trouble swallowing a GM back story on someone who isn't a knight.
So working from the premise that combat should be accessible so that people might have fun doing it, plate armor should not confer a benefit that cannot be countered /in/ combat.
The basis of the argument is that if someone really wants to rp a super awesome fighter guy, they should be free to do it.
The problem with the above statement is that it is somewhat self defeating. If a player wants to rp a super awesome fighter guy, what is that if not a knight? If someone wants GM fighting skills but not be a knight, then who is that character and what does he do? Does he run a dojo or something? The scenario I see is that the player in question does something else too, which just doesn't seem right. His day job is a troubadour, or merchant. He spends his days working on /not/ fighting, yet he is a top notch combatant.
In the end I'm led back to my initial conclusion, but for a different reason. Plate mail should be the end all tell all. It should only be available to knights and nobles, for the same reason that I can't walk down the street with an M4 on my back. It might be legal but I'm going to have people asking me pointed questions. Nobles should not be very good fighters, more of an ornamentation thing.
The bottom line is I have trouble swallowing a GM back story on someone who isn't a knight.
-
Tribalware
- Posts: 27
- Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 12:31 pm
as an aside from all this sensible discussion - poison tipped arrows... mmmmmm. how sexy would that be? i think the REAL issue is that there are too many real issues and not enough poison tipped arrows being let off indiscriminately.
Oh, I'm definitely not saying the current combat code as a whole is evil, or any such thing. I can see several evident benefits to it already. And really, the ability of one's opponent to stall for a full 5 minutes each combat turn bugs me a lot more than the advantages armor confers.
With regards to Platypus's comment, I really don't see why a GM combat character absolutely has to be a Knight. What about a Queen's Guard, a mercenary, a bodyguard, an undercover assassin, a rogue bandit, an ex-soldier? Plenty of character concepts that make sense to be combat-viable other than Knights.
With regards to Platypus's comment, I really don't see why a GM combat character absolutely has to be a Knight. What about a Queen's Guard, a mercenary, a bodyguard, an undercover assassin, a rogue bandit, an ex-soldier? Plenty of character concepts that make sense to be combat-viable other than Knights.
Not sure I see why an ex-soldier isn't viable or a mercenary. There is a war going on on the Daravi border. Let us not forget that knights are elite -religious- enforcers. Drop the religious bit and they're just thugs, and if you compare the world of TI thug-wise, I think most of the population has a claum to combat.
Being serious, back in the old days there were few large centralized powers. Personal safety was not taken for granted. Men were not generally 'genteel' and a because they coildn't afford to be.
Firmly, it is not illegal or questionable to wear armor. It's what any sensible traveller on a road migwith bandits would do. We don't have security, forensics, and even the strong sense of ideal law abiding to ensure personal safetyo prevent crime. Realistically, Reeves generally won't catch a criminal until after they've struck, so personal safety is in everyone's own hands.
Additionally, armor and other hard, durable goods was an investment. People carried wealth in objs rather than coin, and the more wearable, the better. Armor would be passed as heirlooms and show status too. So it is perfectly ok to wear armor.
Being serious, back in the old days there were few large centralized powers. Personal safety was not taken for granted. Men were not generally 'genteel' and a because they coildn't afford to be.
Firmly, it is not illegal or questionable to wear armor. It's what any sensible traveller on a road migwith bandits would do. We don't have security, forensics, and even the strong sense of ideal law abiding to ensure personal safetyo prevent crime. Realistically, Reeves generally won't catch a criminal until after they've struck, so personal safety is in everyone's own hands.
Additionally, armor and other hard, durable goods was an investment. People carried wealth in objs rather than coin, and the more wearable, the better. Armor would be passed as heirlooms and show status too. So it is perfectly ok to wear armor.
While I don't disagree with the other opinions on the board, the game can be whatever it is, I'll explain my perspective on why only Knights should be GM's.
Knight: A knight owned a little chunk of land and was supported by it, allowing him to spend his days swinging his sword about to his hearts content. At a very young age a young boy would go off to someones holdings and act as a Page for another Knight. He would then spend most of his life training and doing knightly stuff.
Soldier:
-Guess what, you're in the King's Army now.
-What? That sucks. Can I get out of it?
-How much money you got.
-Not enough.
-Here's your spear.
So while I could see a veteran Soldier becoming a Master over a long time, I just don't think there's room to say they're a GM. If you're a Soldier, assuming its a full time job, your probably going to be spending most of your time guarding something, or digging something. You're probably not going to be spending a chunk of every day practicing with your spear, because when it comes down to it your job is to stand in a line and point your spear at the bad guys.
Merc: I can see more of an argument here, when you look at the Swiss in particular. Falls more into the men-at-arms category in my mind though, and their success may have been found in discipline rather than skill.
Bodyguard: Unless this is a knight acting as a bodygard, I just don't see how a bodyguard is going to amass the required skill. How does one become a bodyguard? I picture a bodyguard getting hired for being a big tough dude. Who does he practice with though? Does he have a bunch of bodyguard friends or something? It took a patch of land and sometimes a small keep to maintain knights. Is the merchant hiring the bodyguard supplying the bodyguard with the same resources?
The bottom line is still that we can determine the rules of the game to be whatever we want, and I don't think realism should be the determining factor in all this. If what we want is a game full of fantasy novel characters then that's what we should make?
Knight: A knight owned a little chunk of land and was supported by it, allowing him to spend his days swinging his sword about to his hearts content. At a very young age a young boy would go off to someones holdings and act as a Page for another Knight. He would then spend most of his life training and doing knightly stuff.
Soldier:
-Guess what, you're in the King's Army now.
-What? That sucks. Can I get out of it?
-How much money you got.
-Not enough.
-Here's your spear.
So while I could see a veteran Soldier becoming a Master over a long time, I just don't think there's room to say they're a GM. If you're a Soldier, assuming its a full time job, your probably going to be spending most of your time guarding something, or digging something. You're probably not going to be spending a chunk of every day practicing with your spear, because when it comes down to it your job is to stand in a line and point your spear at the bad guys.
Merc: I can see more of an argument here, when you look at the Swiss in particular. Falls more into the men-at-arms category in my mind though, and their success may have been found in discipline rather than skill.
Bodyguard: Unless this is a knight acting as a bodygard, I just don't see how a bodyguard is going to amass the required skill. How does one become a bodyguard? I picture a bodyguard getting hired for being a big tough dude. Who does he practice with though? Does he have a bunch of bodyguard friends or something? It took a patch of land and sometimes a small keep to maintain knights. Is the merchant hiring the bodyguard supplying the bodyguard with the same resources?
The bottom line is still that we can determine the rules of the game to be whatever we want, and I don't think realism should be the determining factor in all this. If what we want is a game full of fantasy novel characters then that's what we should make?
-
- Information
-
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests