Concerning: New Fighting System

paul laffing · Post by **paul laffing** » Fri Jul 04, 2003 1:05 am

Keep in mind when criticizing my idea that this would be a new system and that everything would be changed. And yes, it is easier to make throwing stars than spears. Is it easier to chop down a huge true and carve it till it is completely straight and balanced, or is it easier to mine the supplies, put it in the oven until it is molten and then make it into star shaped thingies and let it dry? Well, each one is difficult... but who cares?

We are looking for balance, remember that. And arrows should not be able to be used close to you, same with throwing spears. If someone is right next to you, they can easily stop you from throwing a spear or shooting an arrow.

I also think that if you punch someone, YOU should get hurt if they are wearing armour, unless you are wearing knights' gloves. Makes sense, right?

Elaralith · Post by **Elaralith** » Sat Jul 05, 2003 5:51 am

paul laffing wrote:If someone is right next to you, they can easily stop you from throwing a spear or shooting an arrow.

I don't think so....I am sure an archer can still shoot an arrow close up just as he can from afar...in fact I think arrows should do more damage close up as the arrows close up go in deeper; it only makes sense.

Grant Herion · Post by **Grant Herion** » Sat Jul 05, 2003 6:04 pm

I believe he means as he can take the arrow/spear from you before you can throw it at them.

Elaralith · Post by **Elaralith** » Sun Jul 06, 2003 12:23 am

Again, I don't think so. I am sure an archer who being an archer has excellent reflexes would be able to shoot an arrow into your chest before you could take the arrow from him.

Bumbol Woodstock · Post by **Bumbol Woodstock** » Sun Jul 06, 2003 12:25 am

Even if he was no more then a foot away from you? Most knights would either cut the bow in half with a sword or push the bow down so the arrow wouldn't hit them. Secondly this is off topic, create a thread for the archer proposal, this thread is for the fighting system alone.

Elaralith · Post by **Elaralith** » Sun Jul 06, 2003 12:29 am

Bumbol Woodstock wrote:Even if he was no more then a foot away from you?

Yes. Definitely.

Bumbol Woodstock wrote:Secondly this is off topic, create a thread for the archer proposal, this thread is for the fighting system alone

Guess what? Archery (aka distance weapons) is a part of the fighting system.

Bloodhearte · Post by **Bloodhearte** » Sun Jul 06, 2003 2:54 am

In that case, it's a matter of who can attack before the other one does; the archer or the swordsman. However, I would certainly say being impaled dead end, one foot away from somebody would injure somebody badly if not kill them.

Grant Herion · Post by **Grant Herion** » Sun Jul 06, 2003 3:14 am

Elararith, have you ever shot at a person with a bow before while he was no more then a foot away from you? No? Well, then you have absolutely no proof of what you state. I on the other hand have played paintball before, and it is very easy to push the paintball gun in any direction you want it when it is in your face.
I propose that distance seperating the archer and the prey be a large factor in how much damage the arrow/javelin/throwing star does. Perhap 3-5 spaces would do the most damage, anything before or after that does less, what do you people think?

Bloodhearte · Post by **Bloodhearte** » Sun Jul 06, 2003 3:39 am

As somebody who practices with weapons that aren't guns, I still stand firm on the ground that hitting up close would do the most damage. It's quite simple. I always penetrate the target deeper when I fire an arrow from a foot away rather than three to five feet away.

paul laffing · Post by **paul laffing** » Sun Jul 06, 2003 4:31 am

Being someone experienced in archery, I'd have to say that it would do more damage closer because it has not lost any velocity after coming immediately out of the bow. The objection I raised was that you could easily stop the arrow from shooting if you are close up, by even putting your shield in front of it. As for spears, just stab the person or even push them before they can throw it to put them off balance.

Another thing:

Firing rates (slowest to fastest): Spear, arrow, throwing star

Gro'bul · Post by **Gro'bul** » Sun Jul 06, 2003 8:00 am

Well, perhaps we can have a minimum range then? then the archer must resort to a sword. You forgot crossbows Paul.

paul laffing · Post by **paul laffing** » Sun Jul 06, 2003 6:50 pm

You're right, crossbows. I think that crossbows would be the same as arrows, except easier to fire.

Darlok · Post by **Darlok** » Sun Jul 06, 2003 8:47 pm

Get some structure in your Postings Gro'bul and Paul !

I dont like those single Sentance postings. They contain too less informations to be valuable for a decent discussion.

I dont want to see such crap again, understand !?

Gro'bul · Post by **Gro'bul** » Sun Jul 06, 2003 9:27 pm

You contridict yourself nicely Darlok. There is a thing called punctuation seperating sentences. SORRY, I forgot to capitalize the "t" in then. Also nice spam.

Well crossbows are easier to fire yes, but harder to load then longbows. You have to use a wench to draw back the string, load the bolt, then fire. However with a longbow, you notch the arrow, pull the string and fire. This is why crossbows take longer to fire ingame. I still think bows/crossbows/throwing spears should have a minimum range as they are far too cumbersome to load while somebody is slashing away at you.

Kzarak Zhoruch · Post by **Kzarak Zhoruch** » Mon Jul 07, 2003 3:06 am

Regarding distance weapons in my opinion...

Longbows should be quicker to reload like I suppose they are right now, but metal armor should offer good protection against them.

Crossbows should be slow to reload but the medicine used to penetrate metal armor. If firing a crossbow bolt versus one opponent, one should be able to fire maximum 1 bolt, then beeing forced to face melée.

Throwingspears should have a short range, require high skill to make a hit but deal a great amount of damage.

Throwing stars should also have a short range, but hard to deal damage against armoured opponents, as I suppose its meant as an assasins weapon.

And additionally about the stamina bar, which I hear is on the way.
Once stamina reaches a critical point, all combat skills should be halved
or temporarily reduced a lot from exhaustion.

This would make powergamig harder, requiring the player to be present at the computer and force him to rest a lot. Also a group of inexperinced players would have a chance together of tiring even the best of fighters out, and having a chance of hurting him/her.

I know echoing previously written things are disliked but Im going to anyways. The element of risk/chance should be a lot more enhanced.
Critical hits or accidents. As it is now, one can say to 100% what the outcome will be if one has faced an opponent before.
The exitement is lost.

Not even a fight between the weakest of peasants versus the strongest of knights should be a definitate outcome.

(It is rumoured that Genghis Khan fell of a horse and broke his neck somewhere in Poland after conquering a large quantity of the world, If this is true, why cant a peasant get lucky facing a fully armed knight?)

And finally, metal armour should reduce movement a lot, not only weight.
Regardless how strong one is, try chasing anyone wearing full metal armor.

And 2 suggestions which I think would be really intresting.
Panic and beserk.

There should be a risk of Panic if a player has low skills on all forms of weaponskills and is in melée with anyone.
Maybe the attribute willpower should affect it.
The effect would be that he or she looses the control of the player for a certain time and runs in the opposite direction.

Some races or warriors should be able to beserk, maybe make it a warrior skill. If successful, one should loose control of ones player for a certain time(perhaps until stamina hits 0), and the player will automaticly follow the targeted opponent with increased damage but reduced parry.

paul laffing · Post by **paul laffing** » Mon Jul 07, 2003 4:36 am

Sorry, Darlok, but could you please point out where I had a one sentence post? I would appreciate it greatly.

A new and revised range chart (includes new weapons and variables):

-Firing rate (slowest to fastest): spear<crossbow<bow<throwing stars
-Damage (least to most): throwing stars<bow<crossbow<spear
-Range (least to most): throwing stars<spear<crossbow<bow
-difficulty to learn (most to least): spear<bow<crossbow<throwing stars
-difficulty to make (most to least): spear<arrow<crossbow bolt (assuming its metal)<throwing stars
-Ability to pierce armour (least to most): throwing star<crossbow (again, assuming its a metal bolt)<bow<spear

I think that about sums up everything.

Gro'bul · Post by **Gro'bul** » Mon Jul 07, 2003 5:21 am

Exelent idea, khzarak, I think loss of skill (not permanent) is a very good idea. Perhaps if you are attacked regardless if you are hit or not, you will lose stamina. This would accually make large amounts of low skilled poeple effective. I think this should apply to npc's too.

Serpardum · Post by **Serpardum** » Tue Jul 08, 2003 12:21 am

Actually, throwing stars should be a lot harder to learn. I, also, practiced in real life with throwing stars and they are not as easy as one would expect.

When you throw a star if you have it tilted in the littlest it acts like a frisbe in that it tends to go sideways. The longest range I got at able to hit a foot diameter tree was about 8 feet consistantly. This was after a week or so of on and off practicing. I'm quite sure that after some more time I could of gotten to 10 or 15 feet.

A spear is actually a lot easier than a throwing star, the biggest thing about spears is getting the balance right so they are thrown balistically. A throwing star can be thrown farther than a spear, but not at any accuracy I dont' think.

I've fired a bow and was actually quite lousy at it. Couldn't hit a targe 15 feet away but with very little practice. A regular bow, though, is used for longer range.

The crossbow I have never fired but have seen and they are slow loading but have the longest accurate range and deepest penetration.

paul laffing · Post by **paul laffing** » Tue Jul 08, 2003 12:30 am

I did very well the first time I picked up a bow.

But the reason that I proposed what I did was that we need balance. Wait, actually, I think that chart was flawed. I need to make a correction.

Difficulty to learn (least to greatest): Bow, crossbow, throwing star, spear
Weight (least to greatest): throwing star, bow (with arrows), crossbow (with bolts), spear

Drathe · Post by **Drathe** » Tue Jul 08, 2003 1:08 am

Archer can shoot you at a foot away; Wether or not an Archer can shoot you at a foot away before you grab his bow depends on what side you attack him from and what handed he is (as well as many other factors). If he is rigtht handed, it is very awkward to aim a snap shot to his right hand side with out twisting his shoulders, but then it would be so very easy to snap shoot to his left. To put that in game terms..nothing should be done about it. You cant grab a mans shield in game so why should you be able to a bow or spear. And lets be honest, if someones got a bow or corss bow aimed at you or near you, you would be either be a fool, ignorant, or have nothing to loose if you were going to make a grab for it.

Learning; As for the skill of learning the bow or crossbow, I think it is already at a fair rate as it is.

The benafits of skill; I am not sure how your skill effects use use with the bow. But I know its usless trying to shoot someone in plate armour with a shield. So I think, the higher the skill the better the chance you have at finding the 'sweet spot' weak point or gap in the armour no matter how heavily armoured they are.

Range I think the range of the bow and cross bow are good as they are. The Normal and wind arrows reprisent nicely, hunting and war arrows. Tho maybe wind arrows (war arrows due to their heavyer bodkin arrow head) would take a higer skill level with the bow to aim than normal arrows.

Genral I worry for Archers in game not being balanced. I mean at the moment, warriors walk around in full plate and knights shield with a wacking great fire sword.. an archer can do nothing about that his arrows do not penatrate. A mage can paralize then burn and lightning, recharge his mana then carry on, again an Archer can do nothing about that as he is paralized. As an Archer in a fight you are inferiour, in the armour you wear, the weapon you use and the ability to get out of trouble. How to balance this I am not sure. any surgestions?

paul laffing · Post by **paul laffing** » Tue Jul 08, 2003 1:34 am

Yes. In my proposal, different weapons have different strengths and different armour piercing capabilities.

Another thing, I think that a mage should not be able to cast if he is being shot at with a faster moving range weapons. That would protect archers against mages.

Currently, if you throw or shoot or whatever someone with a range weapon and you don't hit them, you will never hit them. How realistic is this and how good for balance and skill raising? If you are a novice, it is impossible to become better at a distance skill unless you have high parry and can kill monsters from next to them without shields. There should be random hits that become more frequent until you are an expert.

Bei Tian Kensai · Post by **Bei Tian Kensai** » Thu Jul 10, 2003 6:29 pm

Get some structure in your Postings Gro'bul and Paul !

I dont like those single Sentance postings. They contain too less informations to be valuable for a decent discussion.

I dont want to see such crap again, understand !?

Can I ask, what is it that gives you authority over everyone else Darlok?

Darlok · Post by **Darlok** » Thu Jul 10, 2003 6:44 pm

Of course can you ask.

Simple Answer:

I start the Topic, i watch strictly that it follows the rules i set up at the beginning.

I think that everyone who can read them agrees to them by posting in this topic.

We all want something valuable at the end of it, so i strictly watch about the content and the style.

Now its my turn:
Why do you spam this topic?

Bei Tian Kensai · Post by **Bei Tian Kensai** » Thu Jul 10, 2003 10:29 pm

Well I just thought that your style of keeping everything in order was a little too harsh thats all, i mean it wasnt like paul or gro'bul were exactly damaging the thread now were they..

I apoligize if that didnt contain enough information for a decent discussion..

Hermie · Post by **Hermie** » Sat Jul 12, 2003 2:28 pm

A problem with the current system I have noticed:

Back in the days when PKing was rife and the occasional super-parry warrior or mage laid slew to the town I noticed that no matter how many people surrounded them and attacked them, if they had maxed their parry it was impossible to hit him, and there is still no change. I find this very unrealistic.

If one person attacked you you could easily concentrate on what you were doing and use your parry to its full potential. If two people attacked you then you would have to split your concentration and you would not be able to parry as well. And of course if a mob of people attacked you, there is no chance in hell of beating them all.

Any thoughts on this?

paul laffing · Post by **paul laffing** » Sat Jul 12, 2003 5:16 pm

Thats easy to solve, if you think about it.

Lets say that
parry=10

two people are attacking you, so parry/2=amount of parry used against each person.
10 people are attacking you, so parry/10= amount of parry used against each person.

Now, if they can hit you depends on their skill. This is also just a rough chart, because it would split differently depending on the skill of the people attacking you.

Hermie · Post by **Hermie** » Sat Jul 12, 2003 8:25 pm

I know it wouldn't be terribly hard to realise, but that doesn't matter. "Do you like it?", and "Do you agree it should be implimented?" is the important part. The rest is up to the gods, so to say.

Bei Tian Kensai · Post by **Bei Tian Kensai** » Mon Jul 14, 2003 5:47 pm

I agree with Hermie..

It's unrealistic that 8 people attacking just 1 person would not hit them at all even if they are only half as good as him.

PS. I love Hermie, he is my God, I worship him several times a day.

Korwin · Post by **Korwin** » Wed Jul 16, 2003 7:55 pm

I'm certainly I saw this somewhere in here before, but on a second attempt to locate it I was unsuccessful.
Concussion weapons should do small amounts of damage, regardless of if they hit or not. If you hit a shield with a huge war hammer, you're not likely to get away without a scratch.
Piercing weapons should do large amounts of damage if they hit, more than a slashing weapons, seeing as they would cause deep wounds.
There needs to be more 'random chance' in the fighting system, integrate a random number sequence into the damage/hitting formula (I'm not certain if that makes sense.)
The speed between certain weapons needs to be greatly increased. A short sword should be able to hit much quicker than a huge war axe.
The direction that you are facing should greatly change the odds of the fight.
There should be a 'mobbing' effect, and multiple attacks would be harder to parry (That goes without saying, but I thought I would add it in)
Possibly make the tile type being fought on effect the fight slightly.
Have a heavy wound cause the person who was wounded to lose an attack or two.
Armours need to provide greater protection from blows. The plate armour isn't much better than the chain armour.
Sorry if some of those ideas were repeated.

paul laffing · Post by **paul laffing** » Wed Jul 16, 2003 8:30 pm

Korwin wrote:Piercing weapons should do large amounts of damage if they hit, more than a slashing weapons, seeing as they would cause deep wounds.

Piercing weapons shouldn't do more damage, they should do less damage more regularly. Sure, they can pierce armour, but they can't be very damaging, or that would kill balance. War axes should be less piercing, but do more damage.