Stance...

[Moskher Heszche]

I reccomend adding stances that would effect how offensive or defensive your character is. You could add a slider in the next version of Illarion that goes from "highly defensive" to "highly offensive" with a few stops in between.

When a character is highly defensive, it is hard to hit him and he takes a lower amount of damage; however, at the same time, his attacks are weak and rarely ever hit.

To rebalance the situation so that a character who is highly defensive is easier to hit and damage, one would have to move their slider to highly offensive, at which point they're easy to hit and take a lot more damage.

There, of course, would be steps in between which are more or less of one option or the other.

This would go to symbolize the priorities of a character. Is he lunging with all his might or watching his back and dodging if anything comes his way?

Conversely, to keep people from abusing this option, it could be a choice at character creation. The slider would go from "peaceful" to "violent," and have the same general effect.

[Avaloner]

Well i would think you should able to change this in the game but with a time delay of maybe uhh 10-15 because an intelligent Fither always change him to the situation you can be "normal offensiv" when there are a few monster who attack the town ,but when then suddendly there are 30 monster its better to run.

[Darlok]

At the time where the new/current fighting system was tested and developed there was a small group of Devs and Players gathering imputs and trying everything possible out.

I myself made a very similar proposal to yours, where the fighter was able to choose a battle stance.

Combined of these:
Offensive - Balanced - Defensive
(either more energy to attacks or to defense)
and
Engaging - Neutral - Evasive
(either more energy trying to parry blows or to dogde them)

(I wish I could remember my exact words )

But as you said,
it surely takes a large portion of time until this proposal can be taken into consideration.
Nothingless, I strongly support it.

[martin]

Using text-based commands, this would not be such a hard problem.

However, we don't want Illarion do become a text-MUD where you have to type in everything. This means, that we need to alter the client, which is not so easy currently. That is our only limitation to that actually.

Martin

[The Returner]

Using text-based commands, this would not be such a hard problem.

However, we don't want Illarion do become a text-MUD where you have to type in everything. This means, that we need to alter the client, which is not so easy currently. That is our only limitation to that actually.

Martin

It still wouldent be a text MUD,

Text MUD - no graphics, or little graphics, usually static, browser, telnet based, rarely if ever clientised, with little, or no, commands, besides the improvisations of certain people, IE asterix for actions,speach things for speach, ect.

Illarion- Graphics based, almost all are interactable within the game space, client based, many commands, 95% of which are actually usefull.


I wouldent mind typing in !stance for a battle, certainly its easier then adding a few thousand lines of code, and making a few MORE graphics sets, ect ect so on...

[Darlok]

The main drawback on text commands is that they are very dependant on how fast you can type.

Its easier to use a client interface then to type:

!stance offensive
!stance evasive

Might happen that the fight is already over or your character already dead when you finished typing.

[Misjbar]

Well, the true Illarion addict has followed a typing course . But I must agree, the way you want it is better. But, Martin said it couldn't be done right now

[Bloodhearte]

I actually would support the typing of !offensive/!defensive/etc., probably because I have quick fingers as it is.

But seriously, wouldn't you prepare your "stance" or tactic before you engage in the battle? The default could be 'balanced' stance, for example.

[Hermie]

I think the typing would restrict the proposal idea, giving only one stance for each defensive, neutral and offensive. With a slider, or perhaps some leveling I think it would be better, it would show how offensive/aggressive you are fighting.

I presume this proposal may also need the implementation (spelling? if that is a word?) of a stamina system too. This would define how long you can fight for and would probably be based on Willpower, perhaps?

wouldn't you prepare your "stance" or tactic before you engage in the battle?

Perhaps if you think of it like boxing, you would raise your fists to a defensive stance when you feel vunerable, and lower them when you are fighting more aggressively to be able to hit faster. You would change your mind throughout the fight, depending on how well the fight seems to be going.

[Moskher Heszche]

Hermie,

As things stand (oh crap. accidental pun), the stance would be balanced no matter where it's placed.

I could see, however, as you become tired in battle or through work your stance no longer provides benefits, only the negatives. You would be able to choose if you want a negative to your defense or offense, either way, and a neutral stance wouldn't be allowed. That may overcomplicate the whole situation, though, leading people to switch tactics drastically while they should be trying to remain alive.

Also, "implementation" is correct.

--Mitch.

[Bloodhearte]

Perhaps if you think of it like boxing, you would raise your fists to a defensive stance when you feel vunerable, and lower them when you are fighting more aggressively to be able to hit faster. You would change your mind throughout the fight, depending on how well the fight seems to be going.

The thing is, in boxing, unless you are attacking, preparing for a feint or countering, your hands should be up at all times. Not to mention, attacks are quicker when your hands are up because they have less distance to travel than when they are down. It's more "motion economical" if that makes sense.

Which, in my opinion, kind of makes this proposal (slightly) inaccurate. A skilled battler will know to defend himself at all times unless he's doing the attacking.

But then again, there could be different "mindsets" for attacking rather than "stances." The stances are basically all the same, but there are strategies/mindsets for how you want to fight: Aggressive and passive are the only basic ones.

Let's say characters A and B choose to fight passively. For both fighers, health will go down slower, and hits blows won't be as plentiful because of their paranoia.

Now let's say A chooses to fight aggressively, while B fights passively. A's health will go down quicker, but his blows will be a lot harder. B's health goes down slower, but his blows aren't as plentiful/painful.

Now, let's say A and B chooses to fight aggressively; it's just an all out death brawl, health going down quicker for both, blows being heavy for both. The battle won't last long.

And the middle/balance is up to skill, not strategy. In real combat there really is no "balance." You're either on the defensive or the offensive in the fight, depending on how your opponent acts and reacts.

[Moirear Sian]

I absolutely agree with Bloodhearte on this; thanks for the input. If anything; I'd recommend implementing that there's a keyboard button or a control screen button to toggle defensive/offensive modes. Besides, I believe this could detract a bit from the occasional interesting description of combat maneuvers, etc., with a #me-action.

[Gro'bul]

This "balance" just cancels eachother out and whoever has the most potent attributes and highest skills will win with that or the current system. If that is not the case it should be changed. I don't fight that much in game, but it seems like this would be a big waste of time if the system already makes it so equally skilled and att. opponents would have to get lucky to win against eachother.

[Moirear Sian]

I think that the game could do without this for now, for two completely incoherent reasons:

• The smooth working of this function (switching combat stances) would rely on lag and connection speeds. In other words, people with a low connection speed would likely be frustrated by this, or even suffer from it.

• Combat could just simply be more random. I propose this as an alternative rather than rushing to boggling the game controls down with hundreds of new combat functions:
If you watch a fight (fictitious&convincing or real), regardless of who's fighting who, there are always unexpected twists and turns to it; you never know what's coming next.
The overall attack/defense chances and effective damage dealt could be randomized more - this would make combat more lethal, but also more interesting and "realistic". The possibilities of potent critical hits (thus also making small weapons like daggers as deadly as any other), absolute failures, lucky strikes, etc. would serve for more thrilling combats and surprising outcomes. Following this thought, it would be dangerous for an experienced character to fight with an inexperienced one.

[Gro'bul]

They already have these "critical hits" and some randomness. Making it dangerous to fight an inexperienced characters goes against the entire skill system's basis of the better your skill the stronger you are.

[Moskher Heszche]

I think that the game could do without this for now, for two completely incoherent reasons:

• The smooth working of this function (switching combat stances) would rely on lag and connection speeds. In other words, people with a low connection speed would likely be frustrated by this, or even suffer from it.

• Combat could just simply be more random.

Moirear,

First of all, I don't think the implementation of this would create all that much more lag than the system as it stands. Your computer is made for this kind of number crunching, and it would be quite easy for the GM's to make this into a very simple mathematical equation.

The pen-and-paper roleplaying system I'm making has a much more complicated system involving stance and it's still just basic mathematics--the kind of thing your computer was made to solve.

Second of all, making the combat system more random is quite the opposite of what I was going for. I don't even see why this would be a solution to anything. In general, in roleplaying systems, the idea is that as you gain experience your attacks become less random and you hit more often. Why would we want our experienced fighter characters fighting just like newly-generated characters? I really have no clue what you're getting at here.

Bloodhearte,

I understand your point, however, I feel that you're commenting from the point of view of someone with martial arts training and looking at the characters as though they have the same training.

The idea as I see it is that a martial artist would take the middle road, guarding themselves equally as they are offensive in combat, making them balanced, powerful, but reserved and trained opponents.

On the other hand, we have other kinds of fighters out there.

Imagine for example, the bar brawler. As you may have read in previous posts of mine, I've just recently healed completely from having my face entirely mauled by a biker who was starting trouble at the bar I was working at.

This biker's tactic was aggressive, but with no attention to defense. If I had seen him coming, I could have easily gotten out of his way; sadly, I didn't, and he landed one punch on my face followed quickly and forcibley by several more.

Although he is definately not a trained martial artist, he beat up several people that night and came back a few times within the last few weeks to beat up several people in the parking lot, including a former professional fighter. His tactic isn't smart, but it's effective because it's fast and full of force.

The last--defensive--option isn't so much a fighting stance but a stance for those more interested in getting away. The character blocks as many blows as he can and maybe occasionally throws a haphazard punch in the hopes of wearing his opponent down.

Hopefully that clears all that up,
--Mitch.

[Bloodhearte]

@Mitch - It does clear things up, but here's my input.

I always though of fighting in general, much like fencing. Blows are more effective when they're distanced, phasic "thrusts," and you step in, perform combos/feints/counters then possibly step out. But of course, there's always that moment of when the opponent opens up.

That's the reason why I try to speak about this assuming that the two opponents are of the same skill level or have had the same training.

There are many more variables in combat, for example, that have affected the biker and the people he fought, namely the mental ones. Most people don't go through their average day getting hit in the face, so of course, the victims would probably feel too much like jelly to do anything in the situation, and they'd get hit. That could be a large reason for the bikers victory.

Regarding the pro-fighter, do you know what happened to him? Boxers and "striking" martial artists usually fall victim to big fellas that grapple and get the upper hand in a clinch.

So here's my breakdown of (basic) victory variables:
30% skill
30% size
30% mentality
10% speed

But I sometimes forget we're talking about armed combat, not unarmed (although there's at least a similarity ). So it can't be as "clean" or quick as unarmed combat when you're holding a gigantic weapon.

[Moirear Sian]

Moshker, what I wrote was not that it would create lag; but that the smooth functioning of it would depend on the player having little to no lag. Sure, the computer does this, but it's not like the attack is local. We all know how dangerous combat can get because of lag. And I was only thinking of the players who get killed now and then simply because the game lagged on them - add extra control functions to combat; and they're even more dependant on having a good internet connection.

Why would we want our experienced fighter characters fighting just like newly-generated characters?

I wasn't saying that an experienced character is supposed to fight like a newly-generated characters; I only said it would open up the possibility of a newly-generated character defeating an experienced one.

I really have no clue what you're getting at here.

Realism. Nothing else.

[Moskher Heszche]

Bloodhearte,

I understand what you're saying; however, adding in the entirety of the intricate nature of fighting and expecting it to be usable universally through all forms of combat is a hard thing to do.

The main reason I proposed this is that on top of it being realistic to a certain extent, it also added a new element of strategy to fighting. As things stand, it's a matter of shift-clicking and waiting for the outcome.

In a good pen-and-paper roleplaying game, the system is mostly the same as it stands in Illarion, but the communication between GM and player makes the fight more interesting. Also, various factors in battle add or subtract modifiers from your rolls or dice from your dice pool. This adds an element of strategy where the character moves and reacts in battle in order to get a better attack in while maintaining a defensive position.

We need elements like this in Illarion to add flavor and tactics to battle. At the same time, these elements should be at least a certain amount believable. Is it entirely unbelievable that a character who charges forward without thought for his defense would hit harder but be in a weak defensive position? No. Is it entirely unbelievable that a character who is backing away from a fight would have a hard time getting a punch in himself? No. That makes it realistic enough to use it as a tactic in battle.

(Also, yes, he was grappled, knocked down, and then punched several times in the ribs. There was more to it than that, though. Both of them were highly intoxicated and the ex-professional fighter is putting on years. I do think that if they were both in tip-top condition that Chris, the professional fighter, would have made Eddie, the biker, into a nice paste on our pavement even as Chris is old enough to be Eddie's father. This guy's arms are like brick walls.)

Moirear,

I understand what you're saying on the first point now, and I both agree and disagree on different levels. I think that, yes, it will make things a little more difficult for people who lag a lot, but I also think that it's worth it. We need more to our combats.

As another note, I think everything should be given this much attention, also. Although fighting really needs it, so does all the other skills, it's just that I can't think of something that adds a new level of thought to, say, mining right now.

As for the second point, I still find myself a bit confused by it. Adding more chance to combat would be even more dangerous for the weaker characters than the stronger.

Allow me to make how the system works as it stands into something more concrete. The fighting system is not all that different from rolling a die. When two characters fight, every turn (approximately each second) they roll a die. Dependent on the defense of the other character, they each have to hit a different number to score a hit. Their roll is also modified by their skill in the weapon and their attributes. So using this analogy, let's imagine two characters who are fighting:

Player A has strong attributes and lots of training whereas Player B is new to Illarion and his attributes are balanced more towards Intellligence and Essence than attributes that are essential for fighting.

Each character attacks and the analogical die is rolled. Player A scores a 2 and Player B scores a 5. However, because of Player A's skill, he gets a +2 modifier to the roll and because of Player B's defense, he gets another +2, making his roll an even six.

Player B has no modifiers to his roll for his own skill, but because of the defense of Player A he has a -3 modifier to his roll, making his roll an even three. Most likely Player B is hit and Player A is unscathed.

Although this seems unfair, there's an incredible amount of randomness in that system, and both had the ability to succeed or fail, but on different grounds. There would be two ways to make this more random:

A: Roll a bigger die, making things more random and more difficult for all involved. Rather than making it easier for Player B, it would make things more difficult for Player A AND Player B.

or B: Add random modifiers. This has the side effect of more than likely making all modifiers for skill and attributes null and void. On top of this, it also makes things more difficult for all involved, rather than helping the weak.

--Mitch.

[Bloodhearte]

True, that too much "science" or "logic" wouldn't be possible for such a system.

A combat system I have in mind is one where very few to no players know how it works, completely. If it were something more mysterious in which some guys work at with their own pace, their own variety, it would probably make the game more fun (and more likely for experienced combatants to take up apprentices).