Author Topic: The Animal World and Realism.  (Read 1463 times)

Hauwke

  • Posts: 1330
Re: The Animal World and Realism.
« Reply #25 on: September 30, 2017, 06:42:41 PM »
Strength does indeed make it -considerably- easier to hit things. Even later in in the character they will still hit things easier, on the other hand, the people who have high strength, often have lower agility which means they themself are more vulnerable to being hit so it balances out.

Miradus

  • Posts: 1765
Re: The Animal World and Realism.
« Reply #26 on: September 30, 2017, 09:15:57 PM »
Strength does indeed make it -considerably- easier to hit things. Even later in in the character they will still hit things easier, on the other hand, the people who have high strength, often have lower agility which means they themself are more vulnerable to being hit so it balances out.

It didn't really seem to matter unless fighting multiple opponents or a really skilled guy with a shield and high parry.

Because your super high strength doesn't get through the shield or parry and if they swing 5 times each time you swing once (and then you get your superhit denied) you're still going to lose the dance of a thousand cuts.

But against animals? Oh I loved that high strength.

As far as people bragging about this or that animal being easy or this or that place not being dangerous, so what? Listen to the stories of the old mountain men and how they bragged about wrestling grizzly bears with their bare hands or how they could go into Injun territory and all the enemies would run away when they heard they'd been spotted.

Wilderness people love to brag about their exploits to greenhorns. And when we make it to the bar, then the raptor I killed is going to be ten times the size of the raptor you killed, and it showed up with its papa and three brothers too.

Grapes

  • Posts: 221
Re: The Animal World and Realism.
« Reply #27 on: September 30, 2017, 11:18:19 PM »
Except, it sometimes IS three times the size of the raptor you killed, and brought its family along.

EDIT: It's like in Dark Souls, you see an empty room with a chest in the distance. You can easily deduce a million slimebuckets will drop from the ceiling and the chest, is in fact, a mimic.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2017, 11:22:55 PM by Grapes »
Quote from: Is Friday
If you ever hassle me IC for not playing much that means that I'm going to play even less or I'll forever write you off as a neckbeard chained to his computer. So don't be a dick.

chrisdcoulombe

  • Posts: 1066
Re: The Animal World and Realism.
« Reply #28 on: October 06, 2017, 12:16:12 PM »
I like to pet carru before I kill them, go ahead and player complaint.  I'm sure it will gain an audience.  I'm jk, but I don't think these are player complaint worthy.  These are realistic in game things and like others said can be and mostly are contributed to bragging.   
Quote from MeTekillot
Samos the salter never goes to jail! Hahaha!

TheGoose

  • Posts: 127
Re: The Animal World and Realism.
« Reply #29 on: October 06, 2017, 01:16:58 PM »

Grapes

  • Posts: 221
Re: The Animal World and Realism.
« Reply #30 on: October 06, 2017, 03:28:59 PM »
If I didn't already have a sig, I'd sig that, I'm also hesitant to sig images.
Quote from: Is Friday
If you ever hassle me IC for not playing much that means that I'm going to play even less or I'll forever write you off as a neckbeard chained to his computer. So don't be a dick.

Synthesis

  • Posts: 9443
Re: The Animal World and Realism.
« Reply #31 on: October 14, 2017, 03:59:50 PM »
Have you ever seen someone say, oh, those are weak, I can kill them? Talking about a Bahamet, a Rantarri, a Kiyet, Dujats, Spiders, Raptors, Tembo, even a mek or Kryl depending, and there's more of course.

IMO, doesn't that sort of break immersion or the dangerous feel of the sands?

When someone pulls down their trousers, and poops on the Known because lol, we buff codedly?

There are all these dangerous animals, and over a multitude of PC's, this is what I witness. There's no respect from PC's risking their lives fighting creatures as big as them, carnivorous creatures, or creatures SO big, in reality it would take an entire hunting crew, AND a half-giant to realistically kill?

Instead, we have one man-2 man wrecking houses, slaughtering the known and laughing about it in a tavern, or wherever, and the known as we know it, is not so dangerous.

What's your thoughts?

You've got a vast range of creatures, there.

There is -no- mundane non-half-giant PC in the game who can regularly solo mekillots and survive, without some sort of magick being involved.  Even with a completely maxed warrior with outstanding agility, your defense will not be perfect, and mekillots can hit hard enough to instagib you with a bite to the foot.  If anyone is saying that they did it IC, they're either a damn liar, they had magick buffs, or they got lucky.

Raptors are only dangerous to folks who have absolutely no business being outside the gates by themselves.  Tembos can be pretty nasty, but even rangers and assassins can take them out pretty handily before they even branch parry.  Ordinary kryl are only dangerous because of their extras, not because of raw combat ability.

I've never had a (mundane) PC where I was like, "yeah, I'll shit all over that rantarri by myself."  Giuseppe could kill them solo, sure, but probably 30% of the time I'd have to flee because I got a shit defense diceroll.  Tarantulas have a fairly large range of dangerous-ness, depending on what type you're talking about.  Some of them are barely man-sized, some of them are much larger.  There are very few PCs who are on a level where going up against the large ones doesn't eventually become a death sentence.

So...no, I don't think any of that is immersion-breaking.  It takes a fair amount of skill (and even more if your stats are shit) to go up against any of those creatures solo, and the truly nasty ones will still regularly fuck up overconfident warriors.  Of course, those warriors aren't going to -brag- about all the times they had to flee from a dujat...they're only going to tell you about the times they passed all their defense rolls.
Quote from: WarriorPoet
I play this game to pretend to chop muthafuckaz up with bone swords.
Quote from: Smuz
I come to the GDB to roleplay being deep and wise.
Quote from: Vanth
Synthesis, you scare me a little bit.

tapas

  • Posts: 160
Re: The Animal World and Realism.
« Reply #32 on: October 17, 2017, 07:42:24 PM »
The other issue is that combat skill is so generalized. If you're good at fighting a dangerous creature, you're probably good at fighting everything.

Instead, realistically you should have specialized teams that might focus on big game hunting. Trappers that capture elusive critters like jozhals. Specialized bounty hunters that bring in rogue muls etc.

Instead we got Buff McDuff that can fight erryone and errything.

Grapes

  • Posts: 221
Re: The Animal World and Realism.
« Reply #33 on: October 17, 2017, 08:03:56 PM »
Instead we got Buff McDuff that can fight erryone and errything.

Buff McDuff can and has been destroyed many times over. No one is invincible, that's an illusion.
Quote from: Is Friday
If you ever hassle me IC for not playing much that means that I'm going to play even less or I'll forever write you off as a neckbeard chained to his computer. So don't be a dick.

tapas

  • Posts: 160
Re: The Animal World and Realism.
« Reply #34 on: October 17, 2017, 08:12:35 PM »
That's not what I'm saying.

Buff Mcduff fights everything. Tesha Tish the specialist traps ritikki on the plains.

Which of these two do we see in game?

Kankfly

  • Posts: 1201
Re: The Animal World and Realism.
« Reply #35 on: October 18, 2017, 12:47:59 AM »
I like the idea of expanding on the hunting code (not the actual hunt skill, but that would be pretty awesome too). Critter code? Anyway... having a trap system or something set up would be really cool. Though maybe a big project for staff to work on.
I ruin immershunz.

Harmless

  • Posts: 2637
Re: The Animal World and Realism.
« Reply #36 on: October 18, 2017, 01:10:34 AM »
At least jozhal hide and run, so sneaking or range attacks are easier to hunt them with. There are critters one needs to climb to hunt a good amount of. There are beasts one should only hunt with ranged attacks to be sane. Since warriors dont max the sneak archery abilities as well as rangers or maybe assassins can, you tend to see specializing happen at least that much.

There also apparently are coded bonuses rangers get to hunting certain beasts that other classes do not get. Warriors definitely have skills in armed combat (disarm) that rangers do not get.

So, that is what we already have for hunting realism, but it could possibly get better.
Useful tips: Commands |  |Storytelling:  1  2

Delirium

  • Helper
  • Posts: 11528
Re: The Animal World and Realism.
« Reply #37 on: October 18, 2017, 01:16:48 AM »
Even the best of rangers is a damn limp-wristed fool next to a truly skilled warrior in toe to toe. The two are far from equal.
do you remember
when you were young and you wanted to set the world on fire?

Hauwke

  • Posts: 1330
Re: The Animal World and Realism.
« Reply #38 on: October 18, 2017, 01:45:32 AM »
In hand to hand combat, the difference between a ranger and a warrior with comparable training is usually leaps and bounds apart. Just the fact that they have a few more defensive skills means that any warrior worth his salt should be able to beat a ranger pretty much hands down in a melee setting. Ranged? Eh, they can sort of keep up, but only in the same way a ranger sort of keeps up in melee.

Synthesis

  • Posts: 9443
Re: The Animal World and Realism.
« Reply #39 on: October 19, 2017, 03:35:25 AM »
The other issue is that combat skill is so generalized. If you're good at fighting a dangerous creature, you're probably good at fighting everything.

Instead, realistically you should have specialized teams that might focus on big game hunting. Trappers that capture elusive critters like jozhals. Specialized bounty hunters that bring in rogue muls etc.

Instead we got Buff McDuff that can fight erryone and errything.

There's been at least one staff post where they either explicitly stated or at least implied that there are hidden weapon-type-vs-race skills that (presumably) yield bonuses when someone is experienced at fighting a certain thing with a certain weapon type.

That being said, from my practical experience, these modifiers seem to be so small that they're barely noticeable, if at all.

That being said...if they -were- substantial modifiers, it would be super annoying, because it would essentially kick off an Armageddon-style Pokemon bloodbath.
Quote from: WarriorPoet
I play this game to pretend to chop muthafuckaz up with bone swords.
Quote from: Smuz
I come to the GDB to roleplay being deep and wise.
Quote from: Vanth
Synthesis, you scare me a little bit.

Jihelu

  • Posts: 2581
Re: The Animal World and Realism.
« Reply #40 on: October 19, 2017, 03:28:53 PM »
I have noticed that the difference is notable, atleast in the early stages.
It's like sparring with a friend and he's hitting you with nicks, then all of a sudden you start parrying every single attack and you check your skills and your parry went up. It's about the same for hitting things.

And then you get like four or so more fails in in the next day or so and it stops mattering.
Shade, profits, and George Bush did 9/11