Author Topic: Can we talk about ride?  (Read 1137 times)

Riev

  • Posts: 5635
Re: Can we talk about ride?
« Reply #25 on: December 08, 2019, 08:00:46 PM »
Can you define, without spoiling things, what problems the old system had? Even from the post I linked, it sounds like the major problem was that people believed you HAD to have no-hands ride. Whether that was because at that point your Offense/Defense were BETTER while riding, or because you were prepared while riding, I'm not certain.

But maybe we could all help the discussion if we were on the same footing.
Masks are the Armageddon equivalent of Ed Hardy shirts.

X-D

  • Posts: 5705
Re: Can we talk about ride?
« Reply #26 on: December 09, 2019, 12:32:48 AM »
Quote
Because just having a rope in your hands impacts your ability to get around.  To make the horse go where you want to go.  It doesn't suddenly only come into play only when you try to use the rope. Mostly what you need to get used to is the coils of the rope in your off hand and avoiding the saddlehorn with them.  Some horses are easier than others because you can just hold your off hand higher, but that tends to be a bad idea on horses that have a tendency to buck.  If you have to hold it lower because of that, you need to make sure the coils of the rope are on a certain side of the saddlehorn to avoid issues.  Although some reins are easier to rope with that others, a lot of the roping I did was with a hackamore which was kind of a bitch.

True enough.

But when talking horses IRL the horse matters as much if not more then the rider.

For instance, If I am going to go fishing and ride a horse while holding the rod and having tackle and drinks bouncing behind me, I am not going to take the 8 year old quarter horse who is most used to herding and racing and loves to jump and barely knows how to do anything but gallop (not kidding, a temperament of "spirited" does not cover it). I will take the 16 year old gaited mare who I can literally just tell to go fishing and otherwise mostly not pay attention to.

To my knowledge that that does not exist in arm...it would be pretty cool if it did...This mount is better tempered then that mount, or at least the type.

I am interested in the answer to Riev's question.
A gaunt, yellow-skinned gith shrieks in fear, and hauls ass.
Lizzie:
If you -want- me to think that your character is a hybrid of a black kryl and a white push-broom shaped like a penis, then you've done a great job

Delirium

  • Helper
  • Posts: 12064
Re: Can we talk about ride?
« Reply #27 on: December 09, 2019, 02:50:10 AM »
Mounted combat has gone through some serious changes over the years. I remember when being mounted in combat was such a disadvantage that the meta was to dismount whenever you expected trouble. It led to some interesting scenes where dusty wanderers thudded boots to the ground and it created this foreboding tension. Looking back, it also encouraged a pause between when you entered the room and when combat ensued. It did need some work, though I'm not sure what the motivations were behind the change. It did make it easier to get hit as a high-level combat character, which was nice, but perhaps it was being abused. Mostly, nobody in their right mind actually used cavalry units, which felt like a code conflict with IC reality.

Then we got trample, charge, and a mounted combat update, which went off the ride skill and gave rangers and a few others with the right class/subclass an edge in the wilderness. It was cool. It felt flavorful and thematic. Cavalry units were now feasible and desirable. There wasn't as much scrambling on and off mounts when taking units of fighters through the wastes. This ended up placing a lot more value on being able to ride reins-free, since mounted combat gave most people such a bonus in a fight. You wanted to not have to fiddle with draw/sheathe when you were attacked or if you had to flee.

These latest changes seem like an attempt to push back on that being an easy or common thing to achieve. Unfortunately it means that no matter how good at riding you are, you can't go reins-free until you're better at the requisite combat skill, which as people have pointed out, feels jarring and inconsistent.

If I could wave a magic wand and have a do-over, I would suggest that mounted combat be its own separate skill. Being able to fight while mounted would be separate from being able to ride with both hands occupied. So if ride and mounted combat were separate skills, you could keep your weapons out, but unless you have a high mounted combat skill, you are going to be dismounting when it's a fight that matters.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2019, 02:52:42 AM by Delirium »
"There are no happy endings, because nothing ends." - Schmendrick

LindseyBalboa

  • Posts: 108
Re: Can we talk about ride?
« Reply #28 on: December 09, 2019, 01:23:28 PM »
Squires in medieval times trained weapon and mount, at the same time. It's a combination of those skills that allows mounted combat, jousting, and mounted melee. If you're not training specifically for it, and the huge benefits such combat allowed, you weren't going to be getting those benefits.

I think the same applies here. It should be something you have to really work at to be great at, and it should be a combination of skills. However, not every mounted calvary unit was a master at fighting or riding, or even close.

Given how hard it is to raise up weapon skills, perhaps lowering that part of the requirement for mounted combat would be beneficial in terms of balance. Staff has said on GDB that most people are just going to get to "okay, maybe good" in relation to the rest of the world. That's fine. Being okay or good at weaponry and good at riding should be enough to be an average, okay mounted soldier, though.

Armaddict

  • Posts: 6220
Re: Can we talk about ride?
« Reply #29 on: December 09, 2019, 07:11:17 PM »
Quote
I'm assuming you rope?

I ride.  I have tried roping several times as a 'thing to do' with people.  Yes, I could be moving at a trot or canter without hands while trying to rope.  No, I could not catch shit with the rope.

There, you can stop feeling that everyone who disagrees with you must have no idea what they're talking about, so that you can actually talk about gameplay features in a game that already makes all sorts of balances between 'how things are in real life' and 'how things should be in a game'.
She wasn't doing a thing that I could see, except standing there leaning on the balcony railing, holding the universe together. --J.D. Salinger

Bebop

  • Posts: 4066
Re: Can we talk about ride?
« Reply #30 on: December 09, 2019, 07:15:35 PM »
Just because something is realistic doesn't mean it translates into playability for a game.  I feel like we're hitting that event horizon where major code changes are happening too often and the meta isn't getting balanced out enough.  The amount of code and skills is already really convoluted.  This game is hard to learn and get good at --- weapon skills being chiefly difficult.  I really wish we would balance the new classes and changes --- and stop adding more layers of complicated hoops for the sake of realism in a game where people throw fireballs, alcoholic elves run across the desert and people ride giant beetles and lizards around.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2019, 07:17:43 PM by Bebop »

Brokkr

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 904
Re: Can we talk about ride?
« Reply #31 on: December 10, 2019, 12:59:40 AM »
Just because something is realistic doesn't mean it translates into playability for a game.  I feel like we're hitting that event horizon where major code changes are happening too often and the meta isn't getting balanced out enough.  The amount of code and skills is already really convoluted.  This game is hard to learn and get good at --- weapon skills being chiefly difficult.  I really wish we would balance the new classes and changes --- and stop adding more layers of complicated hoops for the sake of realism in a game where people throw fireballs, alcoholic elves run across the desert and people ride giant beetles and lizards around.

People were hitting the ability to ride with any combination of weapons in about 1 day played.  The targeted timeline with the change was more like 5-10 days played, depending on your mix of combat vs riding, and having it be more limited, while at the same time be eventually available to a broader number of characters.

Then I gave in with how shield use was handled and for that style it can now be rather quicker than what was targeted.

Playability and balance have to take into account those targets, rather than being mechanisms for a rollback to something easier to get.

Riev

  • Posts: 5635
Re: Can we talk about ride?
« Reply #32 on: December 10, 2019, 09:26:13 AM »
So going back to my question.

Is the reason the 'old system' wasn't working, at its core, because people were able to get to the "No hands ride" perks too quickly?
In the originally linked post, you said it was because people felt it was 'necessary' to be at that level.
The new changes do make it more difficult (time spent) to get to the same level.

If the reason behind the change was "people get there too quickly", is there a specific reason you are not amenable to "You can ride with two hands full, but if you get into combat, you are going to fall off"? Or even making "ride with two hands full" and "combat capable while riding" be based on different factors?
Masks are the Armageddon equivalent of Ed Hardy shirts.

Bebop

  • Posts: 4066
Re: Can we talk about ride?
« Reply #33 on: December 10, 2019, 01:26:32 PM »
Just because something is realistic doesn't mean it translates into playability for a game.  I feel like we're hitting that event horizon where major code changes are happening too often and the meta isn't getting balanced out enough.  The amount of code and skills is already really convoluted.  This game is hard to learn and get good at --- weapon skills being chiefly difficult.  I really wish we would balance the new classes and changes --- and stop adding more layers of complicated hoops for the sake of realism in a game where people throw fireballs, alcoholic elves run across the desert and people ride giant beetles and lizards around.

People were hitting the ability to ride with any combination of weapons in about 1 day played.  The targeted timeline with the change was more like 5-10 days played, depending on your mix of combat vs riding, and having it be more limited, while at the same time be eventually available to a broader number of characters.

Then I gave in with how shield use was handled and for that style it can now be rather quicker than what was targeted.

Playability and balance have to take into account those targets, rather than being mechanisms for a rollback to something easier to get.

Hmm, that makes more sense to me then.  I guess I don't mind newer characters hitting it because being out in the desert without being able to dual wield makes things really, really challenging.  I'm undecided as to whether I like the change or not.  I feel like it's a quality of life issue but I dunno.  My head space is just not that of a code grinder.  I really wish people would stop code grinding (though I know that's not going to happen.)  It's turning the game into a dichotomy of roleplay vs coded skills.  I already don't have the willpower to skill grind and while I appreciate the changes make it harder for those who don't really play until they feel codedly badass but hmm....

I'm starting to think there should be some kind of skill point system that allows people to pick some skills they start out good as or a way to balance stats better so people don't get poor stats that way everyone isn't starting off with the same dopey skills.