New flag: NoAttack

[wizturbo]

I'd like to be able to toggle on and off the choice of whether or not to engage in melee combat if someone attacks me.  Meaning -only- defending, but taking zero offensive actions.

I can think of a dozen reasons for why this should be possible, as I'm sure everyone else can as well.  Only question is whether or not its codedly possible.

[Tamarin]

Seconded.

[Delirium]

Me three.

[cyberpatrol_735]

ME 4

[Larrath]

Fifthded.

[Maybe42or54]

Wizturbo, tell me three things as to why it wouldn't be so good?
All great idea's have three things wrong with them.

[InsertCleverNameHere]

I personally can't think of a reason why this wouldn't be a good idea, myself. Mercy on only works to the extent that you can be able to beat that person to a pulp and knock them out before you stop fighting, pretty much.
So I add my vote for a yes (btw, wizturbo, you should've polled this question).

[joyofdiscord]

I came up with three, but only with a lot of stretching.  In fact, only the first is probably of any real significance.  In descending order of significance:

1. Possible twinkability in sparring type situations

2. If you're defending, i.e. parrying, there is a chance you will still wound your opponent.  Insert realism/harshness cries here.

3. And... umm... a lot of people forget how their options are toggled.


For what it's worth, I think it's a grand idea.

[cyberpatrol_735]

I found a problem...

What if the two parties fighting both turn it on.. They're both defensive.. what happens to the fight.. does it stop?

[wizturbo]

I came up with three, but only with a lot of stretching.  In fact, only the first is probably of any real significance.  In descending order of significance:

1. Possible twinkability in sparring type situations

2. If you're defending, i.e. parrying, there is a chance you will still wound your opponent.  Insert realism/harshness cries here.

3. And... umm... a lot of people forget how their options are toggled.


For what it's worth, I think it's a grand idea.

In a sparring situation you can choose not to attack and only defend.  I think its a great way for extremely experienced sparring partners to keep their opponents conscious enough to actually have a match.  Toggle NoAttack on and off so you only swing at them a few times now and then, rather then a constant barrage.

Of course if people somehow figure out a way to abuse this they can have their skills capped by the imm's and they'll just remain sucky forever.  *Shrugs*

[creeper386]

I found a problem...

What if the two parties fighting both turn it on.. They're both defensive.. what happens to the fight.. does it stop?

In that situation it would most likely end the fight just how it is coded now. As neither character is attacking. OR it would be coded in that the fight would end.

Having some more options on fighting would be nice. Making it so you don't hit back would be nice. Having it so it goes one "round" then stops would be nice to go back and forth. Without having to flee. Some ways to increase sparring. Such as have an option so that either combatant can stop the fight without fleeing.


Anyways, just a few ideas.

Creeper

[Larrath]

Easy solution to the skillmaxing part - no combat skill improvement while NoAttack flag is on.

If you're defending and parrying in battle against someone with weapons and armor, the chance of inflicting serious injury is very small.  These aren't even metal weapons, but at the worst case, there could be a small roll once per round to see if you stepped on their toes or something for 1 hp.

The only bad thing it could do is let an uber_def warrior let another character practice their offense for days upon days.

[Bogre]

Which is what some do to sparring dummies anyways.

[Ghost]

Grand idea.

[Tamarin]

I found a problem...

What if the two parties fighting both turn it on.. They're both defensive.. what happens to the fight.. does it stop?

If you attack someone, it turns off your noattack flag.

[Halaster]

This is not to say this will ever be done.  This is just me particpating in the concept of the idea.

This is not a bad idea.  If I had to code it, I'd make it where maybe the defender had no chance of gaining in skill, but the attacker still did (makes sense to me).  If both parties had the flag on, combat would stop.

Conceptually, this doesn't seem like all that hard of a thing to code.

[Jacques]

Under most circumstances I'd be opposed to ideas like this. However, I had an experience with a merchant character of mine that makes me think this could make for a bit more realism in how non-warrior characters behave in combat. I thought I'd throw it in before we get sucked too far down the "but I'm an uber-l337 warrior" pathway with this.

Brief story: My very, VERY wimpy merchant was attacked (at random, apparently, and the guy didn't even bother to equip weapons) and KNOCKED OUT his attacker before I was able to flee. Yes, you heard me right - merchant guild... hand to hand fight not using brawl code... unconscious opponent. This makes for a hysterical story, both in and out of game, but it should never have happened. The character would never have been fighting back - he'd have been trying not to get hit long enough to get away. However, the code currently does not allow this option. A toggle to allow characters to simply try to not get hit would allow me to implement that in my roleplay. It wouldn't even necessarily represent a skilled defense - it could simply represent curling up into a ball with your arms in front of your head and hoping you don't die.

Note also that this would solve the "no way to end a fight without fleeing" argument that comes up from time to time. Both turn "noattack" on and the fight ends, as has been suggested above.

[LoD]

There are a few issues I have with this idea:

Potential Abuse

One of the main reasons people would want this feature added is so that a vastly superior fighter would be able to match with a new recruit via Arm's coded combat system without utterly destroying said newbie in 1-3 swings.

While I have no problem with the concept, I would have a problem with people exacting any sort of meaningful skill increases (attacker or defender) out of this exchange.  It should be used (like the sparring dummy) only for RP purposes and not skill advancements.

I see this feature quickly devolving into newbies fighting seasoned veterans two at a time for hours on end without any need to break or RP fatigue or pain because there could easily be no coded exchange of blows.  The current system -forces- these things to some degree because the veteran hurts the new warriors enough to stop and actually rest.

Conceptual Problems

As someone who participates in a style of fighting that involves shields/swords and other weapons, working armed with someone unarmed will only show slight rewards.  But you want to teach them how to get around a shield?  How to get past your defenses?  That's exactly what the "teach" command is for, IMHO.

When someone does not retaliate, they are no longer a danger and you can afford to shift your entire mentality.  You have nothing to fear as you surge forward and swing, swing, swing trying to hit them.  If you've ever been in this situation, then you know how silly a thing it is to ask that someone "learn" anything out of this exchange.

People need to learn how to be defensive and offensive at the same time, and that takes a lot of work.  It also demands some action on the part of the defender.  This system promotes reward without risk, which is a bad thing.  There should always be an inherent risk in any combat that results in a character improving.

You could create an offensive powerhouse via this method without anyone ever being struck.  Ever.  That's just silly to me.  This is an extreme example, but I only bring it up because it will happen if this is implemented in such a way as to allow skill increases for either participant in the combat.  The combat system doesn't need more coded ways to get around these issues.  There are plenty of ways to prolong matches between vastly different levels of skill without needing a NoAttack flag.

-LoD

[cyberpatrol_735]

I'm going to rant a little.

There are plenty of ways to prolong matches between vastly different levels of skill without needing a NoAttack flag.

Here we go again with the 'find your away around it' approach again..

I'm done ranting..

Ok.. Here's how it would work.

Two people are fighting, player A and Player B.

Player A and B are fighting with noattack off, thus they are attacking and getting experience (hand to hand/slashing, etc..)

Player A decides to back off a little, so he turns on noattack.

Now Player A is NOT recieving experience for hth, slashing, etc.. but IS getting experience for shield use, parry, etc..

They both decide that they want to end the fight, player B simply turns on noattack and the match is over.

However, if in the course of the fight player A used kick, disarm, bash, anything aggressive, he/she would forfeit the noattack flag, and be set to attacking again.

I see potential in this. It would solve the flee problem when sparring, and it would help teaching through experience verses teaching via talking and using the 'teach' command.

I'm all for this. Perhaps the staff might care to share their view? We've seen that halaster is for it, how about the rest of the staff?

And from a coder's standpoint, it would not be hard to code at all.

Maybe 10 minutes at the MOST.

Simply define the flag, make the noattack command.
Add it in score or stat.
In the fight code, before they roll for an attack, put an if statement that checks for the noattack bit. Also put an if check in the same spot where if victim has the noattack bit set, stop_fighting(victim) and stop_fighting(ch) TRUE.

[LoD]

Here we go again with the 'find your away around it' approach again..

There's nothing to go around.  My point is that if you're looking to use NoAttack as a simple RP tool that offers no skill advancements whatsoever so that a veteran warrior can move through the coded motions of combat prior to using the "teach" command in the lesson he/she was giving, I've nothing against that.

If you want any skill to be gained by either participant, then I don't think this is a good idea at all.

Ok.. Here's how it would work.

Two people are fighting, player A and Player B.

Player A and B are fighting with noattack off, thus they are attacking and getting experience (hand to hand/slashing, etc..)

Player A decides to back off a little, so he turns on noattack.

Now Player A is NOT recieving experience for hth, slashing, etc.. but IS getting experience for shield use, parry, etc..

They both decide that they want to end the fight, player B simply turns on noattack and the match is over.

How about this situation?

Two people, Player A and Player B, are fighting Captain Uber.

Captain Uber turns on NoAttack and Player A and Player B miss and miss and increase their offense, weapon skills, kick, bash and disarm everytime they fight without ever having something swung at them.

Two people, one person - this reward without risk scenario is not the kind of thing that promotes good RP.  It promotes powergaming and a scapegoat for those people who would abuse this ability as a way to radically increase their fighting ability over short periods of time.

I see potential in this. It would solve the flee problem when sparring...

I'm not quite sure what 'problem' this presents.  I've been witness to more sparring than probably most of the people who play the game and there's hardly ever been an issue that isn't easily resolved by fleeing.  As I said, if you want NoAttack to disengage a spar - I'm fine with that.

...it would help teaching through experience verses teaching via talking and using the 'teach' command.

There is too much room for abuse in a system that allows skill advancement by attacking something or someone that does not attack back.  It also removes a natural set of checks and balances the game has with regards to health, appropriate levels of rest, etc...  This would likely lead to a lot more observation by Immortals over fighting types to ensure that this setup didn't lead down an abusive path.

If you aren't sure what I mean, then consider the fact that this system could provide a way for someone to advance in skill with no danger whatsoever to their person.  There are people out there that already abuse the system by killing every animal in a zone reset, or by sparring for days on end, or hunting NPC's in areas they realistically shouldn't be travelling.

The ease of which this can be coded has nothing to do with whether or not it should be added to the game.  And I'll leave you with a final question.

Which is more likely to be increased by this proposed addition, skill advancement or role play?

-LoD

[cyberpatrol_735]

I see your point, my bad. Definently role play.

So screw the skills gained/earned, strip'm and use it for RP only. We could use it like LOD said, teach them while they fight.

[Bestatte]

Awesome offense, kick, piercing, blah blah blah skills won't mean shit if some guy with a really big thick stick whacks you up'side the head some day when you're not expecting it. What I mean, in a nutshell, is that a no-attack flag won't give you ANY defensive boost whatsoever. It will be great if you can guarantee you'll be the aggressor with every fight your character gets into. But if he's ever put on the defensive, his odds of getting out of the fight without dying or fleeing are pretty sad.

Unless of course he has uber armor that he wears 24/7 made out of full bahamet shell plate, which is uber unrealistic since the guy's gotta take a shit some time

[Cale_Knight]

While I have no problem with the concept, I would have a problem with people exacting any sort of meaningful skill increases (attacker or defender) out of this exchange.  It should be used (like the sparring dummy) only for RP purposes and not skill advancements.

I see this feature quickly devolving into newbies fighting seasoned veterans two at a time for hours on end without any need to break or RP fatigue or pain because there could easily be no coded exchange of blows.  The current system -forces- these things to some degree because the veteran hurts the new warriors enough to stop and actually rest.

But that makes no sense IC.

Have you ever had any kind of "combat" training? Martial arts, boxing, wrestling? I wrestled in high school and took kung fu for a while (I was terrible at the latter, but that's besides the point).

When you're learning a new move or form or combination, your teacher isn't knocking the dogshit out of you. He's going to block, parry, and show you what you're doing wrong. Every now and then he might smack you lightly upside the head when you do something especially stupid, but for the most part he's just going to stand there and block. Or, in the case of wrestling, let you successfully do the move over and over until you get it right.

It's stupid that a training sergeant would say to himself "Gee. I think I'm going to go ahead and slice up this recruit in ten seconds. That'll teach him how to fight."

Well, maybe he would, but that's why this would be a toggle.

It makes perfect IC sense to allow less-experienced fighters to learn via a toggle like this. It'll have to be policed, yes, but that's something that can be accomplished via a self-policing staff and a very active immstaff; two things that Armageddon features.

[Delirium]

Cale_Knight : That's why you would turn noattack on, roleplay out the lesson, and use the TEACH command.

A compromise could be reached: Cut experience gained in half or 1/4.

[Cale_Knight]

The teach command only goes so far, though. Even with a few teaches, a 50 day warrior is still going to beat the crap out of a newbie ranger or burglar, even with a single weapon in his secondary hand. Even if he doesn't want to.

There should really be a way to teach without spreading blood all over the place every time.