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.

[Tamarin]

Cale you're missing the point.  It's not that a seasoned badass will be holding back and not annihilating his charges...it's that they could do this for hours and hours and hours and hours without a break because no one would be taking any damage.  There would be no coded justification for breaking the fight, whereas how it stands now, light hits are taken more as fatigue rather than actual cuts and bruises.

[Cale_Knight]

Cale you're missing the point.  It's not that a seasoned badass will be holding back and not annihilating his charges...it's that they could do this for hours and hours and hours and hours without a break because no one would be taking any damage.

No, I do see the point. And as I mentioned, it would have to be policed. But I don't think that alone is a reason to flatout say it's not a worthwhile idea. Sparring can still happen for IC days on end if you take 3 minute breaks to rest and heal, but nobody is saying sparring should be taken out of the game too.

[Delirium]

I don't think anyone's saying this idea shouldn't go in, I think they're saying that if it does go in, it should negate any combat experience earned while it's toggled on.

Teachers could toggle it on, hold back for a few rounds, toggle it off to whack their recruit a few times over the head to show them the openings they're leaving, toggle it off, yell advice at the recruit, and eventually end the fight either by having the recruit toggle noattack on, or beating the recruit down until they're forced to flee from the ring.

Alternately, teachers could use noattack to demonstrate a good defense and instruct their pupils on different styles of attacking or defending, etc, and then use the teach command afterward.

It would work for me.

I've never wanted a noattack toggle for anything other than roleplaying reasons; torture scenes, killing scenes, tutoring scenes. Just think, you could actually beat up someone codewise; they turn noattack on, you rough them up a bit, then turn noattack on and end the fight. Whereas now, if you're in a jailcell, there's no way to end the fight once it's started.

Another thing would be mages. How silly is it for a mage to be fighting with their fists while they're weaving their spells of doom and destrukshun? Letting them put noattack on would solve that as well.

[wizturbo]

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.

Another thing I just thought of, this flag would help certain magickers from engaging in meaningless hand to hand combat which could potentially disrupt their ability to cast spells.  I won't get into any details but this could easily be a concern.

[cyberpatrol_735]

Here's another idea, harder to code, but nonetheless.


change power 0-10

In this case, you could set how hard you want to try to fight.

If you want to give them a little chance, lower it down to whatever you feel appropriate, if you don't want to fight at all, set it to zero.

I would recommend that most of times you would keep it at 10 which is trying your best. Anything less could be used for a number of things, sparring, teaching, and more, without having to worry about this other crap.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

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?

I don't think that's a problem. In fact, I think that's a plus. I still hate having to flee to stop a mutual fight.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

I additionally agree that the command should hamper if not eradicate boosts to skills.

[bloodfromstone]

Just the ability to disengage from each other without barreling out of the room is good for rp situations, in my opinion. A noattack flag makes logical sense, but, as we've said, would definitely have to be tweaked a lot and policed to make it work out ok in game mechanics, but if nothing else, I think the mutual disengage should be made possible at some point.

[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?

I don't think that's a problem. In fact, I think that's a plus. I still hate having to flee to stop a mutual fight.

No no no, I didn't mean that stopping the fight would be bad, I just wasn't sure what would happen in that situation. Stopping a fight when both people agree is awesome for sparring, I'd be all for it.

[RunningMountain]

SoI has this in there combat system, they use the set command for it which is
set pacifist - forego all attacks in combat for a defensive bonus.

and you can
set frantic - all offense, no defense (no combat learning)
set aggressive - more offense then defense
set normal - both
set careful - more defensive then offense
set defensive - mostly defense, some offense

Not to say it's a good system, just showing that it's out there and it works really well.

-RM

[wizturbo]

SoI has this in there combat system, they use the set command for it which is
set pacifist - forego all attacks in combat for a defensive bonus.

and you can
set frantic - all offense, no defense (no combat learning)
set aggressive - more offense then defense
set normal - both
set careful - more defensive then offense
set defensive - mostly defense, some offense

Not to say it's a good system, just showing that it's out there and it works really well.

-RM

I would enjoy this system.  Its realistic.  But, likely much more difficult to code than a simple NoAttack flag.

[cyberpatrol_735]

Speaking from a coder's point of view.. this wouldn't be hard.. IF you had offence and defence stats on your char.

Set a temp int on the char for their 'normal' def and off.

ch->noff = ch->off
ch->ndef = ch->def

Then simply do

ch->off -= 10
ch->def += 10

or what not. Then if they set it back to normal

ch->off = ch->noff
ch->def = ch->ndef

Throw in some if checks in the set function or whatnot.

There's a number of way's to do it. Like I mentioned or a flag that would do it, etc.. This would work.. but a flag may be more efficient. Though it'd be harder to code.


Set the variables how you want them.. and however your off/def system is set up.