Suggested Command for the Sake of Group Combat

[Dalmeth]

As we all know, group combat is kinda gimpy.  Everyone attacks one person, that person dies lickity split.  Alot of the unfairness comes from the fact that even if you have a dozen people with you, you're still penalized if you're attacked by multiple people at once (or at least, that's the impression I get from my admittedly limited combat experience).  So, I had an idea for an effect that could help a little with this.

I'm not sure what to call it, "interdict" was my first thought.  Here's the important part of it : whoever uses this skill starts attacking someone who is attacking someone else but not being attacked him/herself,  and forces that someone to change targets to the interdicter.

Now there's two ways this can work : one, it works like the assist command and when you use it on someone, it interdicts an attacker of the target the command was used on.  Second :  it can be an attack command and the user would have to pick out a target through the combat spam.

[mansa]

Sounds to me like rescue.

Remember there are other commands to use too, like change opponent

[Maybe42or54]

rescue gimpy attacker.keyword

[UnderSeven]

Also guard.  I'm not sure if group combat is gimpy, or if in many cases players just arn't creatively using the commands and skills offered in game to set up effective defense.

[Maybe42or54]

I think combat should be changed so that if it is 4 against 2, the code would take in the information and decide that it is 2 against 1 in each case, not 4 v 1 with one assisting. If there is 4 people against two, they'll atleast have to wacth the other guy a little.

[Fnord]

I think no more than four people should be able to melee a single target. Add guard and rescue to that, and things get a lot less silly.

[Oxidised Lizard]

Code Select Expand

in·ter·dict   Pronunciation Key  (ntr-dkt)
tr.v. in·ter·dict·ed, in·ter·dict·ing, in·ter·dicts

  1. To prohibit or place under an ecclesiastical or legal sanction.
  2. To forbid or debar, especially authoritatively. See Synonyms at forbid.
  3.
        (a) To cut or destroy (a line of communication) by firepower so as to halt an enemy's advance.
       (b) To confront and halt the activities, advance, or entry of: "the role of the FBI in interdicting spies attempting to pass US secrets to the Soviet Union" (Christian Science Monitor).

D'ya mean intervene?

[Dalmeth]

D'ya mean intervene?

It works.

Though, the suggestion is not simply a rescue or assist command.  I don't know of way that can forcibly change one person's target upon intervening in a 2 on 1  fight.  Even with rescue, it's just one person taking all the hits again and suffering all the penalties.  With this suggestion, a fight with those capable of using the command can be broken up into a group of 1 on 1 fights.  Now the combat spam might get too hard to keep track of, but I say it's worth the trade.

[mansa]

D'ya mean intervene?

It works.

Though, the suggestion is not simply a rescue or assist command.  I don't know of way that can forcibly change one person's target upon intervening in a 2 on 1  fight.  Even with rescue, it's just one person taking all the hits again and suffering all the penalties.  With this suggestion, a fight with those capable of using the command can be broken up into a group of 1 on 1 fights.  Now the combat spam might get too hard to keep track of, but I say it's worth the trade.

Rescue pulls one attacker away from the fight.  Just one.

[Maybe42or54]

Oh.. so you mean "rescue skrewed attacker," Where you can effectively take only one attacker away at a time?

[mansa]

Oh.. so you mean "rescue skrewed attacker," Where you can effectively take only one attacker away at a time?

That's exactly what 'rescue' does currently.

[Maybe42or54]

I know. That is the syntax I suggested way back in my thread when Morgenes said.. "Poof. What do you need?" Like the Genie he is. Wow.

[Dalmeth]

Aww crap, I just looked at the help file.  I must have forgotten you could specify who you could rescue the target from.  Sorry for wasting a few minutes.

[desert_spider_eater]

Aww crap, I just looked at the help file.  I must have forgotten you could specify who you could rescue the target from.  Sorry for wasting a few minutes.

Not entirely ...

I think no more than four people should be able to melee a single target.

If that isn't already true, I think it should be.  A person can only effectively be fought from the front, back and both flanks.  Anything else and you up the danger of chopping into your own team.  So subsequent attackers in a group should default to a new target, or be forced to guard/rescue another group member if they want in the action.

I suppose you could argue that combat is not just standing still and swinging, but again, only -so many- people can engage at -one- time.

[Desertman]

I had a combat oriented pc leader at one point, and this is the best way that I found to utilize the code as is to make for better group simulations.

First of....When everyone is in a group, in formation if you will, IRL they are trying to defend one another and attack the enemy at the same time...so just take that and warp the current code to fit that situation.


1. If you want your group to fight as a group, RP out taking up formations if you dont then you dont really need to worry about the code giving you the affect that you were fighting effectively as a unit.

2. Utilize the Guard skill when taking up formation. When everyone is in formation, establish a Guard circle so to speak. If you have the four people...have One guard Two...Two guard Three...Three gourd Four...and Four guard One. If the enemy all runs in and types Kill Man...they are now going to have to get past a cycle of guarding attempts by your formation, and most of the time one of those guarding attempts will succeede...and you end up with the enemy fighting someone he totally didnt intend to attack...thus you get the desired affect of not everyone gang banging one fellow like a tentacle monster on a chinese school girl. Everyone has a much better chance of getting paired off with someone else so to speak.

3. Utilize the Rescue command, if you follow rule #2 you are more likely to have adequate time to set up an attempt to Rescue Joe from Harry or Bill....since instead of fighting five people at once...Only Harry and Bill got to Joe...and Harry and Joe's buddies are now fighting the rest of your group because they guarded Joe succsessfully.

This isnt the best tactic in the world and it works better if you are on the defensive rather than the offensive, but its a good way to utilize the current combat code when fighting groups. Hope it helps.

[mansa]

j'karr

[desert_spider_eater]

...thus you get the desired affect of not everyone gang banging one fellow like a tentacle monster on a chinese school girl.

That just made my day.

[MorganChaos]

I would assume guarding in chains is allowed, so if you're guarding x, x is guarding y, y is guarding z, and z is guarding you, if anyone attacks everyone else will jump in.

I may have guard wrong, but if everyone in the group is guarding and being guarded, I think that eliminated the need for this.

[mansa]

If A is guarding B, and B is guarding C, and C is guarding D, and D is guarding A.


Someone attacks A.  D jumps in the way, and guards A.  And A stop fighting.  It's not really going to help anything - besides - disturbing everything and you end up fighting someone who you didn't plan on fighting.  That's about it.

And then, there's always 'kick A; change opponent A'

[Delirium]

It is possible to set up some seriously efficient 'formations' as the combat code is now.

It would be better if guarding didn't end when you began fighting, and instead became about 50% harder to do correctly.

However... tactics, training, and pre-planning with a well-oiled unit = total kickassery.

Been there, done that, pulled off some amazing shit.

I also have a feeling Hot_Dancer and I as a team could wipe the face of Zalanthas.

[Anonymous]

It would be better if guarding didn't end when you began fighting, and instead became about 50% harder to do correctly.

A better solution, to me, would probably be that you can guard while fighting but your offensive capabilities are drastically impacted.

Consider the cliche scenario of the dashing swordsman in the movies with one arm around the damsel in distress while he fends off two bad guys simultaneously.  A bit out there for Armageddon terms but I think that someone could realistically keep someone safe and still maintain a decent defense while holding two attackers at bay.  Three would be too much I think.

[Delirium]

Good point, CRW.

I like that solution.

[Desertman]

Someone attacks A. D jumps in the way, and guards A. And A stop fighting. It's not really going to help anything - besides - disturbing everything and you end up fighting someone who you didn't plan on fighting.

Actually check my above post...I have used it IC on various occassions and it works like a charm. Yes you end up fighting someone you do not intend to...But that is the point....The idea is that if four people try to attack one person...there is a good chance that more than one of the attackers will get pulled away, thus limiting the insta-kill factor on the would be victim. Which seems to be the main issue here...Noone wants to see group combat fall apart into everyone attack Joe...Joe dies instantly...then move on to Phil...then Bob. This knocks the insta-kill factor down dramatically.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

I really think that a limit of four like-sized foes, two larger-sized foes, and eight smaller foes would do the trick better than any complicated algorythms, though these of course can not hurt. The limit on attackers would solve the gang-bang crap that happens now, and it would be easy to code when compared to the already extensive things the Staff has managed to tuck in.

To recap, if you were a human:
Four foes your own size (elf, human, mul, dwarf, etc)
Two foes bigger than you (Half-giants, Braxat, Mekillot, etc)
Eight foes smaller than you (snakes, rats, etc)

[Desertman (not logged in)]

The above idea is ideal. I dont know how difficult it would be to code. But I like it.