Defense Nerfed

[Djarjak]

Yes; and their skills are also rather lower than they would be if the bug had never existed, which is the point I was making. For the last however-long-it-was, skill gain in these skills has been severely reduced from what it ought to have been. The result is that a lot of old warriors are effectively relatively newbie at defence despite having put in the time and work to theoretically have improved their skills.

I've also just talked about this with the coders.

That's also not the nature of this bug.

So all of your assertions about this are, indeed, invalid.

[Morgenes]

However, I do feel the need to say that I hope this will encourage more people to use shields more often and two weapons less often, especially northern PCs, because using a shield should be more common in northern fighting styles.

Let me emphasize this point.  Before everyone with some modicum of weapon skill had a huge chance at parrying a blow.  Now, plain and simple, without the parry skill you will not parry a blow.  There are many other ways to skin a quirri.  Try changing up your combat styles.  The standard two weapon fighting may not be the best way to survive anymore.

[najdorf]

Now, plain and simple, without the parry skill you will not parry a blow.

Does that make sense? With a huge shield in my hand, will i only dodge or get hit?

[Eternal]

I think you'll either dodge or get hit on the shield.  Not a coder, and combat isn't one of my specialties... but I think shields add an extra armor location more than a chance at turning blows outright (like parrying).

Lord Templar Hard Nose shrugs, fumbling with a jade-emblazoned letter-opener.

Edit:  Forgot about blocking using shield_use, heh... shows how much combat code I know.

[jmordetsky]

2) I don't recall ever seeing anythign in code discussion where people seemed unhappy about this particular aspect of the game

Heheh, of course they wouldn't complain about being able to defeat creatures they shouldn't have, or operating at a skill-level beyond what they really should be.  They didn't even really know there was a problem.

So, my big question is, in light of #2 and #3, Why not post a poll to the players first?

Because we don't poll players to fix a bug.  I agree, if it was a "change" to the way things were supposed to work, it'd be good to get feedback.  But we thought it was a "bug".

Well, yes and no. Granted we are calling it a "bug fix", but it really was a bug no player could see and so we all are experiencing it as change in mechanics. That's what it feels like to the players so the answers "it's a bug fix" don't make us feel better.

In terms of us not complaining about being able to kill mean creatures, I don't think that's true anymore, I take it back.

I do recall myself complaining on several occasions that there were no baddies in the desert or that if there were they were pretty easy to kill.

However, two things here,

1) It's not the NPCS buffness that I'm really wowed about, it the other players. Certain PCs just seem *incredible* to me now, when they were just mediocre a few days ago. I'm literally taking 15-20 points of damage +daze in one HIT against PCs that a few days agao were obviously better then me, but hardly stomping me into the ground, laughing and peeing on my quivering corpse.

2) From what I can see, reasonable warriors seem alomst unaffected by this change. Either that or they are so much more tank then I am now that it just appears this way to me. I do know that I in my class am now completely afraid of the wastes, where as my warrior comrads are not. I believe this is because they have the parry skill, and the effect is therefore lessened on them. In a way I see this is fair...but it hurts.

I'm obviously not sure if #2 is a true statement, it may not be so feel free to correct me here, but if it is true that warriors are still pretty BA then wouldn't a better solution have been to tank up the mobs a bit? Because it seems like the 4 day n00b warrior is still going to go out and clean up gith town.

So, that being said....My constructive feedback thoughts (because Dig scolded me last night for being a bitch, and he's right, i was being a bitch)

1) To even things out, boost mounted combat for skilled riders. Word on the streets is that charge is completely useless now.

2) Possibly allow dodge to become more effective, and lessen (not remove) the overall impact on non-wars.

3) Increae the number and buffness of baddies in the desert to offset the increase to dodge.

4) Lastly, take a good look at PC vs PC combat and varying days of play , skill and off/def. It really feels to me that warriors are now super powered. Especially with disarm under their belt.

This is coming from a player who's mantra is normally "harder is better". This entire post has me feeling a bit like a hypocrite. But I think that is because the change feels SOOOO severe.

I've released a good deal of software, severe changes are normally met with crying users if they aren't specifically requested, even if it is in the long run good for them.

I think thats we saw hugs and kisses with hemote and boos and jeers with this.

[Dresan]

There are four common ways to survive a hit without any damage...one is dodging, the other is parrying, another is blocking using a shield_use skill and the last is having your armour absorb all the damage.


Again i'm completely happy with the fix, it was needed but i'm still going to wait a while to see the effectiveness of defence vs offence, esspecially concerning shield_use since from what i'm currently seeing its not as effective as going all out with a more offensive style. Again its too early for me to tell, hopefully in another couple of weeks i'll have a better idea (except for mounted combat which i honestly feels it needs a less severe penalty).

[Agent_137]

Yes; and their skills are also rather lower than they would be if the bug had never existed, which is the point I was making. For the last however-long-it-was, skill gain in these skills has been severely reduced from what it ought to have been. The result is that a lot of old warriors are effectively relatively newbie at defence despite having put in the time and work to theoretically have improved their skills.

I've also just talked about this with the coders.

That's also not the nature of this bug.

So all of your assertions about this are, indeed, invalid.

wait wait, I was curious.

Would the seeming imbalance between offense and defense be caused by:

1. Character practices.
2. Character parries more because he has better parry chance due to bug.
3. Character learns to parry less because he's already doing so well. Learn by doing, learn by failing.
4. Character gets leet parry ability taken away. Now he's learning from those quirri again. Because they're eating him alive.

I don't see how an inflated parry chance WOULDN'T affect the end level of one's skill in parry, by affecting how much slower one learns when one doesn't -need- to learn.

[LoD]

I've also just talked about this with the coders.

That's also not the nature of this bug.

So all of your assertions about this are, indeed, invalid.

You are contradicting what Morgenes confirmed earlier:

Fighter A starts playing 9/26/2005. (With Bug)
Fighter B starts playing 9/26/2006. (Without Bug)

In one year, Fighter A's defense is X.  It never went above X because the bug that allowed him to parry and block with the shield made him somewhat invulnerable to the things he fought, and there was no skill gain in defense as a result.

In one year, Fighter B's defense is greater than X.  He never had the advantage of the parry and shield use bugs and so the same time spent following the exact same regimen has yielded to him a higher defense skill.

You can assign whatever point value to the defense above you wish, but the point is that in the same amount of play time, against the same opponents, with the same variables (i.e. weapon selections, wisdom sscores, playing times) will have yielded a higher defense score to Fighter B.

Quirk's point is that the players of Fighter A's (rangers, assassins, warriors, burglars, and pick-pockets) are frustrated because they are ending up with lower defense scores than fighters who have played the same amount of time will have after the bug was removed.  His claim is that the "bug fix" cheapened their investment into the character by removing the inflated bonuses without compensating them for what they would've learned without the inflation.

Now, Morgenes has said that there is really no way to even begin knowing what compensation would be appropriate across the board, and so there will be none.  And I understand and accept that decision.  However, I don't want to see these concerns labeled as "invalid" when they're perfectly understandable.

People will have to spend some extra time training or learning to return to the same perceived level of skill they were before (i.e. able to consistently handle NPC "X" or consistently avoid the attacks of PC Recruit "Y"' in sparring).  I'm not saying those should be people's goals, but the bug fix didn't just right a wrong, it altered expectations.  It changed not only the perceptions of players with regard to what was possible/normal for their character, but the very model in which martial success or failure is now calculated.

It's not a simple bug fix.  It's complicated, and introduces significant changes in how a combat oriented role will have to consider the world.  It may wash out in 1-2 years.  People may not even know that it ever existed, but at this moment - it's taking everything people have ever assumed about the game for at least the last 5 years with regards to combat and changing it.  And that's got people backpedaling.

-LoD

[flurry]

Fighter A starts playing 9/26/2005. (With Bug)
Fighter B starts playing 9/26/2006. (Without Bug)

In one year, Fighter A's defense is X.  It never went above 30 because the bug that allowed him to parry and block with the shield made him somewhat invulnerable to the things he fought, and there was no skill gain in defense as a result.

In one year, Fighter B's defense is greater than X.  He never had the advantage of the parry and shield use bugs and so the same time spent following the exact same regimen has yielded to him a higher defense skill.

You can assign whatever point value to the defense above you wish, but the point is that in the same amount of play time, against the same opponents, with the same variables (i.e. weapon selections, wisdom sscores, playing times) will haved yielded a higher defense score to the Fighter B.

Quirk's point is that the players of Fighter A's are frustrated because they are ending up with lower defense scores than warriors who have played the same amount of time will have after the bug was removed.  His claim is that the "bug fix" cheapened their investment into the character by removing the inflated bonuses without compensating them for what they would've learned without the inflation.

This is how I've been understanding it, too.  Basically defense (and defensive skills) is lower than than they would otherwise have been without the bug.

However, isn't the opposite true for offense?  With the bug, PCs weren't landing hits as much as they should have been, so offense (and offensive skills) must be higher than they would otherwise have been without the bug.   Right?

Defense underdeveloped.   Offense overdeveloped.  Maybe it's that combination that's making it seem like such a dramatic change.   (Is anyone volunteering to have their offense downgraded?)

Right?  Am I thinking of this right?

[Agent_137]

In more skill focused, player centric, code based games, (i.e. dragonrealms) they would have grandfathered the skill a certain amount.

I'm not saying everyone should come back to previous levels, but there is a bit of reality in Zalanthas that needs to be dealt with to make this transition smooth. It's not as if we were all purposefully exploiting the bug.

Maybe we can see a little to help things be more explainable ICly.

"You three, go eliminate that carru on the road.'

"Uh sir, that's beyond our capabilities."

"What? I just saw you do the same thing last month."

"Yea, well, we were all partying one night, and we had some bad spice."

"So?"

"It made us selectively forget how to defend ourselves."

". . . "

p.s.
Yes, that makes a bit of sense, flurry. And perhaps that should be the option offered to those affected: Blend offense and defense into more cohesive whole, at the cost of raw offensive skill.

[Forty Winks]

I've also just talked about this with the coders.

That's also not the nature of this bug.

So all of your assertions about this are, indeed, invalid.

You are contradicting what Morgenes confirmed earlier:

Fighter A starts playing 9/26/2005. (With Bug)
Fighter B starts playing 9/26/2006. (Without Bug)

In one year, Fighter A's defense is X.  It never went above X because the bug that allowed him to parry and block with the shield made him somewhat invulnerable to the things he fought, and there was no skill gain in defense as a result.

In one year, Fighter B's defense is greater than X.  He never had the advantage of the parry and shield use bugs and so the same time spent following the exact same regimen has yielded to him a higher defense skill.

-LoD

Eh, there's a flaw in the reasoning of the example, LoD, which is where the staff commented on. If player A started in 05 with the bug, and played for a year, he would be at the max that the bugged coded skill would allow him. Player B, starting in 06, is already one year behind player A, so if both players played an additional year, (and hypothetically trained the exact same amount of time) Player A would still ALWAYS be at a higher level than player B as he would have had previous experience boosting his defensive skills. This also takes into account having the exact same stats (wisdom score) and considering that player A will never max out at his skills.

[Cuusardo]

I picture the roads being suddenly free of gith corpses and gear since the change came into play.

[Quirk]

Yes; and their skills are also rather lower than they would be if the bug had never existed, which is the point I was making. For the last however-long-it-was, skill gain in these skills has been severely reduced from what it ought to have been. The result is that a lot of old warriors are effectively relatively newbie at defence despite having put in the time and work to theoretically have improved their skills.

I've also just talked about this with the coders.

That's also not the nature of this bug.

So all of your assertions about this are, indeed, invalid.

Really, now?

I'm afraid I'm going to have to quote Morgenes at you.

Since defense wasn't actually altered, most of this is moot, however, yes, a year from now Fighter B will have more defense than Fighter A has now, however Fighter A, a year from now, will have been building up equally and be able to smear Fighter B's butt.

From this comment I would take that parry and shield use were being incorrectly applied, and the result appears to have been that the skills were not failing at the same rate as they will be now. Hence, they have not been improving at the rate they're meant to. It does seem to have been a more complicated affair than just a bonus to the skill test, but the ultimate effects appear to have been the same.

Is your comment to be taken as an overriding of Morgenes' comment, and Nusku's comment about skills topping out too early? It seems to me as though this could do with some clarification.

If people -haven't- been suffering skills topping out far too early (as Nusku seemed to indicate was the case), then it seems that the game balance with the defensive skills people have right now is the game balance we're going to have for the foreseeable future. Would you confirm this for me, please?

[jmordetsky]

"It made us selectively forget how to defend ourselves."

I've just been RPing feeling under the weather of late and being generally frustrated about it.

Yea, I don't much feel like doing that for a few months. I think I need to train some more. Sorry.

[Quirk]

Eh, there's a flaw in the reasoning of the example, LoD, which is where the staff commented on. If player A started in 05 with the bug, and played for a year, he would be at the max that the bugged coded skill would allow him. Player B, starting in 06, is already one year behind player A, so if both players played an additional year, (and hypothetically trained the exact same amount of time) Player A would still ALWAYS be at a higher level than player B as he would have had previous experience boosting his defensive skills. This also takes into account having the exact same stats (wisdom score) and considering that player A will never max out at his skills.

No, there's no flaw.

We're comparing player A at 9/26/06, having started play at 9/26/05 with player B at 9/26/07 having started play at 9/26/06. We're not comparing player A and player B both at 9/26/07; I already pointed this out. If you feel you simply must compare them on that date, I'd ask you to add the proviso that player A doesn't train from 9/26/06 to 9/26/07.

Djarjak's comment on this was based on a misunderstanding of my perhaps overly complicated example.

[LoD]

Eh, there's a flaw in the reasoning of the example, LoD, which is where the staff commented on. If player A started in 05 with the bug, and played for a year, he would be at the max that the bugged coded skill would allow him. Player B, starting in 06, is already one year behind player A, so if both players played an additional year, (and hypothetically trained the exact same amount of time) Player A would still ALWAYS be at a higher level than player B as he would have had previous experience boosting his defensive skills.

You're completely right if we're talking about Fighter A vs. Fighter B.

However, I'm debating the return of investment for Fighter A.

Fighter A (after one year) - Defense X
Fighter B (after one year) - Defense X+Y

If all things were similiar, and these two characters had the same race, class, play times, wisdom scores, weapon choices, level of opponents, etc...then Fighter B comes out with a larger return on his investment of time even though BOTH fighters put the same amount in.  The only difference was that the bug was hindering Fighter A's ability to gain defense skill because of inflated parry and shield use numbers.

I'm simply stating that one of the reasons Fighter A players are frustrated is because they are being forced to re-establish what they felt their character should already know.  They are being forced to commit more time to skill development because of the bug.

Perhaps it was a fair trade.  Perhaps the increased defense helped keep their character alive in situations where they would've died.  Maybe they were able to accomplish tasks or receive promotions or lead successful missions because of the bug that granted them IC benefits and advantages that a Fighter B wouldn't have received.  I'm "OK" with characters not having any compensation for the bug leaving them less able than probably they should be ICly - but it's not flawed logic.

-LoD

[Djarjak]

Ok, I see what you're talking about now. Thank you for clarifying, LoD.

[Forty Winks]

Eh, there's a flaw in the reasoning of the example, LoD, which is where the staff commented on. If player A started in 05 with the bug, and played for a year, he would be at the max that the bugged coded skill would allow him. Player B, starting in 06, is already one year behind player A, so if both players played an additional year, (and hypothetically trained the exact same amount of time) Player A would still ALWAYS be at a higher level than player B as he would have had previous experience boosting his defensive skills.

You're completely right if we're talking about Fighter A vs. Fighter B.

However, I'm talking about Fighter A vs. 1 Year.  I'm not debating Fighter A vs. Fighter B in 2007.  I'm contending that Fighter A's investment of 1 year in the character is resulting in a lower defense skill because of the bug than Fighter B - and that is one reason why some folks are upset.

-LoD

Ah, I see. Didn't catch that part of your post.  :oops:
Other things aside, I assume people either want the bug BACK, or they are neutral/like the fix. I think bringing the bug BACK, is out of the question, and in terms of tweaking the defensive code...what is there to tweak? Yeah, people can complain, and have that freedom, but what's the point if the complaint has no end objective other than to restore their character to their previous invincibility? All players were affected, so there's no real way to make amends to everyone who have those 1 year combat chars.

[LoD]

I think bringing the bug BACK, is out of the question, and in terms of tweaking the defensive code...what is there to tweak? Yeah, people can complain, and have that freedom, but what's the point if the complaint has no end objective other than to restore their character to their previous invincibility?

You have to look past any angry words and see the situations people are having trouble resolving.  They are voicing their displeasure about the source of the problem without really bringing up why they're frustrated in the first place:

:arrow: Hunter Harry sings the blues.

Previous to the bug fix, Hunter Harry was confident in his ability when facing off against duskhorn of the grasslands.  He'd hunt there a couple days a week, occasionally struck by a stray horn, but resolute in the fact that day-in and day-out he'd been able to handle himself.

Harry wakes up one day, ventures out in the grasslands to hunt and suddenly finds him on the receiving end of the punishing stick.  Not only is he getting challenged by these critters, they're kicking his ass.  Things he was able to bring down, skin, depend upon are now suddenly harder, faster, and stronger as a complete race - not a select few.

:arrow: Battle Hardened Bob sees stars.

Battle Hardened Bob is a Sergeant of the Kohmari Fighting Tregils, and has been training his team of hunters for years.  It's been no surprise that many a new recruit has fallen under Bob's heavy hand during training before, and word on the street is that he's nothing short of unbeatable.  After lecturing a recent recruit on his lack of ability, Bob wakes up to give the recruits a brand new lesson.

Except this time, the joke's on him.  Recruits that hadn't been able to land a single blow were now suddenly catching him off guard.  His practiced parries, and deft deflections were nowhere to be found as his prized defensive capabilities seemed to wane in less than an evening.  Scratching his head, he stalks off to figure out just what he might have eaten to cause this turnaround.

:arrow: Strong Critters: Dazed and Confused.

Packing a double whallop is the combination of the combat bug fix and the daze command, which caught a few unwary travellers by surprise.  Mean beasties who packed a healthy punch before were even worse due to the increased offense-defense disparity.  Folks who were confident in their ability to avoid such troubles were suddenly caught off guard by a few of the stronger and seemingly more accurate beasties of the desert sands.

Not only were they being hit, they were being stunned.  They couldn't flee.  They were missing swings, the beastie had their number and it rang them up.  This one-two punch was enough to cause some folks to wonder what in krath's name was going on with the wildlife population.

So -- What Good is Discussion?

The end objective of the complaints is not to win back the old system, nor simply to vent frustrations - though both of those agendas are certainly represented in this thread.  The true end objective is to discuss the problems and issues that current characters face, both from a code and RP perspective, and request feedback on how to move forward.  Here are a few things that players might hope come away from these discussions:

> Evaluate the competition

Players might hope that some attention is being given to the stat scores previously held by critters of the gameworld to see if they are truly in line with characters now they will be developing differently.  Do fights between low to high skilled animals and NPC humanoids go as desired against Ranger/Warrior/Assassin Joe (new, seasoned, and veteran)?  Or is there some room for tweaking?

> Watch the Hard Stuff

With how quick combat can take place, try to level out the damage being done by high offense, high strength critters and humanoids.  If the answer is not toning them down, then perhaps lessening their number or moving them to more remote locations would be a better answer.  Most of them are hard to come by, but some of these monster critters are not that difficult to happen upon barely an hour's ride from a city gate.

> It's All About STYLE!

Since there are some changes being made to combat, this might be a great time to start looking into and experimenting with other coded effects that deal with the different styles of weapons being used.  Stances or weapon/shield combinations that provide bonuses/pentalties to defense/offense to create more potential "roles" within a group of combatants might be fun.

Those are just a few, but there are certainly some positive things that the playerbase is asking for "between the lines" that don't have to do with retoring bugged code or expressing displeasure.  An understanding of the player's perspective as it relates to future additions, changes, and interactions is always helpful feedback, I think.

-LoD

[Satansfish]

Personally, I dig it. I also feel that nobody would be complaining if suddenly a bug fix made everyone able to kick -more- ass. You need to look at the positives.

1. "I just killed a scrab" is now a line that'll get you laid.

2. Hunters will very likely be getting paid better, and be in much higher demand.

3. Despite what many of you are saying, the desert wasn't -that- harsh. Anyone that's been here a couple of years only dies to it if they're exploring or trying to. (slight allowance here for freak accident)

4. Combat is fast and brutal irl. It should be fast and brutal ig. Have you ever gotten into a 20 minute fight irl where your goal was to kill your opponent?

5. Chances are, Mister Baddass Sergeant will still be able to kick Mr 2 hour newbie recruit's ass without taking a hit.

6. The warrior class has regained definition. Why play a warrior when a ten day ranger will very likely be just as tough as you at 8 days, with the added benefit of archery?

7. Tregils are no longer cute. They're war-steeds akin to ratlon.

8. You can lead scrabs to the gate and now they'll effectively decimate the entire population of Allanak.

Code Select Expand

The rangy, weathered man rides in from the west, on a yellow kank.
An insect-like scrab arrives from the west.
An insect-like scrab arrives from the west.
The rangy, weathered man shouts, in sirihish:
'Your judgement is upon you!!one1!'

An insect-like scrab does horrendous damage to a half-giant soldier's head with its pinch.

9. zomg a warrior can kick a mages butt in melee?!

10. The scrab line again, because I'm going to use it about five times this week.

'Nuff said.

[jmordetsky]

[jstorrie]

The flipside of LoD's explanation is that now, all combatant characters will gain in defense skill faster, and branch any skills based on parry/defense/shield use faster. If they don't get killed first.

Rejoice!

[ThirdEye]

I like the change from what I've seen. Makes taking down a tough beast all the more fun.

[Dalmeth]

:arrow: Hunter Harry sings the blues.
Harry wakes up one day, ventures out in the grasslands to hunt and suddenly finds him on the receiving end of the punishing stick.  Not only is he getting challenged by these critters, they're kicking his ass.  Things he was able to bring down, skin, depend upon are now suddenly harder, faster, and stronger as a complete race - not a select few.

So, he'll have to spend another week or two on ritikki?  Maybe he'll have to go salvage some rocks and pick up a sling?

:arrow: Battle Hardened Bob sees stars.

Except this time, the joke's on him.  Recruits that hadn't been able to land a single blow were now suddenly catching him off guard.  His practiced parries, and deft deflections were nowhere to be found as his prized defensive capabilities seemed to wane in less than an evening.  Scratching his head, he stalks off to figure out just what he might have eaten to cause this turnaround.

Ha!  This one made me laugh.  Yeah, Bob gets hit.  It's so traumatic!  Well, not as traumatic as the injuries the recruits are receiving in sparring.  I spar with new recruits alot.  I don't use my primary weapon anymore because I'm mauling them.  I get hit more, yeah, but my attack skill is still vastly superior to theirs.

The only real combat quirk this bug fix adds in my mind is for poison.  It's going to be a lot easier to pull off now in melee combat.  For assassins and especially burglars, that might be good news, but for people hunting poisonous animals, things may need to be adjusted.

[Hymwen]

From a realism point of view, I don't like that only characters with the parry skill (which are so few) are able to parry at all. I know that if I somehow ended up in a swordfight in real life, I would be physically capable of parrying a blow. I might not be very good at it, but it wouldn't take me months and years of training to know that if I put my sword up in the general direction of their swing, that might parry the blow. Maybe the chance shouldn't be as high as it was before, which seemed quite high, but it shouldn't be impossible in my opinion.