Defense Nerfed

[Nao]

The only thing I'm really worried about here are starting characters, considering that without the bonus defense they're even worse off now than they used to be.
It was hard enough before to get things started without an active clan, if this is getting worse it might get near impossible.

[Hymwen]

I don't know if this code change had anything to do with it, but today my 5-day pickpocket with next to no combat training beat what I think is a fairly well-established assassin, with relative ease, in two sparring matches. A few days prior to that before the change went in, that character beat mine without any trouble.

What I did notice was that instead of the occasional hit in-between dodges and parries, we both hit eachother with pretty much every attack and my stats made a -world- of difference there. Also because we practically couldn't miss eachother, I imagine we didn't get much in the ways of offense/weapon skill increases, but I suppose that'll change gradually as our defensive skills catch up due to the beatings we're now taking from eachother.

[Halaster]

The only thing I'm really worried about here are starting characters, considering that without the bonus defense they're even worse off now than they used to be.

Actually, the weaker someone is in combat, the less they're affected.  The bug fix means that bonuses and defensive skills are now applied as they should be.  So a new character whose defensive skills aren't any good won't be much affected.

I don't think anyone on staff has said "and it's going to stay this way forever!", by the way.  If, after a while, we think it needs adjusting and tweaking, we'll do that.  

(but most of us won't listen to people like the OP of this thread who are just nasty and sarcastic from the get-go, rather, we listen to people like Dresan who actually tested it first, then came back with polite, constructive feedback).

[najdorf]

New system is Great and i dont understand why people complain about it.. I'v been watching films and animes and all for years and no fight lasted more then 2 rounds, they draw swords and one is dead, other is alive.. I know metal doesnt exist but still, having 10's of combat rounds was too unrealistic, i am so happy about new code.

[Hot_Dancer]

Whoah, I just saw stuff hit my pc past his shield that has never touched him in over a year of play.

One mobile didn't even have a weapon equipped and did it unarmed..

Hot Dancer

[Quirk]

Combat is a little bit more brutal, and you're no longer as likely to walk out of an encounter unscathed (not that it's impossible). I see this as a good thing as well.

One small thing. I've not seen the code yet, and am not going to talk about it, but...

The entire point of hunting, RL hunting, is to come away unscathed. Historically hunters have managed this quite well, even before the era of shotguns and big game rifles. When on their own, they sneak up on small game that would flee their presence and ambush it, and they group together into packs to handle more dangerous animals. Armageddon is somewhat strangely biased towards the more dangerous animals, they're very plentiful. This does make it hard for solo hunters to be played sensibly. Now, I feel that if a group of hunters with long spears go to take on a scrab or something, they should have excellent odds of getting away completely unhurt, even if none of them would last more than seconds in close combat with such a beast. Would you say this is currently the case?

(On a side note, I also think that if you're going to fight a beast that requires you to bring a large group of hunters if you're all to escape unscathed that it should provide you with much more meat than such beasts currently do. It's silly to bring down a mekillot and end up with a few paltry steaks; there should be so much meat there that a half-giant couldn't carry it all, no matter how careless the skinner.)

[Majikal]

I absolutely love the daze code and the new spin it puts on combat, especially group combat. I don't agree with it because I'm part of a group that utilizes it, I was actually victim to a group and liked the way it played out with them descending quickly onto my pc and how spamflee didn't instantly work. As for defense being nerfed, I could tell the difference, definately, and new pc's seriously won't be effected as much, in fact if the new pc's live as long as the currently established pc's then they'll almost positively be better than we were at that point. Lower defense, more getting hit, more getting hit, more increase in your defensive skills. If you fought a couple scrab and got hit a few times and hopped on the thread to bitch about it I don't think it's very helpful to anyone.

Getting hit more and combat ending more quickly I feel is more realistic than the 7,000 nicks and grazes my character normally recieved before reaching half his hp anyway.

[Beux]

I personally want to test this out. But I'm too scared. I already get beaten up by things I should be able to stand on - I don't want the embarrassment of another 'death by butterfly' note on my account.  :oops:

Is this really as bad as everyone is making out? If I take my char and go on my usual hunt...Am I going to die to things I used to be able to kill? I'm asking because this is an OOC change, so finding out IC is really a valid response...and well, I don't want to die finding out.

[Forty Winks]

Combat is a little bit more brutal, and you're no longer as likely to walk out of an encounter unscathed (not that it's impossible). I see this as a good thing as well.

One small thing. I've not seen the code yet, and am not going to talk about it, but...

The entire point of hunting, RL hunting, is to come away unscathed. Historically hunters have managed this quite well, even before the era of shotguns and big game rifles. When on their own, they sneak up on small game that would flee their presence and ambush it, and they group together into packs to handle more dangerous animals. Armageddon is somewhat strangely biased towards the more dangerous animals, they're very plentiful. This does make it hard for solo hunters to be played sensibly. Now, I feel that if a group of hunters with long spears go to take on a scrab or something, they should have excellent odds of getting away completely unhurt, even if none of them would last more than seconds in close combat with such a beast. Would you say this is currently the case?

(On a side note, I also think that if you're going to fight a beast that requires you to bring a large group of hunters if you're all to escape unscathed that it should provide you with much more meat than such beasts currently do. It's silly to bring down a mekillot and end up with a few paltry steaks; there should be so much meat there that a half-giant couldn't carry it all, no matter how careless the skinner.)

You can't really compare RL animals that are hunted, to the animals found on Zalanthas. Yeah, animals like quirri and gurth likely would be possible to walk out unscathed for an experienced hunter, but things such as scrab, duskhorn, and carru are typically mutated giants of the animals in RL. And even taking examples of RL variants of the animals IG, a boar-hunt in RL with a wooden spear could easily kill a hunter if they aren't experienced and well-prepared before, even if they are in a group. Now replace the hide of a boar with a chitinous plate and you got a miniture RL scrab.

In any case, in relation to the game, hunting gets boring and becomes a chore just to get some coins or meat if you walked out unscathed codedly all the time. Now, each hunt is actually a life-threatening endeavor, which I love.

[jhunter]

There's a huge difference going from walking away unscathed once in a while to walking away with an injury almost every time. That's not any more realistic than how it was previously.  Less realistic IMO. RL hunters or soldiers would -never- last very long at all if they were wounded every single time.

In fact, alot of deaths back in the times of this sort of combat were due to infections from wounds on the battlefield. If people got wounded that much noone would've continued beyond a battle or two.

[Quirk]

You can't really compare RL animals that are hunted, to the animals found on Zalanthas. Yeah, animals like quirri and gurth likely would be possible to walk out unscathed for an experienced hunter, but things such as scrab, duskhorn, and carru are typically mutated giants of the animals in RL. And even taking examples of RL variants of the animals IG, a boar-hunt in RL with a wooden spear could easily kill a hunter if they aren't experienced and well-prepared before, even if they are in a group. Now replace the hide of a boar with a chitinous plate and you got a miniture RL scrab.

This would be pretty much my point. Most big animal hunts, nobody gets hurt but the animal - and if a hunter does mess up dealing with the lion or bear or whatever, there's an excellent chance of them being killed. It's not terribly realistic to have a bunch of hunters coming away from most hunts with moderate injuries.

(Incidentally, the Masai do hunt lions alone to demonstrate their bravery. This is likely to end in a dead lion and an uninjured Masai hunter, or more rarely a dead Masai hunter and an uninjured lion).

In any case, in relation to the game, hunting gets boring and becomes a chore just to get some coins or meat if you walked out unscathed codedly all the time. Now, each hunt is actually a life-threatening endeavor, which I love.

Going out to hunt shouldn't be particularly life-threatening, most of the time. It would be ludicrous to have a mortality rate of, say, 50% of hunters dying within their first year of hunting, assuming a hunter population who didn't go out of their way to tangle with huge and dangerous creatures.

Hunting those huge and dangerous creatures should be life-threatening, but the common outcome should tend towards either the hunters coming away with no or few injuries, or bringing back a dead comrade. Having them regularly coming back partially mauled is silly.

[Tlaloc]

Defense and the factors that used to be used to calculate defense have been changed, modified, removed, or tweaked to not only "fix the bug" but to adjust the ceiling.

Is that accurate?

That would be a completely inaccurate statement.

The fix was a genunine bug fix. If things were changed due to realism or "adjust the ceiling", we would say so.

[Pantoufle]

After reading the first few paragraphs, then completely ignoring the rest because I knew the rest would be a long continuation of the first few paragraphs, I suggest this:

With respect, how do you know the remaining paragraphs were simply a paraphrase of the first two if you didn't read them?  Because, on the contrary, I found it one of the few lengthy posts worth reading.  There were some remarkably valid points stated there.  Go give it a read, man, you might be surprised.

I see the main problem with code changes as this.  A player logs on, trusting the skills he's always used and, suddenly, finds himself instakilled due to a change in the steal code, or the combat code, etc.  It's only natural that he's going to be upset about it but, when making his comments, he may be told to give it time and let the bugs be worked out.  I don't want to be a guinea pig and lose a character to something where, a week ago (and all the years prior), would have never come close to killing him.  I don't want to spend the time, energy and calories required to ponder a new character concept only to have all that effort go down the drain due to a code that's "in-the-works".

I think what Synthesis was saying, whether you've taken his criticism as constructive or insulting, is that in his opinion (and I am happy he has the freedom to share it) the code change pushes this MUD towards H&Sness.  From the little bit I've experienced and the large amount I've read on the board here regarding changes to combat, I have little to no insentive to put any thought in a character concept.  I'll just whip up a quick 3 1/2 line mdesc with a one sentance background and make sure it is in no way unique or original because, frankly, I don't want to get attached to a character that will die faster than you can type 'f l e e'.

Suggesting players wait a while until a code evolves makes sense when it's something along the lines of cooking or a new spell or a change to psionics.  But imagine playing a master thief who has always been able to trust his skills, logging on and doing what you've always done, only to be instakilled due to a change in the steal command.  Look, I'm not being mean, I'm not being rude, I'm trying to demonstrate my point as politely as possible but... I think I'd be pretty upset if someone tried to quieten me by saying "Give it time".  Because in this instance, "give it time" essentially means "start making a few characters and dying again and again until you learn how the new changes operate".  ArmageddonMUD wouldn't suit its name if the game were easy, but I think there are more than enough death traps and ways to die instantly that adding more is, quite literally, overkill.

These are merely my opinions.  I am not badmouthing anyone.  I kindly ask you to respect my point of view, as I respect yours.

Cheers.

[jhunter]

Heheh, good post. Actually, after seeing the stuff about the daze addition and then seeing the stuff about this defense thing the first thing that popped into my head was: "What, you don't think we are dying -enough- already?!"

:lol:

[Doppelganger]

Actually, the weaker someone is in combat, the less they're affected.  The bug fix means that bonuses and defensive skills are now applied as they should be.  So a new character whose defensive skills aren't any good won't be much affected.

Before, your chance to parry and do other defensive things was grossly inflated and bonuses were mis-applied. They have been corrected to what they should be, which results in fighter-types getting hit more often.

Note that a really experienced fighter will be able to be as good as they were before, this mostly affects newer combat-oriented characters.

[Halaster]

There were some remarkably valid points stated there.  Go give it a read, man, you might be surprised.

No thanks.  I really don't have any interest in reading someone's opinion who starts out the first two paragraphs acting so sarcastic and insulting, "valid points" or not.

[Halaster]

Actually, the weaker someone is in combat, the less they're affected.  The bug fix means that bonuses and defensive skills are now applied as they should be.  So a new character whose defensive skills aren't any good won't be much affected.

Before, your chance to parry and do other defensive things was grossly inflated and bonuses were mis-applied. They have been corrected to what they should be, which results in fighter-types getting hit more often.

Note that a really experienced fighter will be able to be as good as they were before, this mostly affects newer combat-oriented characters.

Hunh, I contradicted myself, thanks for pointing that out.  In the 2nd quote (which was the announcement?) I was a bit wrong, I think.  I noticed that a code change had gone in by someone else, so I quickly made an announcement to quell the questions being asked "if combat had changed", before I entirely understood what they changed.  I probably should have waited a bit longer before posting, and gotten a better understanding of what they changed, sorry.

Newer characters won't suffer as much because they already don't have good defensive abilities (compared to longer-lived ones).  I should have left it with:  "Note that a really experienced fighter will be able to be as good as they were before."  Or maybe "this mostly affects mid-career combat-oriented characters"?

[LoD]

That would be a completely inaccurate statement.

The fix was a genunine bug fix. If things were changed due to realism or "adjust the ceiling", we would say so.

Thanks for the clarification.  Your wording seems to indicate some level of offense at the inference that this change was motivated by anything other than a bug fix because "we would say so."

My post wasn't intended to be snarky or assuming.  I was just seeking general clarification based on how the series of events unfolded.  I didn't recall seeing any announcement of the defense bug fix, but it's certainly possible that I simply missed it.  For something that would have such a profound effect upon the playerbase, however, it might have warranted an individual thread on the GDB so players were aware of the change prior to implementation, especially with Nusku's testing finding there to be quite a few changes to the "mindset" of the fighting populace.

I will certainly take a look at how the changed code behaves from a player's perspective over the next few months and provide constructive feedback after having some time to witness it in action.  I'm sure you can understand how players of a game can be a bit shaken when someone changes the rules on them in the middle of the action.  

It's like playing soccer and suddenly getting whistled for a foul because I'm using my left foot, and that's no longer allowed. :wink:

-LoD

[Doppelganger]

Hunh, I contradicted myself, thanks for pointing that out.

Thanks for resolving that contradiction.

His sarcasm aside, Synthesis expressed his concern over changes. The fact that his worries were based on expectations rather then on knowledge doesn't make his post less valid than 99% of other posts on GDB. Actually, everything said on this topic was based on expectations and nearly zero knowledge, difference in how optimistic poster's outlook on life is.

That said, I thought that a bit of hints on how changes work would be helpful.
Changes were drastic enough for players to notice them long before announcements. Now everyone need to adjust their characters, old and new, to these changes.
I think the more information you provide the less empty speculations you get.

[Dalmeth]

Well, things are more interesting now.  Combat is more brutal, as they said, and luck is a more significant factor in fights between reasonably even matched opponents.

Overall, I like the bug fix.  If any of you remember newbie hunting, it was just dodge after dodge after dodge.  Now things will go by a bit quicker.

[UnderSeven]

Wow you guys.  Change is change.  But the staff isn't out to make the game unplayable, that's just ridiculous to even suggest.   This code, like all code changes will be reviewed, considered and quite possibly tweaked until it is something we all know and love and spout endlessly in reviews about how much more awesome arm code is than any other game.  I can think of SO many examples where changes resulted in belly aching (some from me) which ended up being no big deal, or even cool in the long run.  

If you don't want to lose a character during a code transitional period, and it's argueable if the code would be to blame, then I suggest avoiding instances where it would be a problem.  Take a week off the game or something.  Halaster and Morgenes have both been really reasonable in their responses here and thats in the face of some pretty harsh critisism.  Seriously.  Calm down.

[jhunter]

Change is change sure. But think about it, people play a game usually because they enjoy the way things work and such. You change how things work and you turn it into a different game with the same name. It's the same thing as with any other game. Some come out that I enjoy everything about them immensely and cannot wait for a sequel. Then the sequel comes out and they have changed the game mechanics and such so that I no longer enjoy it.

Change is fine and all but there becomes a point where I think it's best to leave the major mechanics alone and flush out the things that are already there.
Spend some time fixing brew or something.  Make silt-skimmers and travel on the silt sea a coded reality instead of just virtual. Flush out the crafting skills that need it more. Build more on expanding the size of the gameworld or making it more three-dimensional instead of messing with game mechanics that worked perfectly fine as they were.  The original mechanics were good enough, I think there were other areas that need more work than what is currently being focused on.

Some people don't see these type of changes as an improvement and are going to be vocal about it because, in a sense, you are taking away something they loved as it was.

[Spud]

I don't like most aspects of the game anymore. *shrug*

On topic: I'll have to see how combat is different for myself.

[Flaming Ocotillo]

I think the code changes are great, though I predict we will see some modifications to how often the daze effects kick in. Since the daze code was implemented when the defense code was still buggy, I'm going to guess all balancing tests are based off the buggy defense code, and therefore no longer reflect the original balance template.

I feel that a very minor reduction to daze frequency (I like the daze) may be in order to compensate for the fact that hits are now landing more frequently.

[spawnloser]

After reading the first few paragraphs, then completely ignoring the rest because I knew the rest would be a long continuation of the first few paragraphs, I suggest this:

With respect, how do you know the remaining paragraphs were simply a paraphrase of the first two if you didn't read them?

He didn't say paraphrase.  He said continuation.  Different words, same attitude and tone.

It doesn't matter, though.  Halaster was saying that the original post was snarky.  Why, when you can simply scroll past such jackassery, would anyone stop to read it?