Ride bug

[Chronicle]

I experienced something a few days ago, bugged it and e-mailed it. Just wondering if anyone -else- has experienced it before.

If you try to mount while fighting and you fail, it actually lowers your ride skill - wow, all the sudden after 5 failed attempts at mounting I can't dual wield ride anymore...hrmm....anyone?

[Dakkon Black]

You make a good point, Tell you what. Ill get a four foot long bastard sword, then Ill start swinging it at you, then you try to get on a horse. If you fail less than five times.. you win!!

[Chronicle]

Well, technically the rooms (areas) your fighting in are quite open, and large, when you dismount you leave your mount a ways behind, and also you move when you fight, so naturally when you mount while fighting, your fleeing TO the mount, hopping on it and fighting WHILE your atop it. Then you can just flick the reins and GO, WOOSH your outta there. My thing is - I was just asking if it WAS a bug, is it anything anyone else has experienced, and if it ISN'T a bug and the code was changed, then how come no one mentioned it?

I don't think he was saying failing to mount five times during combat was the bug, but that failing lowered his ride skill, since I guess he was able to have something in each hand and ribe before that combat, and could not afterwards. Sounds buggy to me. I don't forget how to ride a bike when I fall on my ass trying to get one while running from angry property owners.

[Sandor]

You make a good point, Tell you what. Ill get a four foot long bastard sword, then Ill start swinging it at you, then you try to get on a horse. If you fail less than five times.. you win!!

Why, Dakkon, I'm dissapointed in you, why should I get on my horse?  We all know you are a horrible swordsman, I would stand my ground and cut you down like the ruffian you are! Har! Har!

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

For informational purposes, I have always found this notion of mounted fighters being so muthafuckin' vulnerable to unmounted fighters astoundingly humorous. Calvery fighters have always been the most feared units of pre-gunpowder warfare, followed closely by archers and crossbowmen units.

[Dakkon Black]

You forgot something Venomy feller, your gonna do his toes in real well while he's up there, and what he aiming for?? All he can hit is your head from up there! That stupid vulnerable bastard.

P.S. My brain is in my toes

[JollyGreenGiant]

To some extent, that's true, Venom, and to some extent not.  Some cavalry units have been famously successful, such as the Mongols and the Huns.  However, even at its peak, the Roman army made very little use of cavalry, and it is still widely considered one of the greatest armies in the world.  They consistently defeated cavalry-based armies, such as the Parthians and Persians, but they were also well-equipped, well-trained, and highly disciplined.

The notion that footsoldiers are inferior to cavalry I believe can be traced back to Medieval times, when footsoldiers were generally drawn from the ranks of commoners, and cavalry (knights) were almost always nobility.  Footsoldiers were poorly trained, badly equipped, and had little disicipline in combat.  Knights, of course, tended to be well equipped and well trained, and so footsoldiers tended to get slaughtered.

Just an opinion, but I think the code works fine the way it is.  Here's why.  I think it is more difficult to learn to fight while mounted, to the point that it could almost be its own skill.  In the interest of not propogating yet another skill that people would have to learn, making someone more vulnerable and less capable while mounted simulates the effect nicely.  It basically comes down to this.  If Bob and Jim both have equal combat skills, and Bob is mounted and Jim is not, Jim has an advantage (assuming we're talking about a one-on-one fight using melee weapons, not ranged.)  The reason Jim has an advantage is because Bob has had the same amount of training that Jim has, but unless Bob has done all his weapon training while fighting mounted, he's not as good mounted as Jim is on the ground.  The level of disparity widens when the skill levels for Jim and Bob are low, and tapers off as they increase.  I could be wrong, but I'd guess that's exactly what the code simulates at present.

[spawnloser]

Actually, with a mount, you can get additional force and effectively do "ride by's."  This would mean that, as long as you're capable enough, the mount would give you an advantage.  I don't know if the code represents this.

[Malifaxis]

Heh... yeah, you can more effectively do ridebys and stuff like that.  But if I have a bastard sword, and some chump on a giant ant is coming at me with an axe...  Well, lets just say that kanks are much less effective when they're missing a leg or two.

Cavalry are only butch if you are trying to fight the rider.  You go after the mount and all of a sudden Sir ShinyKnight(tm) is either in the dust, on his ass... or on his ass, under five hundred pounds of thrashing, pissed off, wounded animal.

[spawnloser]

Heheh. That's true too, Mali.  I was just saying that riding shouldn't only be a penalty, which is what it seems like to me.

[creeper386]

The reason Jim has an advantage is because Bob has had the same amount of training that Jim has, but unless Bob has done all his weapon training while fighting mounted, he's not as good mounted as Jim is on the ground. The level of disparity widens when the skill levels for Jim and Bob are low, and tapers off as they increase. I could be wrong, but I'd guess that's exactly what the code simulates at present.

The main problem. If they had the same weapon skills. And one trained ONLY on a mount, and they other trained of foot. The person on the mount would still be at an INCREDIBLE disadvantage. Even though he'd have plenty experience fighting on kankback against things on the ground, and while the other guy probably doesn't have that much experience fighting people on kank back. I do know that with REALLY good weapon skills. You can keep from getting killed while on kank back, but even then... It's nearly impossible it seems to land blows against any true warrior character. And when you do the damage is incredibly minimum. I know I've had a ranger that after awhile with big spears could hunt down vestric and tregil and remain on kank back without getting slaughtered, but the fight was MUCH longer.

I've heard rumors that the code keeps memory of what things fight... Like if you fight alot against scrabs you can get really good but when you run into something else you may not be as good. I've noticed something that reflects that this could be true. If so... That came be taken advantage of here. The more you fight from kank back against other mounted people, or against people on the ground you get better. Same as fighting against people that are mounted. Although at first mounted people may get an advantage... It should even out. That way if you've never fought against someone thats on a kank you might have some troubles, specially if they've spent all their time on kankback. Something I'd like to see... And wouldn't require another skill persay, just an addition to the before mentioned code if it is in place. And wouldn't rely on weapon skills, or riding ability persay, just on experience in fighting that way.


Creeper

[X-D]

I've posted on this before.

Malifaxis, you stated cavalry then knight, these are two very different things, cavalry is a group and ment to work as such, knights on the other hand could work singly or in groups, 'knights' rode Huge armored combat trained warhorses, these animals were often far more effective in combat then the knight himself, the horse took care of people on foot, the knight took care of mounted.

Anybody who knows horses knows (just normal sized ones at the moment) that they can be very deadly to a human, they can kick in all directions, (the reach of the kick is greater then the reach of your warrior and his bastard sword) use head and shoulders as weapons and BITE, and that bite is no joke, now, take a 2,000+ animal, give it another 800lbs of barding/armor, weapon style shoes, spiked and bladed armor on the head, 10-15 years of aggression and combat training and your warrior on foot is quickly a pile of jelly...besides, I defy anyone here to try and stand in front of 2k pounds of armored horseflesh charging them at 30mph.

Oh, and if you have not dealt with a pissed off horse, I'll tell you this, the speed of the kick is truly amazing and can happen without a bit of notice.

Now, take kank's they are already armored and larger then most horses, they are quite fast too, Inix, well, they are bigger then elephants, wonder how anybody would do with a greatsword on foot against a charging elephant (I know the answer and so do all of you).

Aside from pikemen, mounted troops (pregun) have always held the advantage over non-mounted troops, Now, the romans, yes, they did well against mounted troops, why because they had units of pikemen (had special name I cannot remember) specialy trained to combat calvalry and mounted archers. But we are not talking units of 20-50 for zalanthas for the most part here, we are talking 1-5 people.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

The recent addition of the skill -charge- may be an attempt by the staff to implement more functional mounted combat. If so, it is a good start. But there is much more to do.

The reality is simple. Mounted fighters suffer disadvantages in some situations, but have advantages in many other areas. If the staff would like me to produce skills and references for such for a project in the intent to more fully reflect actual mounted combat, then I would be happy to do so. You may email me or PM me.

[Anonymous]

A well trained mounted fighter should be able to engage his opponent at his chosing by charging at him and moving on by.  He WOULD use the mount to trample and/ or bash into his opponent, which given the size of the mount could be quite dangerous.  The footman would probably just try and get out of the way mostly.  Right now I think the game assumes that the mounted fighter is stationary, ie he pulls up his kank alongside his opponent and engages him.  I don't know about kanks but I know a horse would probably rear back and kick around as opposed to just sitting there as his rider fought.  It's this rearing back that makes riders fall off right now (I know it's also them trying to avoid getting hit).  This rearing back and kicking around would be quite dangerous for the footman.  He'd probably get smacked a few times and maybe this can be added.

It seems like the bash skill is an attempt to make it more realistic, although in my opinion does not go far enough.  Perhaps kanks and such are not trainable for combat.  That would explain the current coding.

[5 day lifespan]

Ive HEARD that the higher your ride gets, the better chance you can fight from it.  And in regards to the romans and their lack of cavalry l33tnes: They lacked stirrups!  The reason cavalry in that time was so weak was because without stirrups, a rider couldn't stay in the saddle as effectively.  Cav back in the day was best used to quickly move troops from point A to point B.  When stirrups were invented, then cavalry became something to fear.  Cav soldiers could hold their seats, and since they were held more tightly to their horse, that ride by attack with a lance became something to behold.
 If stirrups exist in zalanthas, then I would like to see a mounted combat skill.  If not, everything is peachy as it is.

5DL

[Sanvean]

Here is my understanding of what's going on - feel free to correct me if I'm misinformed:

A while back an item was introduced into the game that added to one's ride skill. At the time it was added, no one on staff realized that the amount added was sufficient to give people who were not rangers but had their ride skill maxxed enough just enough extra skill that they could reach what was intended to be a ranger-only ability, the ability to dual wield while riding. (And I would feel a little less cranky about this if anyone had written in to alert mud to the fact that their non-ranger character had acquired this ability.)

When you fail at a skill, there is a check that happens, where the code looks at the skill percentage and bumps it up if it's not at the maximum possible to the guild.  If the skill percentage is -above- the maximum value for the guild, the code lowers it to the maximum value. Unfortunately, the code doesn't allow for +/- items. This is a known bug. At some point someone smarter than me will fix it. Presently if you have a skill percentage that's above your guild's maximum, it lowers it back to the max, and you lose the ability to dual wield while riding.

I'm looking at better resolutions to this than removing or altering the item, but I would enjoy the dual wield riding ability for non-rangers while it lasts, because it's probably not going to be around much longer.

-Sanvean