Change Opponent Change (specify opponent?)

[maxid]

This is a question to see if its possible to get a 'specify opponent' command, or a way to change my opponent before I enter combat with them.

The main reason for this is a bit IC sensitive, so if you dislike any sort of magicker spoilers, please don't read past here.






If I cast a room-effect spell, with my friend in the room (yes, a typically bad idea, but sometimes necessary) it doesn't make sense for my buddy to start hitting me with a club, after I cast it.  It also doesn't make sense for me to have a 50/50 shot of attacking my buddy, when the spell catches them and the guy I /want/ dead.  If there was a way to specify who my target was, before casting the spell (and, for them to designate who THEIR target was) it would go a lot more smoothly.

Another possible way to do this would be to be able to mark someone as 'friendly' before the encounter, so I will never stop attacking them.

Good idea?
Bad idea?
Feedback?

[Qzzrbl]

When facing multiple opponents, typically typing "change opponent <opponent I want to kill>" will set you to attacking the guy you want dead.

And it would generally be a good idea to tell your buddy what's in store for him, so's he can possibly prepare and be ready to change opponents.

[maxid]

When facing multiple opponents, typically typing "change opponent <opponent I want to kill>" will set you to attacking the guy you want dead.

And it would generally be a good idea to tell your buddy what's in store for him, so's he can possibly prepare and be ready to change opponents.

Yes.  I am aware.  However, there is a delay, and there is the chance my buddy or myself might get some hits in, before we can both change opponents.  This is unrealistic ICly, and pretty weird, just due to the code.

Do you see?

[X-D]

Staff has said MANY times that "combat should be confusing" This is why they do not give res for things like keyword errors, misskeys etc.

I agree that it should be confusing and you never should feel safe when casting spell of firey DOOM #666. And the people that are supposed to be friends should also never feel safe around said caster of DOOM666.

I once watched a PC who was just trying to break an action run 3 times through something really mean to his death. Staff answer, No res, he panic'd or got confused, legit death.

And though I think that case was a bit silly and far fetched, over all I agree with past staff view on the matter and would have to vote against the idea.

[Qzzrbl]

When facing multiple opponents, typically typing "change opponent <opponent I want to kill>" will set you to attacking the guy you want dead.

And it would generally be a good idea to tell your buddy what's in store for him, so's he can possibly prepare and be ready to change opponents.

Then set "nosave combat" before the shit goes down, and after the fighting starts, you can "kill <person you want dead>" while your buddy disengages.

Yes.  I am aware.  However, there is a delay, and there is the chance my buddy or myself might get some hits in, before we can both change opponents.  This is unrealistic ICly, and pretty weird, just due to the code.

Do you see?

[Delstro]

An idea that I think has merit for this would be a 'change friendly' option.
If Change Friendly is on, you will not attack anyone following you or that you are following unless you change targets.
If change friendly is off, you be on yo own.

[Synthesis]

I agree that it doesn't make sense for you to start attacking your friend or tribemate, and that it doesn't make sense for them to begin attacking you.  I can also see why people wouldn't necessarily want to encourage the "shoot the hostage" approach to magickal combat (unless your name is Lord Templar Longshanks).

Not to mention there are IC solutions to this problem that you should figure out IC.

[maxid]

An idea that I think has merit for this would be a 'change friendly' option.
If Change Friendly is on, you will not attack anyone following you or that you are following unless you change targets.
If change friendly is off, you be on yo own.

This is all I'm really looking for.  It's a perfect solution to the problem.  I can even see something like, say, a sandstorm or a cave forcing everyone to friendly off for the duration.

All the pointless, empty posts about how staff wants the code to force you to attack someone you'd never actually attack, or how I should 'find out ic' how to make the code not, oocly, force me to attack a specific person are just silly, and unfounded.  Could we keep them to a minimum, while the actual ideas and potential are discussed?  I know threadshitting is a past time on the GDB, but it's really just annoying to slog through it, to reach actual content posts.

[X-D]

All the pointless, empty posts(READ, ones that do not agree with me) about how staff wants the code to force you to attack someone you'd never actually attack, or how I should 'find out ic' how to make the code not, oocly, force me to attack a specific person are just silly, and unfounded.  Could we keep them to a minimum, while the actual ideas (READ ones that do agree with me) and potential are discussed?  I know threadshitting is a past time on the GDB, but it's really just annoying to slog through it, to reach actual content posts(READ Again only the ones that agree with me).

As has been said before, not agreeing with an idea is not thread splitting, pointless, off topic. One cannot have a good discussion without both pros and cons.

You say "That I Never would attack) Is rather silly, even IRL you cannot say that, and I doubt very much you have ever had somebody light off a fireball on you.

And what has also been said, there are already measures in place in game to deal with most of the magickal problems you mentioned.

One of the best ones would be having to play your PC with some kind of common sense...Hey, my friends are here and are not encased in anti doom666 magickal protection...maybe I should not cast doom666.

Meh.

[Yam]

I agree that it's kind of silly to have a player autoattack when a hostile spell is cast at them. Is that how it works currently? I can't remember.

I disagree entirely with the whole business of "friending" people or whatever. I just don't think spells/ranged attacks should invoke the autoattack code.

[Synthesis]

How about you just suck it up and don't use the spell unless you're willing to have both you and your friends suffer the consequences? Sheesh.   

I think it's silly that anyone would think "Well, if I only cast fart of doom at level x, it will only do y damage to my dear buds, and heck, they'll recover that without even having to sleep."  That is a classic example of metagaming.  Instead, how about you just run away and accept the fact that in this circumstance, you are beaten because you were ill-prepared?

I mean...seriously...if you can't wrap your head around how utterly ridiculous it is to light all your friends in the nearby area on fire for some temporary advantage, you have no business playing a magicker.

Like I said earlier, it's not necessarily realistic, but removing it would only encourage bad behavior.

[maxid]

All the pointless, empty posts(READ, ones that do not agree with me) about how staff wants the code to force you to attack someone you'd never actually attack, or how I should 'find out ic' how to make the code not, oocly, force me to attack a specific person are just silly, and unfounded.  Could we keep them to a minimum, while the actual ideas (READ ones that do agree with me) and potential are discussed?  I know threadshitting is a past time on the GDB, but it's really just annoying to slog through it, to reach actual content posts(READ Again only the ones that agree with me).

Useless threadshit

I think its funny that you label my asking you to stop telling me 'of course if someone burns the room with a fireball, I'd start swinging my sword at them immediately, even though its my best friend!' as 'only listening to ideas that I agree with.'

If you can give me a realistic, logical reason for the code to act as it should, rather than a lackluster appeal to authority then I'd love to discuss it.  I welcome discussion of it.  Discussion of the actual idea is what I'm asking for, not your milquetoast 'well, staff said something vaguely similar to this once, so it must apply as Holy Writ' or the go-to threadshit here on the gdb 'Find out IC!'  I am aware that there are countermeasures, I even use them when its a planned act.  But, an  ambush may call for a spray and pray type action, in a harsh desert world.

And, as you'll note; I even said in my op, that it is typically a terrible idea, but sometimes necessary.  If my archnemesis, a Mekillot riding Psion Sorcerer rides in and barrels down at me, with his three undead minions, I just might blast the room, and hope my buddy survives it.  My buddy might even understand the sentiment, and not start hacking away at me.

Oh, and Synthesis, I'm sorry that your imagination can't come up with a single reason a magicker might light the room on fire (this isn't even the spell I'm talking about, btw, but it is a single example of the type I mean) to get away.  What if the magicker is pregnant, and the 'buddy' is the father, and they've agreed that if shit goes down, the magicker will nuke and run, so as best to protect the kid?  What if the magicker has some hold over the nonmagicker 'buddy' (blackmail, etc.) so that if the magicker dies, the nonmagicker's family will be killed?  etc. etc.  I can think up scenarios where this is a logical, and useful tactic all day.  Your argument against it is that 'well it might be abused sometimes' which is the silliest argument against added realism ever.  Staff will catch the people that use it that way, the same way they catch spamcaster, spamburglars, and any number of other people who abuse the code to get an advantage.

[Delstro]

I just don't think spells/ranged attacks should invoke the autoattack code.

Problem solved in the most simple way.

[Synthesis]

No, my argument is that it is metagaming, plain and simple, to inflict magickal injury on your friends because you know they will not be sent to -10 hp by it.

If you would calm down a bit, you'd notice that I agree with you that the way the code handles the penalty to such actions is absurd, but the action itself is also absurd, in my opinion.

You can grasp at straws all day to come up with scenarios where it might be justified, but that's what all twinks do, and they're very good at it.  It doesn't make for a compelling argument to remove the potentially deadly consequences that are currently in place for doing something that, in the vast majority of potential instances, would be poor roleplay.

[Yam]

Maybe we should chill out and not jump down throats quite so hastily.

I can easily think of one situation that would not be metagaming:

Your pal is about to be executed by five soldiers. You cast a room wide spell that will disorient and/or injure everyone, including your friend. It might buy your friend the time to escape, it might kill him. If you do nothing, he will surely die. If you cast your spell, he might die, he might escape relatively unharmed, or he might escape with horrible injuries.

It's not metagaming, but it IS hindered from a roleplay perspective by autoattack being activated from casting a spell. It doesn't make much sense for everyone to automatically charge at some dude casting a spell. It might make sense for a soldier, but it wouldn't make sense for some little waif. Or a noble. Or whatever. I think that's what maxid is getting at, and that makes sense.

[roughneck]

You'll appreciate the autoattack when a magicker casts something and because of the autokill you own his ass before he can get the second spell off because you didn't have to use time thinking, reacting and typing 'kill wiggler'.  As a player of mundanes, I'm thankful for the feature.

[brytta.leofa]

I think there's a lot of merit to the "friend amos" approach.  But I think the ease of creating a friendly fire incident in melee combat is a net negative for the game.

Is the confusion of combat really a feature, or are we just justifying what we've got?

[Synthesis]

I agree that using mass effect spells in several proposed scenarios make sense, but how would you fix auto-attacking for the situations where it makes sense without concomitantly encouraging the use of mass effect spells in situations where it doesn't make sense?

It's definitely not as simple as removing the auto-attack functionality.  That would pretty dramatically change the go/no-go risk/reward/probability of success calculation in a very wide array of PK circumstances...in ways that I don't think anyone would like, but I'm not going to discuss, because I have a bit of a history of getting my posting privs revoked when I start getting specific.

Is the confusion of combat really a feature, or are we just justifying what we've got?

I don't think it's particularly far-fetched to imagine that, in the midst of a raging magickal shitstorm, a person might become confused and swing his sword at a figure in the mess...who just happens to be the wrong person.  While we the players can see "oh, that's a gith...there's Bob...there's Bob's kank," the character himself is seeing "fire, smoke, I'm on fire!, what the fuck, where'd the gith go, where are those screams coming from?, wait, I think that's me...aha, there's something...*slash* Oh shit, was that Bob or the gith?"

I think the 'disengage' command pretty much handles this situation.

[AmandaGreathouse]

Nosave combat?

As far as I know, you'll still fight things, but you just have to type 'kill whatever' first.

Seems like a good solution to me.

[maxid]

I'm actually ok with the removal of the autoattack on being cast at, even if its just for room-effect spells, there is a /significant/ lag between spells, easily long enough to let someone type kill (keyword.) 

And Synthesis, while I see what you're saying, that there is the potential for abuse, like I said before; abusers are going to abuse the code, no matter what, all we can do is report them, and let staff punish them.  Only karma based classes are capable of getting there and, so those players have proven that they're not total twinks.  And it allows for a hundred non-twink, non-calculated omg tactical analysis!! scenarios that are, currently, disallowed due to a ooc mechanism.

I actually don't even see the point of autoattack on spells, it /should/ take a second to recover/get to the magicker/wtfpwn them, because magickers are made of wet paper, up close, and almost nobody plays any sort of fear of magickers at all.

I just don't get it, from an ooc perspective.  And, it forces me to create roundabout, awkward ic justification for it, too.

[AmandaGreathouse]

magickers are made of wet paper, up close, and almost nobody plays any sort of fear of magickers at all.

I just don't get it, from an ooc perspective. 

And, it forces me to create roundabout, awkward ic justification for it, too.

All of the above are great points. Especially the first and last. I'm kind of aggravated with the fact that a merchant pc going out of the city alone has less to fear than a magicker pc doing the same. That seems a bit ridiculous. There are way too many people who actively hunt magickers and do it solo. I could understand if it was groups of people going around like little lynch mobs, but it's not. And the sad part is how effective I've seen it be.

[X-D]

I actually don't even see the point of autoattack on spells, it /should/ take a second to recover/get to the magicker/wtfpwn them, because magickers are made of wet paper, up close,

You would not think that if you ran into any of my mages up close.

and almost nobody plays any sort of fear of magickers at all.

That is because people don't know how to play scary mages.

On topic. I would not mind the ability to toggle autocombat off/on. But I am dead set against friend flags and the like.

[maxid]

I actually don't even see the point of autoattack on spells, it /should/ take a second to recover/get to the magicker/wtfpwn them, because magickers are made of wet paper, up close,

You would not think that if you ran into any of my mages up close.

and almost nobody plays any sort of fear of magickers at all.

That is because people don't know how to play scary mages.

On topic. I would not mind the ability to toggle autocombat off/on. But I am dead set against friend flags and the like.

Yes, some magickers can be monstrous up close.  The vast majority are not.


And, it's not so much that people don't know how to play scary mages (well, it somewhat is, the people who have been playing for a while, and have some mages under their belt are able to use their ooc knowledge of the mechanics to buff their mages faster than newb mages, but that's another thing entirely) it's that pcs break out of the game world, and strut around/outright hunt groups of mages alone, and the code gives common people certain advantages.

So, you're against a code that allows for people to logically, icly decide not to hit a specific person, but not against a code already in place, under nosave combat?

If there was an option for 'nosave combat magick' and 'nosave combat melee' vs 'nosave combat all' so I could still attack back against someone who came at me with a sword, but not someone who cast a roomspell, I'd be more ok with it.

I still prefer the idea that spells don't cause autoattack, though.  It makes more sense that way.

[Delstro]

How about that then, someone mentioned it earlier, but I now believe that is the best idea.

Auto attack is turned off for mass, non-specific targetting, but it remains in place when Joe EvilEye gets shot with evil juice when he is the sole target?

[Qzzrbl]

There are already some IG workarounds for this that aren't hard at all to figure out-- most have been listed already.

[maxid]

There are already some IG workarounds for this that aren't hard at all to figure out-- most have been listed already.

Or how about streamlining the process for more realistic Rp opportunities?  That's also fun.  Especially when the workarounds are imperfect.

[Synthesis]

If you only turned auto-attack off for mass effect spells, a mage with such a spell could conceivably annihilate an entire room full of PCs before anyone could respond.  As opposed to now, where he'll get instantly gang-banged into a pulp, unless he's really the sort of badass who deserves to be able to nuke an entire room full of PCs.

I think that's fair.  If you're a 50+ day warrior-mage who's maximally prepared, it's acceptable that you could utterly destroy an entire hunting party.  It is not acceptable if you're a 10 day mage who's done nothing but spam-cast his way to mon Fart of Doom and happens to have full mana, a fast internet connection, and a good macro.  Hell, even now, relatively newbish  mages can get away with some pretty ridiculous powerful stuff.

Of course, if there were a coded intra-room grid, you could recode area-affect spells to only affect a particular set of grid-spaces around a target instead of an entire room, which would leave your buddies safe as long as they weren't in the zone of effect.  (Hell, as long as we're throwing out wild ideas, I might as well get the intra-room grid in there, right?)

[maxid]

There are some severe lags between the typing of cast 'mon un fart of doom' the echo of a spell starting, and the effect of the spell.  For it to happen enough times to kill an entire hunting party, they'd have to be almost entirely afk, in order to not be able to type kill sdesc, and get some hits in.

[X-D]

There are some severe lags between the typing of cast 'mon un fart of doom' the echo of a spell starting, and the effect of the spell.  For it to happen enough times to kill an entire hunting party, they'd have to be almost entirely afk, in order to not be able to type kill sdesc, and get some hits in.

Entirely untrue. GDB rules prevent going farther on that though.

And, it's not so much that people don't know how to play scary mages (well, it somewhat is, the people who have been playing for a while, and have some mages under their belt are able to use their ooc knowledge of the mechanics to buff their mages faster than newb mages, but that's another thing entirely) it's that pcs break out of the game world, and strut around/outright hunt groups of mages alone, and the code gives common people certain advantages.

Playing a scary mage has nothing at all to do with code.

Playing a powerhouse mage takes no real mage experiance, My very first PC was a mage and arguably one of the scariest things to hit the game. Player OOC knowledge had nothing really to do with it. Since I had none. Common sense had a lot to do with it.

Break out of the game world? Huh? So the fully maxed and beyond warrior/sorcerer with 100 days of play is "breaking out of the game world" if he hunts a small group of elementalists alone? Wait now, is that not what Tek and Muk and others have done?

So, you're against a code that allows for people to logically, icly decide not to hit a specific person, but not against a code already in place, under nosave combat?

Correct, I believe that even in the confusion of combat and magick fire, smoke pain, screams dust and blood that it is possible somebody could decide to not fight at all, far more realistic then thinking somebody is going to have perfect senses and control while in combat surrounded by screams, smoke, fire, blood pain etc etc etc.

[maxid]

Entirely untrue. GDB rules prevent going farther on that though.

Yes, it is possible for an uber mage to be able to cast quickly.  This fits into your belief that an ubermage SHOULD be able to do this.

Playing a scary mage has nothing at all to do with code.

Playing a powerhouse mage takes no real mage experiance, My very first PC was a mage and arguably one of the scariest things to hit the game. Player OOC knowledge had nothing really to do with it. Since I had none. Common sense had a lot to do with it.

Your one-time, unprovable, entirely anecdotal evidence, when you played your first magicker several years ago doesn't really do anything except muddy the water on this discussion.

Break out of the game world? Huh? So the fully maxed and beyond warrior/sorcerer with 100 days of play is "breaking out of the game world" if he hunts a small group of elementalists alone? Wait now, is that not what Tek and Muk and others have done?

No, that would be perfectly fine.  However, a lone mundane raider, or a group or 2-3 mundane people tracking down and systematically killing magickers with little to no fear is entirely unrealistic, according to the docs.

Correct, I believe that even in the confusion of combat and magick fire, smoke pain, screams dust and blood that it is possible somebody could decide to not fight at all, far more realistic then thinking somebody is going to have perfect senses and control while in combat surrounded by screams, smoke, fire, blood pain etc etc etc.

I'm ok with this.  Which is why I am ok with there being no autoattack on roomeffect spells.

Also, there are some (more than 2) room effect spells that wouldn't leave any residue in the room, to confuse attackers, what about them?

[X-D]

Your one-time, unprovable, entirely anecdotal evidence, when you played your first magicker several years ago doesn't really do anything except muddy the water on this discussion.

Oh, it is quite provable...assuming the lone remaining staffer from the time remembered. And of course it was one time, you can only be a newb one time. And it does not muddy the waters it goes straight to your just as unporvable and incorrect point that to make a powerhouse mage you must have this vast store of OOC game knowledge.

No, that would be perfectly fine.  However, a lone mundane raider, or a group or 2-3 mundane people tracking down and systematically killing magickers with little to no fear is entirely unrealistic, according to the docs.

True enough, if it ever happened. Not something I have seen though. And how exactly do you know they are lone and mundane?

Also, there are some (more than 2) room effect spells that wouldn't leave any residue in the room, to confuse attackers, what about them?

Attack spells? No, there are none that wouldn't...but again, we are hedging deeply into being against the rules on speaking of such things on the GDB.

[maxid]

Oh, it is quite provable...assuming the lone remaining staffer from the time remembered. And of course it was one time, you can only be a newb one time. And it does not muddy the waters it goes straight to your just as unporvable and incorrect point that to make a powerhouse mage you must have this vast store of OOC game knowledge.

My point was only that vast OOC knowledge assists in the playing of a mage.  This is not unprovable, it's common sense.

True enough, if it ever happened. Not something I have seen though. And how exactly do you know they are lone and mundane?

It happens, often.  And I know because of various IC times when the idea has been suggested, by other mundanes, who shrugged when my character looked horrified, and went on to do it anyway.  As well as other, far more IC sensitive ways.

Attack spells? No, there are none that wouldn't...but again, we are hedging deeply into being against the rules on speaking of such things on the GDB.

Then you haven't played that many magickers.  There are, for a /fact/ at least 2 that wouldn't leave residue.  Disorientation, perhaps, but no residue, making you unable to see who you are attacking.

[X-D]

Heh, so, those two would not leave smoke, fire or dust? Um...no. They would.

[maxid]

I'm not going to have a 3rd grade argument with you.  You are incorrect, if you'd like to figure out how..

Find out IC.

[Delstro]

Well, maybe there is a problem with room affecting spells?

What if instead of them affecting the whole room, they were limited to say... the first three people at level one, four at two, six at three, etc...?

[maxid]

How would you decide who are the 'first three' etc?

[Delstro]

From the bottom, or top of the list.

Considering the top is going to be closer to you than the back, for the most part.

[maxid]

From the bottom, or top of the list.

Considering the top is going to be closer to you than the back, for the most part.

By what logic?  I could be almost a league away from someone in the wild, but less than 2 feet from them in an apartment, depending on the size of the room.

[Qzzrbl]

There are already some IG workarounds for this that aren't hard at all to figure out-- most have been listed already.

Or how about streamlining the process for more realistic Rp opportunities?  That's also fun.  Especially when the workarounds are imperfect.

Or we could just leave it as it is and use the simple workarounds for situations like this that don't happen all that often at all.....

If were a truly -realistic- "rp opportunity", one that calls for you do potentially blow a friend to smithereens, you'd probably let him know first, or ask him to leave the room or something.

It's not exactly realistic to say, "Hey, sit there and take this room-affecting magical attack that may or may not kill you.... But don't swing back at me, kay?"

And I certainly hope this buddy of yours isn't mundane-- 'cause it's stuff like the scenario above that desensitizes people to the scaryness of magick in the first place.

::Edited to add:: I'm really not trying to be difficult or argumentative.... It's just there's stuff you can do currently in the game to prevent being attacked.

Nosave combat for one.

It keeps your buddies from attacking you when you attack them. That's why nosave combat was implemented in the first place. 

[jstorrie]

+1 vote from jstorrie on 'change area-of-effect spells to not trigger autoattack.' I think single-target spells and ranged combat should stay as is for reasons of balance, though.

[jstorrie]

Your one-time, unprovable, entirely anecdotal evidence, when you played your first magicker several years ago doesn't really do anything except muddy the water on this discussion.

Trust me, maxid: you're the only one here who doesn't believe him.

[Synthesis]

+1 vote from jstorrie on 'change area-of-effect spells to not trigger autoattack.' I think single-target spells and ranged combat should stay as is for reasons of balance, though.

Balance? So...it's okay for the area effect spell that can inflict literally infinitely more damage than a single targeted spell to be free from the auto-attack consequence, but not the single targeted spell?

If we were balancing things, it would be exactly the opposite.  I.e. the spell with the greater potential for wreaking havoc would have the more deadly consequences to the caster.

I forgot about 'nosave combat' earlier.  With the combination of 'nosave combat' and 'disengage,' I really don't see what the problem is.

All you have to do is:

> ooc nosave combat on real quick bro, shit is about to get real

> cast 'mon un like a boss'

> disengage

[X-D]

Specially since disengage, nosave and mercy are all zero delay commands.

[Majikal]

When discussing room spells etc you also got to take into account mounts as well. When it starts raining balls of flaming shit or frogs your beetle might be a bit pissy etc, I'd dislike the idea of some mage riding around on their mount doing the nasty things they can do with their beasts just shrugging it off. There are IG workarounds, auto-attack may not always be the most ic reaction to any of these but that's what nosave combat and disengage are for.

Mages are like wet paper? That makes me giggle.

[Cutthroat]

I would rather see staff go through all the attacks and spells that are possible and set them as either 'ranged' or 'melee'. Melee attacks and spells would initiate auto-attack, provided nosave combat is off. Ranged attacks and spells would not initiate auto-attack with PCs, and NPCs will experience a short delay before they start to attack.

This makes sense for the (I hope) obvious reason - it is very convenient to start attacking someone who is right in front of you, and you should be locked into battle with someone who is attacking you in close range (i.e., have to flee). But you the player should have to tell your character to start attacking someone who is theoretically far away (kill person, or run, <direction>).

[Synthesis]

I would rather see staff go through all the attacks and spells that are possible and set them as either 'ranged' or 'melee'. Melee attacks and spells would initiate auto-attack, provided nosave combat is off. Ranged attacks and spells would not initiate auto-attack with PCs, and NPCs will experience a short delay before they start to attack.

This makes sense for the (I hope) obvious reason - it is very convenient to start attacking someone who is right in front of you, and you should be locked into battle with someone who is attacking you in close range (i.e., have to flee). But you the player should have to tell your character to start attacking someone who is theoretically far away (kill person, or run, <direction>).

This would pretty drastically affect the balance of power (such as it is) in favor of mages.  Do you really think they need to be any scarier?

[X-D]

This would pretty drastically affect the balance of power (such as it is) in EPIC favor of mages.  Do you really think they need to be any scarier?

[Delstro]

I really don't see how a magicker can affect an entire room, but that is another discussion.

[Cutthroat]

In my opinion, it would allow someone targeted by a mage to escape a lot more easily. But I'm not particularly invested in this discussion in either direction.

[Synthesis]

In my opinion, it would allow someone targeted by a mage to escape a lot more easily. But I'm not particularly invested in this discussion in either direction.

It would make it a -little- easier, not a lot.  In my experience, getting away from an aggressor is already quite easy.  Not going to change the equation much, there.

[brytta.leofa]

On the topic of getting mass-attacked...I think the way it works now is awfully cartoonish.

Code Select Expand

The grey, three-fingered mul joins your fight!
A ragtag array of gladiator slaves joins your fight!
A unit of Borsail Wyverns  joins your fight!
A unit of Borsail Wyverns  joins a unit of Borsail Wyverns 's fight!
A human Allanaki soldier joins the grey, three-fingered mul's fight!
A human Allanaki soldier joins a unit of Borsail Wyverns 's fight!
A human Allanaki soldier joins the grey, three-fingered mul's fight!
The half-giant soldier joins a human Allanaki soldier's fight!
The human soldier joins a unit of Borsail Wyverns 's fight!
The human soldier slashes the slim bronzed man on his hand.
The human soldier pierces the slim bronzed man's body, connecting hard.
The half-giant soldier slashes the slim bronzed man's head, doing
horrendous damage.
The slim bronzed man cries out in pain.
The slim bronzed man crumples to the ground.

Consider this approach:  whenever someone (PC or NPC) is attacked, add a delay--up to maybe a second--before anyone else can join in.

Code Select Expand

The vibrant, jade-adorned sergeant viciously bludgeons a lanky, brown-skinned gith's head.
> assist jade
You attack a lanky, brown-skinned gith.
(delay)
A lanky, brown-skinned gith dodges your slashes.

The delay can be tuned up or down: down if it's too easy to flee impossible situations, and up if powerful mages can get killed by 50 stacked soldiers in the blink of an eye.

[Rhyden]

Consider this approach:  whenever someone (PC or NPC) is attacked, add a delay--up to maybe a second--before anyone else can join in.

This is a good idea.

[jhunter]

Consider this approach:  whenever someone (PC or NPC) is attacked, add a delay--up to maybe a second--before anyone else can join in.

This is a good idea.

Yes it is. In addition to balancing it out a bit, it would be fairly realistic, and the delay would represent the time it would take for others to respond and get into position to join the fight and attack the target.

[Synthesis]

Why should there be a delay?

If a templar is charging at you, leading a unit of soldiers, is there any reason to believe that they would be so far behind him that they should suffer a pre-delay on initiating combat?

Fixing mass combat is hardly that simple.

Besides which, there already is a de facto delay on the 'assist' command (the amount of time that elapses before you pass the agility/speed check that determines whether you attack or not), which is really the only command that anyone should be using to jump into a huge fracas, anyway.

I don't think mass combat necessarily needs to make room for advanced tactics and maneuvers, anyway.  Two sides slug it out.  One side wins.  Lots of people die.  I don't think there should be an easy way to escape from an entire warband, but currently it's really just a matter of spamming 'flee' and getting lucky enough to have it pass before something reels you.

Also, if you repeatedly find yourself in situations where templars leading entire units of soldiers are coming after you...perhaps you should re-evaluate the sequences of events that keep leading up to that particular outcome and change your behavior in order to avoid it in the future.

[brytta.leofa]

Why should there be a delay?

If a templar is charging at you, leading a unit of soldiers, is there any reason to believe that they would be so far behind him that they should suffer a pre-delay on initiating combat?

I get that the delay should be small.  I don't get that it should be zero.  Heck, maybe it should be proportional to the number of combatants in the, ah, cluster: the first one or two are effectively able to attack simultaneously.

Note that this would barely affect PCs entering combat; by the time you're done typing "assist templar," the puny 0.5-1.0 second delay I'm suggesting will have already expired.  My aim is to reduce instagibs from every NPC in the room piling on in one round.

[Qzzrbl]

I really don't see how a magicker can affect an entire room, but that is another discussion.

With magick, my friend.... With magick.

[Delstro]

I know -how-, but I don't agree that they should be able to until 30+ days play time.

[Synthesis]

Why should there be a delay?

If a templar is charging at you, leading a unit of soldiers, is there any reason to believe that they would be so far behind him that they should suffer a pre-delay on initiating combat?

I get that the delay should be small.  I don't get that it should be zero.  Heck, maybe it should be proportional to the number of combatants in the, ah, cluster: the first one or two are effectively able to attack simultaneously.

Note that this would barely affect PCs entering combat; by the time you're done typing "assist templar," the puny 0.5-1.0 second delay I'm suggesting will have already expired.  My aim is to reduce instagibs from every NPC in the room piling on in one round.

NPCs that are coded to 'assist' suffer the same 'assist'-related delay, as far as I can tell.  I've been lucky enough to escape half-giant instagibs on a number of occasions, due to the sometimes quite long delay before their first attack after they assist.  Yeah, sometimes you get unlucky and the half-giant soldier whips off a first-round attack and reels you from the get-go...but them's the breaks when you're tangling with the Man.

The only time this sort of delay would have any noticeable effect is when there are 8+ attackers going for the same target.  E.g. one attacker assists...1 sec delay...next attacker assists...1 sec delay...next attacker assists...1 sec delay...so on and so forth, until the last attacker can't even begin until 8-10 seconds have elapsed.

However, you should probably ask yourself at this point:  does it really make sense for someone to simply be able to 'flee' away from 8+ attackers?  I really don't think so, unless you have some magick escape pod.  If 8+ dudes including a templar with HG soldiers are on your ass, you've just been pwned, and you should probably have the decency to die gracefully with your roleplay credentials still intact.

[jhunter]

That's how I feel it should be. Increased delay for each character attempting to assist attacking the same target. Also, about the fleeing from several attackers, I believe dificulty is increased by the number of enemies attacking you as well as the number of exits to flee to. Also, I think that people are overall worse at fleeing than they used to be prior to the addition of disengage. So, if the code says you manage to flee, I think it's pretty fair the way things are working.

[Synthesis]

I think the half-giant instagib is pretty fair, the way things are working.

[brytta.leofa]

However, you should probably ask yourself at this point:  does it really make sense for someone to simply be able to 'flee' away from 8+ attackers?  I really don't think so, unless you have some magick escape pod.

Honestly, it was magick escape pods I was thinking of, not so much mundane flee.  Which brings us back to the whole "do we really want more powerful wigglers" debate.

I still have Copper War guilt, okay?