Weapon skills, types, and combat (derail)

[Schrodingers Cat]

This is a thread that I started to talk about an idea I got from MeTekillot's thread "RE: ATS: Weapon Types"

Especially this comment here asking how is the best way to discover what catagory an unfamiliar weapon falls in:

[...]it is easier to simply find out IG.

+1

And it is indeed easier to find out what kind of weapon is just by using it.  If you have a weapon that is a slashing weapon, when you attack something with it in game, it says "you slash So and So..."  It occurred to me this might be one place that the game might be improved.

But that sort of logic doesn't mesh well with the spirit of the game.  If I've got a weapon, lets say a bladed weapon (a sword) and I have no idea how to use it.  If I don't have the slashing skill (or am just very inexperienced with it), I really shouldn't know how to slash with it at all.  Wouldn't it be better if combat message reflected this for inexperienced/novice/n00bs in game?  For example, if I were a character in game using this knife, instead of the normal "slash' message I'd get for combat instead it might say "hit" or use the message for other weapon types (bludgeon, stab, pierce, or even some generic term describing the more crude/unskilled/makeshift attack).  Even if the new attack message was only mixed in with normal attack messages, it'd have the same effect of illustrating that the combatant had some lack of ability.

Another faucet to this would be to would allow others to sort of gauge the proficiency of other players based on their own skills, just by watching them fight.  Giving observers more detailed combat messages depending on their own proficiency level of the applicable skill.  This would allow skilled swordsmen observer to discern the difference between a skilled maneuver and a lucky shot, while an unskilled observer would see more basic combat messages on their screen.

It's just an idea for improvement.  While not likely making it into the current incarnation of the game, it'd be a nice addition to Reborn.  Would this be a worthy addition to the combat system?  I like it because it offers information to observers in combat, giving players realistic and useful information that gives them incites into an opponents combat ability without having to know anything more about them or engaging them oneself.  Thoughts, criticisms, ideas?

[Sam]

I like the idea.

I would like it a lot more if it was a skill.
Warriors would be able to max this skill.

For a novice at this skill, they would see the five basic weapon signs. Those would be slashing, bludgeon, hitting, piercing, and chopping.
For a master at this skill, they would have an expanded list. Those would include the five basic and also COULD include: chopping with a sword, stabbing, piercing with a club, slashing with a club, uppercutting with a fist, jabbing, hammer fists, etc.

[Schrodingers Cat]

Reply from the parent thread.

You don't have to know how to use a sword to know that the sharp edge is used to cut with. Now, you might not know that you could stab with it, and you might accidentally bludgeon someone with the flat now and then, but really, no skill at all is required to know how a weapon should work. The skill comes in making it do what you know it should be able to already do.

From a game design standpoint, if a character doesn't have the slashing skill, they wouldn't know that it's a slashing weapon.  Maybe this is an antiquated part of the code and players would be served by being able to readily identify obvious weapons (maybe not so much for more subtle items that aren't clearly described and meant to be weapons).

However unskilled characters while using a weapon in combat might accidentally use a weapon effectively in some way that they were not designed to be used.  I'm suggesting that the unskilled might 'fail' to use a sword to slash but still connect with some other form of attack (pierce, bludgeon, chop, other) and have that displayed in the combat message to show observers (or just some depending on the observer) the skill level of the combatant.

[Synthesis]

This idea is too stupid to even bother criticizing in-depth.

[Schrodingers Cat]

This idea is too stupid to even bother criticizing in-depth.

I appreciate your candor and the time you took to post it.
Thank you.

[Marshmellow]

So, are you suggesting that we make it so that people with the weapon skill see, for example, "<sdesc1> slashes <sdesc2>!" while people without the weapons skill see, "<sdesc1> connects with <sdesc2>!" or some equally generic descriptor?

Honestly, as 7DV said in the other thread, it's got a sharp edge... it's not that hard to figure out that you're supposed to connect that portion of the weapon with the target.  You swing so the sharp edge will connect, the physics being the only difference between a chopping and a slashing weapon.  I'm not sure this is necessary.  It's narrow with a point?  I pierce/stab someone with it.  It's got a sharp edge?  I slash/chop with it.  It's the people that really know the difference that can tell the difference between a slashing and a chopping motion, and that's where weapon skills come in.

Just because you can metagame and take the information from combat to find out what something is doesn't mean it needs to get fixed, I think.  This is one of those instances that I think players should be able to be trusted not to have their characters know what they shouldn't.  If they can't, well, not a big deal.

[Clavis]

I love the combat system figure if your charrie wants to know about if a weapons a slashing, chopping, or whatchamacallit..(mmm chocolate) Cant they just watch someone sparring if their in a guild? No questions, no hazy ego pumped answers given. Just the mere use of an eye. Their is after all a difference between how one chops, slashes, thrusts or clobbers someone.

Of course there is to the fact that if you want you can always rp them using it and having them fall on their ass a few times or whatever cause they didn't have the counter balance or what have you.....It's fun and others will laugh...

[Schrodingers Cat]

it's actually two different ideas, that go to gether. One is that unskilled weapon uses would be reflected in the combat messages.  Here's an example.   Amos here is fighting a soldier with a sword but he doesn't have the slashing weapon skill.

The tall muscular man pierces a human Allanaki soldier in the head, nicking him.

The tall muscular man  slashes a human Allanaki soldier on the leg.

The tall muscular man misses a human Allanaki soldier with his pierce.

A human Allanaki soldier dodges the tall muscular man's chop.

Normally (most) attacks reference the type of weapon being used (and should if someone is using the weapon properly).  But Amos is not really a sword kind of guy, so he's swinging and thrusting his sword all over the place, hoping he'll get lucky, and in this example he manages to score a few hits.

The second concept/idea is similar only in that the combat messages would sometimes appear different.  But instead of applying to watching unskilled combatants, it applies only to skilled observer (of any sort of combatants).  Instead of revealing lack of skill by varying the message of the attack (chop/peirce/slash/etc), it reveals levels of skill by adding more detail to combat messages (but only to the trained eye).

In this example the soldier is a skilled swordsman, and we just happen to be a Byn Lieutenant that knows pretty much everything there is to know about swordplay (we've got a master slashing skill).

With an irreverent snort, the trim, ebon-haired templar says to a human Allanakai soldier, in sirihish: "For the Highlords Sake, he can't even swing a sword properly!  Just kill him"

A human Allanaki soldier slashes the tall muscular man, very hard on the neck with a forceful swing.

A human Allanaki soldier grievously wounds the tall muscular man on the body with a gracefully arched swing.

A human Allanaki soldier skillfully slashes the tall muscular man in the head, doing horrible damage.

Again I've highlighted the sections that would appear differently from normal combat (the messages probably aren't 'normal' but I got as close as I could).  For the expert observer, the mud would describe the combat rounds with more detail, detailing the various skill that someone that wouldn't normally be appreciated by the non-swordsman.

[roughneck]

  If I've got a weapon, lets say a bladed weapon (a sword) and I have no idea how to use it.  If I don't have the slashing skill (or am just very inexperienced with it), I really shouldn't know how to slash with it at all.

What are you going to do with it?  Hit somebody on the head with the hilt?  I think recognizing the business end/side of a melee weapon is fairly intuitive.  I don't see a skill like this serving any purpose whatsoever.

[Sam]

Fairly intuitive. This would allow one experienced fighter type to recognize another.

People do all kinds of crazy things when they try to fight with things they aren't trained with.

[roughneck]

You can tell if someone is skilled by how often and severely they land blows.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

I like your second idea more than your first. I've always loved the idea of more emotive messages pertaining to any skill.

As far as the first idea goes, I think it's too petty to bother with. Yes, you do have a point about how weapons can be used, and how novices may use them, but the minutia is already reflected by the severity of the blows.

The skill based messages for attacks, however, are a nifty idea.

[hyzhenhok]

You can tell if someone is skilled by how often and severely they land blows.

Not really. Way too many variables involved.

Skilled warriors should know what to look for; they would be able to tell at a glance the difference between that one runner with good stats getting three good hits on the other Runner (eh, he got lucky. No big) and a champion gladiator getting three good hits on that same Byn Runner (fuck, I better rescue the poor bastard, or maybe get out of here myself!), or a dwarf guild_merchant getting three good hits in a row against a warrior who happened to be at max encumbrance.

This sort of bonus thing added to weapon skill (as it doesn't need to be a separate skill, really) is neato, adds a bunch of flavor to the warrior guild and otherwise is pretty sweet. Why not?

[BlackMagic0]

I'm not against the whole more descriptive messages for combat.... though I am against it being skill based, since technically everyone has the four main weapon skills.

If you did not know this.. Any character can attempt -almost- any skill. And it will raise in percent (ability) to some amount, at least combat skills. And this cap for people without the skill (showing) is not small. I've had merchants, magickers, and such that did not have X skill. Though I would still use the weapons and got it raised up to the point that these tubby mother fuckers (merchants lol) could take on raptors, tembos, gortok (multiple), and more without the use of archery, magick, other players, or the environment.. simply one on one.

So unless it takes into account the invisible weapon skills also.. Then no.. I do not like this idea for skill based messages for combat.

Also what The7DeadlyVenomz says here.. I agree with.

I like your second idea more than your first. I've always loved the idea of more emotive messages pertaining to any skill.

As far as the first idea goes, I think it's too petty to bother with. Yes, you do have a point about how weapons can be used, and how novices may use them, but the minutia is already reflected by the severity of the blows.

[Is Friday]

O/D are hidden. Weapon skills are not. If you don't have a weapon skill, you can't improve it. Everyone can improve their O/D.

[BlackMagic0]

O/D are hidden. Weapon skills are not. If you don't have a weapon skill, you can't improve it. Everyone can improve their O/D.

Seems to me with testing, and others. You can raise skills you do not have a bit. Even I raised ones that were not combat.
Though obviously O/D is hidden and does help.. Though point is.. You can still get good with combat, either I or Friday is right.

So it should be based on O/D if you did do you see shit by skill, or both.. So warriors would see more. Or it a skill..

Just I still dislike the idea, either way you look at it. Besides the more fancy echos for them..

[hyzhenhok]

O/D are hidden. Weapon skills are not. If you don't have a weapon skill, you can't improve it. Everyone can improve their O/D.

Seems to me with testing, and others. You can raise skills you do not have a bit. Even I raised ones that were not combat.
Though obviously O/D is hidden and does help.. Though point is.. You can still get good with combat, either I or Friday is right.

So it should be based on O/D if you did do you see shit by skill, or both.. So warriors would see more. Or it a skill..

Just I still dislike the idea, either way you look at it. Besides the more fancy echos for them..

The point is what we're talking about would be tied to weapon skills, meaning non-warriors would not have access to it regardless of their O/D. Some non-warriors might be able to get good at a couple of weapon types, but certainly not all of them.

It's not just more fancy echoes; it's useful information. Skilled weaponmasters would be able to better react to combat situations, being able to judge the flow of battle more quickly than others who are relying on hit frequency/power. Experienced warriors would become the best oddsmakers for gladiator and fighting pit matches. And the warrior in general would be able to better judge the skill level of his minions/allies/enemies, and act accordingly.

I don't see anything wrong with giving warriors an even greater command of their special domain (combat), especially in a flavour-ish capacity that is about combat, but not about participating directly in combat. I see it as desirable.

[BlackMagic0]

I understand what you are talking about Hyzhenhok, that you want it tied to weapon skills. I simply said I disagree and do not want this implied in the game based on skill level to see it. If it was put in at all.

[hyzhenhok]

I understand what you are talking about Hyzhenhok, that you want it tied to weapon skills. I simply said I disagree and do not want this implied in the game based on skill level to see it. If it was put in at all.

Do you have a reason

[AreteX]

If you were to put this into the game then you would need something to allow people to fake it.

This will just help people learn OOC information that they shouldnt know in-game.  I mean I dont think someone should be able to go, "Yep, they're probably Skill level BLAH at sword, because I got the "gracefully" slash message.  That only happens when someone is skill-level BLAH I have figured this out by watching a friend who is that level, a friend who is a newb, and a friend who is Master.

Ect ect.

Also, just only being able to see that something hits and not how when im not good at a weapon skill just seems annoying as well.  Think about it.  People use and walk around with weapons ALL OVER THE PLACE.  Ive never swing a claymore before, but I know the basic functionality of it.  It hits hard, and it can slash.  Ive never swung a flail before but I know it does crushing damage.

So unless everyone has been living under a rock their entire lives then I dont see how this is realistic or adds flavor to the game.

[HTX]

I mean I dont think someone should be able to go, "Yep, they're probably Skill level BLAH at sword, because I got the "gracefully" slash message.  That only happens when someone is skill-level BLAH I have figured this out by watching a friend who is that level, a friend who is a newb, and a friend who is Master.

Uh, I think the point is that it should be easy to tell someone's skill level. That's not twinkish at all. When I'm watching people boxing IRL, I can tell immediately whether they're experts, decent fighters, new fighters, or people who have never been in a boxing ring before.

I'll agree with been able to 'hold back' and fake been a poor fighter, however.

[Synthesis]

If you pay any attention to the combat code, it's pretty easy to tell whether someone is good or not, already.  Hint: combat skill is a bit like real estate.

[Scarecrow]

I don't think it takes terribly much know-how to know a sword slashes, a club bludgeons, and a knife pierces.
As for gauging skill this is rather easily and quickly done. The best warrior are the ones consistently parrying and landing many blows, often quite damaging ones. Of course a highly skilled fighter with lower strength may do less damage etc etc but in the end they still land lots of hits. I haven't had any trouble telling who is a good fighter and who isn't so far, and I've been an Arm addicted mudder for about four or five months.
For flavour sake though I like the idea of putting in nifty sounding descriptions for high-skill hits. Any additive in that regard would be cool I reckon.

[Majikal]

Though I personally find it easy to recognize just how talented a particular class is in their coded combat skills, I wouldn't mind seeing some descriptions tossed in to display it. Skillful/graceful/clumsy etc.

Would be neat.

[Spider]

That's what combat emoting is for. It's the beauty of our current system. We are able to add flavor to our own characters, and construct our own style.

Those that do not emote properly, or in accordance with their PC's actual skills, are just doing it wrong.

I enjoy the simplicity of the code. With it, we are able to make things far greater than anything hard coded.