Subdue during combat

[Chettaman]

Ha! I remembered what I was thinking about now!

I don't know if master subduers can subdue during combat, but it just makes sense to me how someone could totally just tackle you during a fight. Objections?

[janeshephard]

Overpowered.

[Synthesis]

Yeah, we seriously don't need to give newbs another reason to roll dwarves.

[Cutthroat]

The idea of tackling is kinda covered by bash, and a tackle/subdue maneuver sort of reminds me of a bear hug... the exact thing a master subduer probably wouldn't attempt on an armed opponent, especially one armed with a blade of some sort.

[Sokotra]

Bash along with disarm, that is probably enough.

[Gunnerblaster]

I don't really wanna but...

Code Select Expand


>bash
>disengage
>subdue

Just about covers it.

[Riev]

I don't really wanna but...

Code Select Expand


>bash
>disengage
>subdue

Just about covers it.

Unfortunately, not entirely. A reel, with a disengage might, but otherwise you have to trust the other player disengages too.

Sadly, combat subdue is definitely not something that I could see being useful.

[Chettaman]

It couldn't be too over powered. Because if during combat, you decide to attempt subduing your opponent you automatically drop any weapon you may be holding. And if you decided to continue fighting while subduing your opponent then you would automatically let go of the person and not only would you be weaponless, but they would still have any weapon they were holding when they were subdued. You would have to draw new weapons or stop to pick up any weapon you dropped.

if someone bashed me, the first thing I would do is stand while trying to emote frantically. If someone disarmed me while I was sitting, I would quickly type take weapon - yes, I would be open for an attack but soon I would be back on my feet with a weapon in my hand and resume fighting.

Useful? This may never happen but...
>look west - to the west is over the edge
he hits you hard on the neck
>subdue guy
you subdue the guy.
(maybe role play)
>throw man west

Useful? You could use it to simply -force- your opponent to stop instead of hoping they disengage along with you. Maybe get some roleplay in.

Or would a master subduer just be crazy/skilled/confident enough to do that to an armed opponent?

[musashi]

I would be more worried about the whole "Ok you attack him and I'll spam subdue until I get him then you keep stabbing him while he can't move" situation than I would about any 1 individual.

It's the potentional for group abuse that would erk me more.

[Chettaman]

in that case: a failure at subdue would result in your team mate attacking you instead - as if you stopped to pick up a weapon. Also the chance at subduing an opponent someone else is fighting would be greater. You know it sounds cool.

[Synthesis]

No, it doesn't sound awesome, at all.

It might make sense that you can tackle someone and have your buddy stab them until they die...but in the context of gameplay mechanics, we tend to restrict things that can kill you in PvP, lest the game become a turd-stab-turd world.

Ultimate submission machines are karma-restricted.  Sap, backstab, and archery have to be trained.  The poisons without readily-available cures are difficult to find and/or expensive.  Most combat skills go up painfully slowly compared to non-combat skills.  Mages with insta-gank capabilities are karma restricted, or the spells in question are far along the skill tree.  Etc. etc.

Giving every newbie dwarf the functional equivalent of a paralysis spell is not going to make the game more interesting.  Subdue is bad enough as it is, it doesn't need to get worse.

[wizturbo]

No, it doesn't sound awesome, at all.

I agree.  There doesn't need to be more easy ways to incapacitate someone than there already is, especially without karma restrictions.

[Sephiroto]

Until there's a counterattack feature built in where a defender (single person) locked in combat with a single PC/NPC can attempt to counter attacks from any number of additional attackers, I'd say no.  There should definitely be drawbacks from attempting to subdue a person already engaged in combat.  The current code does not allow for any defense besides dodge and parry, when in actuality a deterring attack or counter would definitely come into play.

And if you're going at it 1 v 1 armed and want to subdue your opponent in combat you're probably just as well off swinging your weapons because if you'd be skilled enough to grab the person without being obliterated then you can probably also smash their faces in.

[Chettaman]

Unless all you wanted to do was subdue them. And not kill them. Or have them run away - so you could say something.

But I understand. When it comes to the context of gameplay mechanics, sure.

[chrisdcoulombe]

Can't you Dise, Subdue Malik.

[Feco]

No, it doesn't sound awesome, at all.

Gonna have to agree with this one.

[Qzzrbl]

Can't you Dise, Subdue Malik.

I think they have to disengage too, but I could be wrong.

[Riev]

Can't you Dise, Subdue Malik.

I think they have to disengage too, but I could be wrong.

You're not, and thats what gives it a problem. Unless you're playing with someone that feels a disengage is a "Okay, we're going to stop codedly fighting for a moment, and emote out some more of the scene" but usually "<sdesc> stops attacking you!" is grounds for "flee self;e;e;e;e;e;e;e;;e;e;e;e;e;e;e;;e;e;e;e;e;e;e;n;enter cave;quit"

[musashi]

But you're too excited to leave just yet! 

[BleakOne]

You need to pick more cotton, my friend.

[Bacon]

I don't see this as being a worthwhile addition, sorry. In case of multiple opponents it would be overpowered too.

[MeTekillot]

Until there's a counterattack feature built in where a defender (single person) locked in combat with a single PC/NPC can attempt to counter attacks from any number of additional attackers, I'd say no.  There should definitely be drawbacks from attempting to subdue a person already engaged in combat.  The current code does not allow for any defense besides dodge and parry, when in actuality a deterring attack or counter would definitely come into play.

And if you're going at it 1 v 1 armed and want to subdue your opponent in combat you're probably just as well off swinging your weapons because if you'd be skilled enough to grab the person without being obliterated then you can probably also smash their faces in.

This makes me wish there was a 'counter' skill that branched from parry that would make it so you'd have a chance of landing a counter-attack on an opponent upon successful parry if you don't have nosave combat turned on.

[Sephiroto]

This makes me wish there was a 'counter' skill that branched from parry that would make it so you'd have a chance of landing a counter-attack on an opponent upon successful parry if you don't have nosave combat turned on.

Yeah.  There was once a time when I was going to suggest this for the Jihaen Templar class, but they're already ninjas, so I didn't.

Counterattacks would be great.  Gang bonus is bad enough.  A counter skill would certainly make combat more dynamic and real.

[Qzzrbl]

This makes me wish there was a 'counter' skill that branched from parry that would make it so you'd have a chance of landing a counter-attack on an opponent upon successful parry if you don't have nosave combat turned on.

Yeah.  There was once a time when I was going to suggest this for the Jihaen Templar class, but they're already ninjas, so I didn't.

Counterattacks would be great.  Gang bonus is bad enough.  A counter skill would certainly make combat more dynamic and real.

True, but methinks that would cause need for a combat system overhaul entirely.

It'd just make the strong stronger, and the weak weaker if it were just popped it.

[Sephiroto]

It'd just make the strong stronger, and the weak weaker if it were just popped it.

While true, I feel like that's a disingenuous statement.  The parry 'bug' was fixed a long time ago and it affected lots of people in many ways.  I do agree with you that that this sort of addition is certainly not the type of code change I'd expect to see in 1.Arm.  I would assume it would require a hefty amount of code acrobatics to make it work.