Instead of the approach code

[Morrolan]

This morning I was thinking, since the idea of the approach code has all sorts of inherent complexities, is there a way to capture some of the advantages in a simpler system?

What if there were a brief lag in front of the "kill command" and there was a semote when you type it?

Code Select Expand

>Kill malik (or Bash malik, or kick malik, or any of the commands that begin combat)

The average, pale man attacks the tall, muscular man!
[wait]
[wait]
[wait for it]
The average, pale man swings at the tall muscular man and whiffs.


I am thinking maybe a 2-4 second delay, or maybe working off some offense-related skill, stat, or a combination of the two.

Here is my idea for it:

2 second base delay

+

Between 0 and 1 seconds based on character move rate

+

Between 0 and 1 seconds based on some offensive value

Now, here is the beauty of it: since combat would be initiated at the "kill" command instead of the first swing, if the victim tried to flee, the attacker would get a free attack attempt tested vs. the fleeing skill.

Why is this worthwhile? Because:

• It relegates the hidden insta-attack more fully to those who have hidden attacks.
• It adds a little space for RP or emoting to the beginning of combat for those interested
• It allows people who are being openly charged at to have a moment to draw a weapon
• It has some of the advantages of the approach code idea, but lacks the inherent complexity of mapping relative locations

So there it is. A basic idea. Is there a way to improve it without adding coding complexity?

Edit (added bolding)to make a point clear that was apparently missed by some readers.

[Gunnerblaster]

This is how I see this being terribly flawed.

Code Select Expand

>Kill malik

The average, pale man attacks the tall, muscular man!

[wait]

The tall, muscular man walks west.

You do not see that here.

Think Doh!

If the 'combat mode' has already been activated as soon as you type 'kill <target>', here is an alternative to how I see it playing out...

Code Select Expand

>Kill malik

The average, pale man attacks the tall, muscular man!

[wait]

The tall, muscular man attempts to flee!
The tall, muscular man flees to the west!

Think ...

As it is, it's already pretty easy to flee and escape an attacker, if you're an experienced enough player. Sometimes, I've relied on that opening combat delay (after) to kill whoever I'm chasing down.

[Yam]

When it comes to combat I think emotes can be nice, but they aren't vital, and the code shouldn't be changed to make room for them.

[Bacon]

I could see this being extremely annoying. I'd rather emote it however fitting depending on the situation.

[Karieith]

I'd actually like dual wield combat to slow down a bit so I can emote between stabs/chops/slashes/dickings when I am playing a character that employs dual wield.

[Is Friday]

A change in this way would be the lamest thing ever for Warriors.

Karieith: You're asking for your PC to be less effective at killing things through no fault of your own. You realize that, right?

[Morrolan]

I could see this being extremely annoying. I'd rather emote it however fitting depending on the situation.

Sometimes the attacker emotes. Sometimes they do not.  Players need to make a decision as to whether that will decrease their chances of a clean kill (but only in PvP, most days). Whereas, if the pre-lag was balanced out by a shortening of the lag after a "kill" command (not unreasonable), then it would not degrade warriors [edit--save for the aforementioned warning that someone is charging at you across a dune with a bone sword raised high, instead of the nearly instantaneous pseudo-teleport]. It would, however, increase the relative lethality of sneakies. Those with the "hide" skill would be able to launch attacks with a semote as warning, and only players with "scan" would see it coming.

[Bacon]

Still don't like it. I don't see why the assumed distance always has to favor the victim when escape is easier than stopping someone from getting away already.

[Bacon]

You want the code to say (always) that when someone is in a room and someone else enters, it's like this:
Victim in the room, Attacker enters from east.
_______________________________
|                                                     |
|                                                     |
|                                                     |
|                                                 A  |
|                                                     |
|                                                     |
|                                                     |
|                                                     |
|                                                     |
|  V                                                 |
|_____________________________  |

When it could just as easily be like this:


_______________________________
|                                                     |
|                                                     |
|                                                     |
|                                                 A  |
|                                                 V  |
|                                                     |
|                                                     |
|                                                     |
|                                                     |
|                                                     |
|_____________________________  |

There's absolutely no reason that the code should always say it is the first one over the second one favoring the potential victim all the time. Especially when in pvp, for -most- characters that would be outside, it's pretty easy to get away as it is if that's all you want to do.

[MeTekillot]

[Timetwister]

Could always do a a code with no rooms. It's been done before. God Wars 2 not only uses the most advanced combat system I've ever seen but also uses a grid system for movement. It would work pretty well in an RPI too.

[BlackMagic0]

I personally think we should just leave things the way they are right now.

[BleakOne]

I agree with Jean Luc Picard punching Darth Vader.

[BlackMagic0]

I agree with Jean Luc Picard punching Darth Vader.

I am way more of a Star Wars fan over Star Trek, but this avatar was too funny not to keep. Haha.
Plus Picard is my favorite captain outta any in ST.

[Synthesis]

intra-room grid

[Yam]

The gold standard argument of Armageddon

[Synthesis]

"If they dare to come out in the open field and spam-charge us, we shall fight them to the uttermost, having behind us the ability to insta-flee. Having behind us the ability to then spam-run back to civilization, we shall answer their demands for an intra-room grid by saying to them, you shall not press down upon the brow of playerkillers this crown of thorns. You shall not crucify PvP upon an intra-room grid."

--William Jennings Amos

[brytta.leofa]

I think this is a cheap and elegant substitute for intra-room grid, especially if it takes into account indoor/outdoor/room capacity.  But if you're making melee attacks harder you should probably make flee harder, too.  (Which was just done, a bit?)

I suspect the real balance shift here is warriors vs. mages.

[roughneck]

I was surprised to see this suggested. I have never found myself wanting this kind of thing. I have wanted the opposite sort of thing though: chase code that allows you to automatically follow someone when they flee.

[Synthesis]

I was surprised to see this suggested. I have never found myself wanting this kind of thing. I have wanted the opposite sort of thing though: chase code that allows you to automatically follow someone when they flee.

It keeps being suggested because people keep getting instagibbed by people running in from another room and attacking before they can react.

[Bacon]

I was surprised to see this suggested. I have never found myself wanting this kind of thing. I have wanted the opposite sort of thing though: chase code that allows you to automatically follow someone when they flee.

It keeps being suggested because people keep getting instagibbed by people running in from another room and attacking before they can react.

And people do that because other people keep walking out of the room the instant someone else enters. It's a vicious cycle.

[Synthesis]

I was surprised to see this suggested. I have never found myself wanting this kind of thing. I have wanted the opposite sort of thing though: chase code that allows you to automatically follow someone when they flee.

It keeps being suggested because people keep getting instagibbed by people running in from another room and attacking before they can react.

And people do that because other people keep walking out of the room the instant someone else enters. It's a vicious cycle.

Which brings us back to why this idea keeps coming up.

[Bacon]

I was surprised to see this suggested. I have never found myself wanting this kind of thing. I have wanted the opposite sort of thing though: chase code that allows you to automatically follow someone when they flee.

It keeps being suggested because people keep getting instagibbed by people running in from another room and attacking before they can react.

And people do that because other people keep walking out of the room the instant someone else enters. It's a vicious cycle.

Which brings us back to why this idea keeps coming up.

And why this idea shouldn't be implemented unless something else is done at the same time to prevent it from happening from the other end of the cycle. Personally, I'm fine with the way it is now. It's already hard enough for a single pc to take out another single pc without the use of poisons, etc as it's so easy for potential victims to get away. They don't need things swung farther into their favor.

[brytta.leofa]

It's half of a good solution.  Make walking/running/riding away initiate a "chase"--the aggressor follows the victim and can't be unhitched.  The outcome is determined by relative movement speed, stamina, and/or ranged attacks...as it should be.

Combat wimps should survive by buying a fast mount, not by counting on their ability to run away on foot from 82% of all random encounters.

[MeTekillot]

you shouldn't be able to unhitch someone who is shadowing you

that is the twinkiest shit

[Bacon]

you shouldn't be able to unhitch someone who is shadowing you

that is the twinkiest shit

I believe they can only unhitch you if you are visible to them. Which means, you aren't successfully shadowing them.

[spacewars]

STOP TRYING TO CHANGE A GREAT GAME

[brytta.leofa]

STOP TRYING TO CHANGE A GREAT GAME

The PK minigame isn't really the best part of Armageddon.

[spacewars]

STOP TRYING TO CHANGE A GREAT GAME

The PK minigame isn't really the best part of Armageddon.

I've never pk'd

[roughneck]

STOP TRYING TO CHANGE A GREAT GAME

The PK minigame isn't really the best part of Armageddon.

Actually, it might be.  NPC's can be dangerous, able to cover the 'murder' aspect of the game to a small degree, but can never really pull off the 'corruption' or 'betreyal' part.  Can you rp a theme of murder, corruption and betrayal without PK?  I'm sure you could to a small degree, but never in a way that would truly resonate with me, at least.

PK is what what keeps you suspicious and uneasy or conniving and ruthless, depending on what side of the knife you're on.  I think PK, or the fear of PK, is a big part of the immersion.

Maybe you're bitter because you got pk'd in a way you didn't think was fair, but referring to PK as some kind of 'minigame' that is separate or detracts from the 'real' game is talking a cheap shot at players who have participated in this legitimate aspect of Armageddon which is endorsed by Staff, when it's done correctly.

I was surprised to see this suggested. I have never found myself wanting this kind of thing. I have wanted the opposite sort of thing though: chase code that allows you to automatically follow someone when they flee.

It keeps being suggested because people keep getting instagibbed by people running in from another room and attacking before they can react.

And people do that because other people keep walking out of the room the instant someone else enters. It's a vicious cycle.

Ya, I know why it keeps coming up, but it still surprises me.

If you don't want to get instagibbed, than take some precautions.  Don't sit around in the saltflats with a bunch expensive loot, unmounted and visible.  There is a reason why you can get rich foraging for salt as far as I'm concerned, it makes you very vulnerable.  Look around constantly when you're outside the gates, if you see a potential threat, hop on your mount, draw your weapon and keep your head up.  If you're pc is weak yet has the gear to be worth raiding, or enough enemies to make them a target, maybe it's wiser to move on when you spot someone outside that you don't recognize or doesn't belong to a GMH or Noble House that you're friendly with. Even if you can't truly prevent it, there is a bunch of ways to be extra careful, so you don't get caught by this kind of tactic.

In the case of bounty hunting, assinations and premeditated murder, the instagibb tactic actually makes a bit of sense.  If there's nothing that could change your pc's mind, and they only have one shot to make the kill happen in a place where their target could easily escape, why is he/she going to waste any time?  A couple of emotes, in this situation, is all the courtesy that is required as far as I'm concerned.

[Karieith]

Karieith: You're asking for your PC to be less effective at killing things through no fault of your own. You realize that, right?

Yeah I didn't think of this until later. I just always feel like such a twink when I'm sparring on a dualwield toon because I just do not have the WPM to keep up with the stabbity stab.

em stabs ~amos a bunch
em misses ~amos a bunch

[Comfortably Dumb]

For the record, I have had good luck just trusting other players and would be hesitant to endorse a hard-coded solution. But I call it luck because I know that has not been the case for others.

[NOFUN]

Edit: Didn't read the OP lol

[AreteX]

Edited: Removed my comment on above post about OP cause of their edit of the...this is complicated now!

I think there is something like this already coded into the game.  It is called the emoting system.  In all honesty you really should not just walk into a room and attack someone in my opinion.  If you're hidden, you should hemote your way up behind them, or semote at least... so you can get the "surprise".  But if you're visible, hulking warrior with a two-handed hammer... I guess the drawing the weapon is enough?  I mean..

I know I would likely emote towards the person in some manner before attacking.  Even if it was simply a, "The big warrior-type walks over towards ~soandso with quick steps, ~hammer in hand."  If you don't want to be obvious about it, then hemote it after you enter the room.  "The big warrior-type walks down the road, looking smug."  "Hemote slowly withdraws his hammer from his back, staring at ~target."  "Hemote approaches ~target, tightening their grip on ~hammer, knuckles white."

Then kill them.  You gave them a chance to notice things, you interacted at least to an extent.

Now, that person might just run away immediately and escape the PK, but really, is it so important you kill them that you're willing to just forget any and all roleplay and type 'kill target'?  Do you not even want the remote possibility of interesting plot being developed because now that person knows you're aggressive to them, or at least seemed that way?  Don't you want to see where the ripples go after you throw that first stone?

And if you did do such a thing without a history between the two PC's I would almost think the person would roleplay back.  A dubious stare, and "WTF are you doing?"  Something.  I would hope.

At least I think these are good solutions to such a problem...

[A Large Bag]

Here's where I stand on that:

I will try to rp a scene out with you before attacking. If you just walk off to avoid it, then next time I enter the room you're in, I'll enter it swinging.

I will -not- do this:

Enter room my foe is in. Emote or speak. They walk away. Enter room my foe is in. Emote or speak. They walk away. Enter room my foe is in. Emote or speak. They walk away. Enter room my foe is in. Emote or speak. They walk away. Etc.

And then they just get away or I give up because OOC -they- refused to roleplay the scene out. Also, some people are going to bitch or call bad rp no matter what you do if you attack or kill them so simply, I worry about -me-. So long as I know I gave an effort to rp it and it is IC then I'm going to do it however it goes down. If you choose to hang around and play out more of a scene leading up to my attack great. But if you insist on just walking away before I can attack when I try to do so, fuck you.

[Kastion]

Edited: Removed my comment on above post about OP cause of their edit of the...this is complicated now!

I think there is something like this already coded into the game.  It is called the emoting system.  In all honesty you really should not just walk into a room and attack someone in my opinion.  If you're hidden, you should hemote your way up behind them, or semote at least... so you can get the "surprise".  But if you're visible, hulking warrior with a two-handed hammer... I guess the drawing the weapon is enough?  I mean..

I know I would likely emote towards the person in some manner before attacking.  Even if it was simply a, "The big warrior-type walks over towards ~soandso with quick steps, ~hammer in hand."  If you don't want to be obvious about it, then hemote it after you enter the room.  "The big warrior-type walks down the road, looking smug."  "Hemote slowly withdraws his hammer from his back, staring at ~target."  "Hemote approaches ~target, tightening their grip on ~hammer, knuckles white."

Then kill them.  You gave them a chance to notice things, you interacted at least to an extent.

Now, that person might just run away immediately and escape the PK, but really, is it so important you kill them that you're willing to just forget any and all roleplay and type 'kill target'?  Do you not even want the remote possibility of interesting plot being developed because now that person knows you're aggressive to them, or at least seemed that way?  Don't you want to see where the ripples go after you throw that first stone?

And if you did do such a thing without a history between the two PC's I would almost think the person would roleplay back.  A dubious stare, and "WTF are you doing?"  Something.  I would hope.

At least I think these are good solutions to such a problem...

then we just get a good old "Goes into tavern and tells every single person what just happened" *the entire town forms a mob to hunt you down because they have nothing better to do*

the person on the receiving end of a failed kill twinks out a lot too. Its not just the attempted murderer

[AreteX]

That is an entirely different issue and one which irks me to no end.  My main point is you have to break the circle or it just comes back around again.

The issue with positively identfying someone with perfect key-word descriptions and remembering every detail of their equipment they wore is an issue that needs to be addressed itself as well.

This all just seems to me like an OOC issue that many people just overlook because they don't want to die, or want to kill someone.  They want to catch the guy who tried to kill them and so in turn, read a log of their exact short-desc, equipment/armor and spread it all over the place.  If this type of stuff happens then shame on them! :/

[Kastion]

That is an entirely different issue and one which irks me to no end.  My main point is you have to break the circle or it just comes back around again.

The issue with positively identfying someone with perfect key-word descriptions and remembering every detail of their equipment they wore is an issue that needs to be addressed itself as well.

This all just seems to me like an OOC issue that many people just overlook because they don't want to die, or want to kill someone.  They want to catch the guy who tried to kill them and so in turn, read a log of their exact short-desc, equipment/armor and spread it all over the place.  If this type of stuff happens then shame on them! :/

Im with you on that. But if you need someone dead you just flat out kill them. Nothing fancy. It will allways bite you in the ass to give them the chance to run while trying to emote. In most situations you should definently try to make it as much of a scene as possible.

[brytta.leofa]

The PK minigame isn't really the best part of Armageddon.

Actually, it might be. ... PK is what what keeps you suspicious and uneasy or conniving and ruthless, depending on what side of the knife you're on.  I think PK, or the fear of PK, is a big part of the immersion.

The existence of PKin' is absolutely vital to Armageddon.  I'm just saying--the mechanics of combat are not always pretty, and lend themselves to being argued over.

[AreteX]

That is an entirely different issue and one which irks me to no end.  My main point is you have to break the circle or it just comes back around again.

The issue with positively identfying someone with perfect key-word descriptions and remembering every detail of their equipment they wore is an issue that needs to be addressed itself as well.

This all just seems to me like an OOC issue that many people just overlook because they don't want to die, or want to kill someone.  They want to catch the guy who tried to kill them and so in turn, read a log of their exact short-desc, equipment/armor and spread it all over the place.  If this type of stuff happens then shame on them! :/

Im with you on that. But if you need someone dead you just flat out kill them. Nothing fancy. It will allways bite you in the ass to give them the chance to run while trying to emote. In most situations you should definently try to make it as much of a scene as possible.

I am not saying that you flourish your sword in the air and have a twenty-minute dialogue with the person before attacking.  I am just saying don't:  look e(spots target), e, e, e, kill target with commands queued.

Once the fight starts, emote if you want.  I understand its too fast to often do anything but type coded commands and hope for the best.  I am just saying try to give at least a little effort and play accordingly to the reaction of the other player.  Someone above mentioned following someone who keeps leaving the room and not reacting.  I don't expect you to try and roleplay out some emotes with someone you've known in the past to "look figure" immediately as you walk into a room, and haul ass afterwards.  Go right ahead and kill them.

But there ARE plenty of us who will roleplay with you before you try to kill us.  My character is GOING to die eventually.  Its going to happen.  I've been in situations where if someone wanted to kill me, there is NO WAY I could of escaped.  Locked doors.  Incredibly bad locations that even if I did run I would probably die anyway...  I think when you play Arm you have to accept that fact:  Your character will die.

Now, do you want it to be a well-played out scene where someone comes to kill you, threatening, menacing words, reactions, fear.  Time to think/emote/feel?  Or do you want it to be some random enter room, reel lock, dead scenario?

If you want the first situation.  Stop.  Roleplay.  Emote.  Think.  Feel.  On both sides.

I hope I see you in-game trying to kill me.  Because I'm going to play my character and not just OOCly gtfo   I hope we both enjoy it.  And if I die, I'll make a new one.

Anyways, no more derailing I guess.  We should just start another thread if we want to continue this topic and the other one.

[EldritchOrigins]

This would detract from the allure of apartments!

[bcw81]

Assassinating people is insanely hard when all they do is twink out whenever danger comes there way. :/ It makes me a sad panda when I see things like this from the apartments:

Code Select Expand

*Awesome RP here leading up to be what COULD HAVE BEEN an awesome assassination all around*
>Someone backstabs you and fails
>Flee n
You flee heading north
Your attacker has arrived from the south!
Your attacker attacks you again!
>Flee s
You flee heading south
Your attacker has arrived from the north!
>get key belt
Your attacker attacks you!
>Flee n
You flee, heading north!
>Unlock door
You unlock the door, you RPing player you!
>open door
Yay playing a RPI, you open the door!
>Flee w

[Yam]

Running away from someone trying to kill you. Truly the epitome of bad roleplay.

[Synthesis]

I was surprised to see this suggested. I have never found myself wanting this kind of thing. I have wanted the opposite sort of thing though: chase code that allows you to automatically follow someone when they flee.

It keeps being suggested because people keep getting instagibbed by people running in from another room and attacking before they can react.

And people do that because other people keep walking out of the room the instant someone else enters. It's a vicious cycle.

Which brings us back to why this idea keeps coming up.

And why this idea shouldn't be implemented unless something else is done at the same time to prevent it from happening from the other end of the cycle. Personally, I'm fine with the way it is now. It's already hard enough for a single pc to take out another single pc without the use of poisons, etc as it's so easy for potential victims to get away. They don't need things swung farther into their favor.

Approach code and intra-room grid are basically neutral in this regard.

It makes it harder initially for an antagonist, because you have to close the distance, but it also makes it harder on the victim...because once that distance is closed, you have to create new distance somehow.

But, you know...there is no idea in this world so simple that -someone- won't manage to misunderstand it.

[Bacon]

It just seems to me that under a system like that, the aggressor will never be able to attack someone that doesn't wish to fight, period. I don't see how this is neutral. It basically gives potential victims who want to powergame to get away from a fight before the first attack can even be thrown, the ability to do so every time.

*character sees someone try to "approach" them*

*character leaves before they can close the distance*

[brytta.leofa]

It just seems to me that under a system like that, the aggressor will never be able to attack someone that doesn't wish to fight, period.

...Hence, chase. You and your erdlu will never catch them in the first room, but in five moves they're yours to disarm and pulverate.

[Bacon]

Meh, too drawn out and complicated. I prefer the way it is. I'm not interested in multiple moves and making it all take longer than it sometimes does already. I prefer fast, simple, and to the point.

[Synthesis]

It just seems to me that under a system like that, the aggressor will never be able to attack someone that doesn't wish to fight, period. I don't see how this is neutral. It basically gives potential victims who want to powergame to get away from a fight before the first attack can even be thrown, the ability to do so every time.

*character sees someone try to "approach" them*

*character leaves before they can close the distance*

Again, you're mostly wrong about this, as well.

You would only be able to avoid being approached if you were codedly faster than the thing approaching you (or your mount is faster).

This makes sense: realistically, a dwarf should  never be able to close to melee distance with an elf that was actively trying to avoid him, and vice versa (a dwarf should never be able to outrun an elf trying to chase him down...magick notwithstanding, obviously).

It does make stealth much more important, since presumably sneak and hide would function in some way to prevent the approach from being noticed--but again, this makes sense.

[Bacon]

I would still absolutely hate that system, that's just my personal preference. I prefer how the game currently does it. I hate how much it fucks over warrior pcs in particular and slows down pvp conflicts. I also don't like how much more powerful that system would make d-elves in particular.

[Synthesis]

I would still absolutely hate that system, that's just my personal preference. I prefer how the game currently does it. I hate how much it fucks over warrior pcs in particular and slows down pvp conflicts.

You still have archery and throw, man.   You don't have to hit everything with an axe.

[BleakOne]

You don't have to hit everything with an axe.

Lies. 

[Bacon]

Like I said, further nerfs warriors in regards to pvp. It takes away their biggest advantage in combat vs other guilds and hands that advantage away to other guilds instead.

[Synthesis]

Like I said, further nerfs warriors in regards to pvp. It takes away their biggest advantage in combat vs other guilds and hands that advantage away to other guilds instead.

Well, you really shouldn't be able to sprint a league in 2-3 seconds or whatever the lag delay is, and start laying into someone's face, anyway.

That's not really a "nerf," so much as a "bug fix" (see: defense nerf).

[Bacon]

I disagree. What I see here is the akin to what Wotc did with 4th edition DnD. (except in the opposite direction) They wanted to dumb it down to make it easier for new people to get into the game. They dumbed it down so far they ruined it.

You and a couple others want to overcode the crap out of Arm. If you had your way it would be overcoded to the point of ruin. If I had come across Arm years ago and it had the system you guys think it should, I wouldn't be here today. I'd have played it until the first time I ran into combat and then I'd have quit and maybe, not even played it that far depending on how bad the overcoding was.
I have no interested in playing Armageddon SIM.

I like the game the way it was when I found it and complete disagree, and always will, with overcoding and overcomplicating the game.

[Synthesis]

I don't really give a crap, one way or the other, with respect to it actually being implemented.  I just hate to see a good idea assaulted by stupid arguments. (You've now progressed to the "out of good ideas so invoke opinion" stage of argumentation, so I'll let it go now, because there's no point in arguing with people once they've reached that point.)

But anyway, yeah.  I don't really care too much.  I feel a little bad for people I kill by exploiting what I know is a half-ass system, but if that's the way y'all wants it, thats the way y'all gets it.

[Bacon]

I just hate to see a good idea assaulted by stupid arguments.  

Having a difference of opinion or preference to what I like does not make my argument stupid. You think it's a good idea. I disagree. Because my opinion (and the things I see as flaws, whether or not you do) does not coincide with yours, does not make my side of it stupid. I'd appreciate it if you'd refrain from trolling me with insults like that. Thank you.


Edit: I'm not going to keep going back and forth over this. I've already stated my opinion and things I see as flawed about such suggested changes. We won't see eye to eye on this so there's no point in continuing to argue about it. We both have completely different preferences on how the combat code should be and what we enjoy and do not enjoy.

[Synthesis]

I just hate to see a good idea assaulted by stupid arguments.  

Having a difference of opinion or preference to what I like does not make my argument stupid. You think it's a good idea. I disagree. Because my opinion (and the things I see as flaws, whether or not you do) does not coincide with yours, does not make my side of it stupid. I'd appreciate it if you'd refrain from trolling me with insults like that. Thank you.

Your opinion isn't (necessarily) stupid, which is why I stopped arguing once you backed into that particular corner.  If you like being able to spam-charge, and can tolerate being spam-charged...that's perfectly fine with me.

Your specific counter-arguments against the system were stupid, though, in the sense that every particular conception you had about an actual coded effect of the system was wrong or incompletely considered.  Have all the opinion you want, but facts are facts.

[Armaddict]

Like I said, further nerfs warriors in regards to pvp. It takes away their biggest advantage in combat vs other guilds and hands that advantage away to other guilds instead.

Warriors are far from helpless in regards to pvp.  They just got a huge buff to what wasn't broken beforehand with the flee change.

I just hate to see a good idea assaulted by stupid arguments.

Unsure of what you're talking about, since I mostly skimmed since based on the original post and a few others, I'd already put myself against this.  Simply put, adding another element of timing for what can drastically impact a situation is a bad thing in a game that's already incredibly based (and often poorly) around timing.

The whole point of approach was to fix the 'range' problem of a larger room, and this doesn't do anything remotely close to what that idea was suggesting.  Well.  Aside for give another reason to spam movement.

[Synthesis]

Like I said, further nerfs warriors in regards to pvp. It takes away their biggest advantage in combat vs other guilds and hands that advantage away to other guilds instead.

Warriors are far from helpless in regards to pvp.  They just got a huge buff to what wasn't broken beforehand with the flee change.

I just hate to see a good idea assaulted by stupid arguments.

Unsure of what you're talking about, since I mostly skimmed since based on the original post and a few others, I'd already put myself against this.  Simply put, adding another element of timing for what can drastically impact a situation is a bad thing in a game that's already incredibly based (and often poorly) around timing.

The whole point of approach was to fix the 'range' problem of a larger room, and this doesn't do anything remotely close to what that idea was suggesting.  Well.  Aside for give another reason to spam movement.

Well, that's sort of a good point, but the approach and intra-room grid aren't designed to completely eliminate the timing problem, because only a turn-based system can completely eliminate the effects of lag, slow player response, and poor typing skills.  The idea is to bring the movement system somewhat more in line with what would be realistic, and allow people to at least respond effectively to incoming threats.  One (boring) way to do that is to just increase movement delays.  I think approach+IRG is a much more robust and interesting system, that would eventually allow for some very nifty code to be built on top of it, but I'm not going to digress into that.

[X-D]

I've hated every approach or inter room grid system I've ever run across. That is not saying it is impossible to make something workable, but given the number of what I consider fails I've seen...highly improbable.

As to archery and throw...I might have agreed with you a few years ago, but they have since been nerfed down to near uselessness at least as far as PVP is concerned.

[Morrolan]

I see that most of the arguments against this boil down to two camps:

1) This does not really solve the problem.
2) "I do not want the system to change."

Group one simply disagrees that this is a good solution to a problem. I believe that this is a relatively small fix to make a large difference, but I could be wrong (ask the coders). Mostly, the arguments have been well-reasoned and calm.

Group two has generally been quite emotive (in the actual sense). It has also been quite insistent on seeing the change primarily from a PvP perspective. It involves the occasional reference to "nerf"ing warriors, somehow seeming to imply that Arm should be "balanced" or at least that the balance should not change.  Group two and I disagree. I suspect, over the fundamentals of this game and why it is fun.

This change is meant to put a little more "give" in the system...so that people see the "surprise mekillot" for more that, say 4 seconds before it stomps them to death.

Yes, this may change the game, including PvP [though why we care so much about this one game subculture, I have no idea]. But it will not change it more than the Warrior/slipknife. I am sorry if my idea threatens to take away Warriors' "sneak attack" equivalent. Well, they are warriors, per the help file:

In nearly all warriors there exists some notion of honour and fairness, and often a vague conception of glory.

Yes, if this idea where ever implemented, one-on-one kills by warriors might be more dependent on:

• Overwhelming force (being that much better, use multiple attackers, use tactics to prevent escape)
• Combining skills with other guilds (have a ranger or assassin friend)
• Getting the other person to agree to a duel (my personal favorite)

I do not see any of those things as a bad idea.