Dog Pile Solution

[X-D]

You know...here is an option.

What if there was no limit...BUT, working on the Qmans thoughts, ...if you could not 100% target a certain person when starting an attack on another group?

Say, Byn sarge Malik and his 6 troopers come across Raider Bill and his 9 thugs.. Now, Raider bill tells his crew to take out Sarge Malik first, So, everybody either types KILL MALIK or Assist Bill. But the code then flips a coin Virtual of course. And each person has a 50% chance to be on Malik, if they fail then the code simply picks one of the PCs following Malik....Of course you can try to maneuver once combat is engaged, through rescue, change opponent etc...or even flee, return and try for Malik again.


I would think that would be rather simple to code and not set hard limits of any kind.

Also, if  Sarge Malik and crew runs in on Raider bill alone...well, raider Bill is rightfully Toast.

[Qzzrbl]

Now that I can dig.

There'd be no guarantee that you'd be fighting who you're trying to instagank, reflecting the reality of two body masses colliding.

So long as there's no real chance you'd wind up with ten guys wailing on one guy when said one guy has ten buddies of his own to contend with.

Because I mean really, there should be a point where there's just not enough room to get a swing in.

Which, I guess I'm saying I still support a soft limit, but whatever.

I'd make love to either idea.

[Barzalene]

What if they stop following?

[Marauder Moe]

Why would they do that?  It'd be in their benefit to keep following to evenly distribute foes rather than letting Sgt Malik get insta-ganked.

[X-D]

If Raider bill and crew stopped following each other but Sarge malik and his highly trained Troopers stayed together, It would work the same, If Malik had a group of untrained runners and they all did follow self...Well...consider that they scattered and everybody can be targeted with 100% certainty.

Simple enough.

Keep in mind, Odds wise, Malik would still have around 4 people on him...from the start, but that can be dealt with using rescue etc....And of course it is possible he could get specially lucky and only get one or specially unlucky and 8.

Personally I think it would cause people to think more and not even try a real dogpile. Because the first attacker always gets 100% target. It is everybody else that is 50%. So, You are Raider Bills thug. Raider Bill and Malik are engaged. Now if you target Malik, You might get him...Or, you will randomly end up with somebody else in the goup. There in  is the fun. Because You being only a lowly thug, Would you want to risk the random tossing you in front of  Grog the lifetime Half-giant trooper OR would you rather pick Skinny the new breed runner?

Adding to possible tactics FTW.

[Wastrel]

As someone who literally has years of experience with group-based COMBAT in other muds, specifically combat-oriented muds, ones that involve large groups and parties going at it, I sincerely believe the best way for arm to handle situations like these, is to heavily discourage it and avoid it.

All the little fixes in the world will not solve some of the basic problems presented.

Armageddon is a roleplay mud first and foremost.

[Qzzrbl]

Be that as it may, in a realistic, roleplay-driven world, large groups and parties fighting eachother in a war shouldn't be discouraged in the least.

IMHO

I mean, the ideas we've kicked around here so far would enhance the RP atmosphere a bit, methinks.

Give people a reason to hire Byn guards for trips through the wastes else face the harsh deserty reality alone.

[Wastrel]

There are ways to keep it realistic without including 20 people in a room. /derail

[Qzzrbl]

By spreading PCs out in several of the widely expansive outdoors rooms and leaving things as they are?

[Delirium]

^ gets my vote. In fact that's how I expected things to go during the HRPT.

[jstorrie]

I think that diminishing returns should be applied to the penalty you take for defending against multiple attackers so that they cap out at some moderate number of attackers.

[Case]

unnerf parry
luirs apartments

[Morrolan]

unnerf parry
luirs apartments

Case's comment comes flying in from the south!
You slap aside the comment with witty repartee!

j/k We love you, Case.

[Erythil]

I've seen a similar system work pretty well on Atonement, which is basically that only 4 people can engage any 1 target at any 1 time.  It makes battles more tactical.  Also you can do 'set melee' to make it so that you only see death messages, says, and combat messages from whatever you are currently engaging.  It makes it easy to keep track of things, and also to notice callouts.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

X stole my idea. It's not exact and I'll expand on that but his idea is the gist of mine. Creating group combat and multi attacker delays while keeping our current combat code should create a much better combative environment all the way around.

[hatchets]

Firstly XD, unless they are using thrusting weapnos such as spear, no it is not realistic for 9 people to all swing a 5 foot sword at one person with still having room to dodge, and without hitting each other.

Secondly, having limits set for such does not mean you cannot jump a pc with 9 people still, what it means is that other skills become more important. One such skill, RESCUE, for example. Awe feck Amos is fairing well against those other four, and put a beating on Bob! Someone step in and take bobs spot! Now, bob gets to be tended to. And others take up guard positions to stop Amos from escaping. As it is right now, guarding the exits, psh thats silly, if we all just 'kill amos' then he dies. Rescue as it stands has lmiited use, particularly with dog piling.
Flee has a chance to work, MAYBE on small scale battles as it is, but you don't even get a chance to try to excape in a dog pile. Atleast if they were guarding the exits, there becomes the CHANCE that the skill can be used.

This also makes room to allow medics to tend to someone on a team that is clearly dominating the other which should be able to happen rather then being a "heal up after battle" position.

You say guard command is one way to stop a PC from being dogpiled, which to an extent works, IF you know whom they are all about to jump.

Aswell, now Amos can sort of feel out the four attacking him, and even change opponents to focus on a stronger or weaker, whichever he governs will be the best course of action (facing the stronger one giving you more defense against them, facing the weaker, putting yourself at a weaker position but maybe eliminating someone attacking you)

The number of attackers still gives them the advantage, how well trained they are all around gives them even more advantage. And setting a limit allows for tactics and skills to be used on both sides, which will make for far more interesting encounters.

Now you have to use more then 'kill amos' to get in the fight, but that doesn't mean you can't get in it. And it clearly becomes much more interesting when strategies and tactics and 'mostly useless skills' get to be used.

[Bacon]

I think it's fine and can easily enough be explained away as others have said.

[X-D]

I am really trying to figure out if you have a point to that last post.

Weapons, I assume you have never been involved in even mock battles with such weapons IRL. Look some up on youtube then and see how those swords and axes get swung. Unless you are inside something with a very low ceiling, all the swung weapons are usually done so over head and bringing down...you only need open space above to swing and twenty swords can hit a single man at one time I assure you. Maybe not easily of course...and in such battles usually it is a quickly shifting melee...which is why I made the suggestion I did to more closely match realism along with improved playability and not losing that chaos, confusion fog of war.

Now as to the rest, Medics are already useful, if you think they are not then maybe you and they are not doing things right.

The other skills being not useful? Hah. I could take any two players in this game and train them ICly to make the three of us a brutal and efficient combat force, proper tactics and uses of said useless skills, to the point that with under 20 days played on each PC  to the point I would be confident that the three of us could take on any PC force of up to ten and have time to laugh, joke and emote during the killing. I have done so many times before and with unbuffed PCs.

Maybe the problem is not with the current code but the way you and people around you play?

Now as I said before, I am all for things to  increase tactics, but not hard caps or slowing things down, That just puts you into the  boredom of certain other mentioned muds with combat that have no real tactics, are so slow that one to one combat can take RL hours and group combats even longer...meanwhile having no real chance to die...in fact, MOST the fights, large scale or small end in no fatalities and if they do, it is because the player wanted a new PC anyway.

"Mostly useless skills" LOL, you are surely doing things wrong.

[Myhrrn]

I remember two certain Malarn Dwarves (I was one of them) that through use of bash/disarm/rescue held off at least 15-20 mantis at a time when they were invaded. I agree with X-D. It requires skill and know-how to use those skills.

[KankWhisperer]

I've often thought about how to fix this and have come up with several ideas I don't really like completely.

I guess I wouldn't mind using 'grioup' command despite how much that may make some RP people cringe.


So You have Amos's group (A,B,C) and NPC tries to attack C. I'd make it that he'd have to beat everyone in the list who has less people they are fighting or is ahead of them in the list fighting an equal number of people.Since A and B ar not fighting anyone he'd have to beat them first. Assume he fails and A stops them. Another NPC attacks C but fails to beat B's guard skill. Third NPC attacks C would get through without having to do a check. Another NPC attacks A, gets through because A is at the head of the group. A now has 2, B 1, and C 1. If another NPC tries to attack A then he'd have to get by B and C because A has more attackers now.

Sort of spreads out the dogpile, and also sort of a little simple bit of unit formation with people you want attacked least in the back end of the list. Perhaps you can do a nosave defend to not try and protect others. A noble for example wouldn't try and protect a front line soldier. Guard skill or somenewgroupcombatskill.

[Potaje]

command:

Shield wall

calculates those grouped, (follow or assisting) one Pc (leader of unit) with shields

to

redistribute attackers along those in the shield wall unit.
(attacker lead +those assisting)

Realistically displacing an attacking force on a defending force where shields and tactical position are thus then set up in a formation that would redirect and protect against the idea of being summarily surrounded. 

[BuNutzCola]

nm

[mansa]

Max combat vs one target at 8 characters/npcs.

You cannot fight the tall muscular man, he's fighting too many right now!

[Barsook]

Max combat vs one target at 8 characters/npcs.

You cannot fight the tall muscular man, he's fighting too many right now!

I think that's the best idea.

[Maso]

You cannot fight the tall muscular man, he's already surrounded!