If you could make Arm's combat more complex and engaging...

[Wastrel]

I dont think its unfair to say Arm has an extremely simplistic combat system. This can be viewed as a good thing or a bad thing. Where do you stand? What if there were more combat skills that interacted with each other in complex ways? What if there was more balance? Is that something you'd want?

[RogueGunslinger]

When I first started playing I would have said yes. I've played in more complex combat muds before. Where you can target limbs or have a wide array of skills that can affect combat in small intricate ways. And after a while I've just come to realize I don't think it's for arm, really. I believe Armageddon's combat feels more real, brutal, and heart-pounding because of its simplicity.

That doesn't mean I don't think there could be some changes. Simple things, like changing the Kick skill to a generic "strike" skill.

[Desertman]

I'm trying to figure out the point of the poll.

It basically says.

"Do you want better things? Yes or no."

So I have to say yes. I want better things. Because better things are better.

[Wastrel]

I'm trying to figure out the point of the poll.

It basically says.

"Do you want better things? Yes or no."

So I have to say yes. I want better things. Because better things are better.

In the case of roleplaying muds, dman, I think the case for simplicity should be obvious. The more complex systems you create, the more you stray away from what the mud is supposed to be about, which is roleplay.

[RogueGunslinger]

I'm trying to figure out the point of the poll.

It basically says.

"Do you want better things? Yes or no."

So I have to say yes. I want better things. Because better things are better.

The question IS very vague, but I think he was specifically talking about more complexity/engagement in the ways that other combat muds do it. Where you have to input every attack you make, can target certain parts of the body  to get different affects(VATS style), things like that. Things I really don't want.

Something I think arm's combat could use: A reel to the hand might cause a disarm, a reeling blow to the leg would cut movement points in half. Things of this nature I'm cool with. Things that augment current code to make it more realistic and variable.

[hatchets]

Balance? No. Balance between classes is well handled with social stigmas mostly, aswell as specific jobs set for those classes.

More complex combat? Most certainly. My favorite mud combat of all time had no auto swinging, you wanted to swing the sword you had in your hand, you had to 'swing (target)' and it would cause you to lose your balance for a period of time. You wanted to do things besides swing? There were skillgroups such as Swordplay that would have different strikes in them "Slash, Stab, Flay" which would do different damage and cause different amounts of bleeding, which also were affected by different weapons.

[Riev]

I'm a fan of the simplistic nature, where its really up to the player to emote, whether it be during or after combat. All your hits are a roll of the dice anyways.

For it to be more engaging, I like RGS's idea of more "events" happening for certain actions. Reel code hardly exists anymore, and it'd be neat if you could just "aim high/none/low". Aiming high meant you were trying for critical hits, at a loss of ToHit, Aiming low meant you were trying to drain movement points with shots to the legs/feet, again at a loss, or otherwise taking what comes.

I like the simple stuff. I just want to say "I'm really buff, and I want to solely go for critical shots because I think this guy is a weenie."

[Barsook]

I'm a fan of the simplistic nature, where its really up to the player to emote, whether it be during or after combat. All your hits are a roll of the dice anyways.

I agree, and that's what makes ArmMUD a RPI.

[Quirk]

Combat in a role-play environment should either be simulationist or simple. Anything else has the potential to harm immersion.

Simulationist is hard. You need people implementing it who understand how medieval or ancient melee combat actually worked. This is remarkably rare.
For an example of a halfway decent job of it, here's a combat simulator for The Riddle of Steel's system.
www.driftwoodpublishing.com/support/TheRiddleOfSteel.zip

Note that weapon length, distance between fighters, different tactics etc are all factored in.

Instead, complex combat systems tend to result in ridiculous results, particularly ones based around special combat skills. Someone who's unable to touch an opponent with their weapon because their opponent is comprehensively superior can kick them all day without having their foot lopped off or run into them and make them fall over without being skewered or even disarm them. Targeting of body parts without any understanding of stance and position can lead to weirdness such as it always being correct to attack your opponent's hands or feet. Balancing different weapons is usually done hilariously badly - a spear vs a dagger will be the same fight in a crowded room as it will be in a wilderness, and the dagger user and spear user will trade strikes as though their weapons were equal length, rather than the fight hinging on the maintenance of distance. The more detail goes into a system broken in its fundamentals, the sadder the outcome.

I am therefore strongly in favour of keeping things simple.

[Delirium]

I like it simple. The only thing I want and have ever wanted to change is to switch 'kick' to a general 'strike'.

[RogueGunslinger]

I think putting the skill in winning fights on the player, instead of the character pretty much flies in the face of an RPI. The more complex the combat becomes the more the onus is on the player to keep up with the most proper coded/ooc tactics.

[Refugee]

While it sounds like fun, I think it doesn't work in Arm. 

Better not make more stuff to try to keep up with when your screen's scrolling at the speed of light and your HP are dropping nearly as fast.  Even if you've been Mudding for years, and your eyes are trained to pick out what you need to see in a big battle, there's still not many opportunities for decision making really.  A few, if you're lucky.

I think it would be overwhelming for new players.  I've seen what we already have overwhelm new players.

In the case of solo combat, taking out that carru or that unfortunate hunter you just cornered, I can see the increased fun.  But getting ganked by unending streams of spiders?  There's enough to think about already.

[Barsook]

I like it simple. The only thing I want and have ever wanted to change is to switch 'kick' to a general 'strike'.

Some how I don't see how a kick is a general strike when you have a sword and a shield or dual wielding.  I seen it twice in this thread.  Can someone explain this too me.  Thanks.

[Harmless]

What I'd like is for the instagibs to be toned down some. Earlier threads about limiting the number of people hitting you at once, etc. in that sense I do want more complexity, if that can be called adding complexity.

I want even less work to do as a player, basically. Or more information to help, because I SUUUUCK 

[manonfire]

Oh, this thread again.

[Morrolan]

I like it simple. The only thing I want and have ever wanted to change is to switch 'kick' to a general 'strike'.

Some how I don't see how a kick is a general strike when you have a sword and a shield or dual wielding.  I seen it twice in this thread.  Can someone explain this too me.  Thanks.

Simply, the way the current code works for kick is that it is always emoted as a kick. Never an elbow, or a headbutt, or whatever. That is something that some people want to change by changing "kick" to "strike" and changing some of the associated combat echos. It has even been suggested that the command be able to take both a target and attack type argument.

Not only does this limit personal fighting styles, but it also causes some terribly unrealistic situations.

"The 4-foot-tall dwarf kicks the half-giant in the head!" Even your elf isn't going to hit a half-giant in the head, most days. That 7-foot-tall elf still only comes up a little higher than the half-giant's waist.

It's a "problem" that already exists with the combat code. That it doesn't take relative size and (AFAIK) mounted height into consideration for hit location.

[Barsook]

Ah, that,  I understand now.  That, I do agree with changing that so it can be more realistic.

[IntuitiveApathy]

I wouldn't mind seeing some things that have been bandied about over the years.

One of those ideas was about stances.  For instance, I think it'd be a nice addition to be able to use a more defensive stance, which might allow your character to sacrifice offense for a boost in defense.  Yes, your character could pick up a shield.  Yes, they could also use it in their main hand.  But either way, your character is still set at 100% offense all the time.  Or the opposite, sacrifice defense for offense.  Could be further nuanced, to focus on boosting certain styles/skills, even.

I'd also like to see something more done with mounted combat.  The relatively new mounted combat skills are good additions, but I think there could be much more done with it.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

I would love to see more features, but I would never want it to lose the simple feeling it has. Most of this is in wording during emotes, and it is also in how commands interact together.

I would like to keep kick, but for it to simply factor in height when it prints results to the screen. One should never see a message that a dwarf has kicked at a giant's head. Ever. Messages could be simply changed so that a body region was chosen based on height. I like the random messages, but there are times when they make no sense, and no, I shouldn't have to forget I saw that and pretend it was ... well, strike.

I would like a NEW skill called strike (that did EXACTLY the damage that kick does now, and with pretty much the same skill progression) that allowed you to emote when using it. You could only perform a pre-result emote with this skill.

>strike (with the back of ~sword)
With the back of her sword, the bald woman strikes the hairy man.
With the back of her sword, the bald woman fails to strike the hairy man.

>strike man (leaping over a fallen body and sweeping ~hammer with all ^me might)
Leaping over a fallen body and sweeping your pitch-black hammer with all your might, you strike the gnarly elf.
Leaping over a fallen body and sweeping your pitch-black hammer with all your might, you fail to strike the gnarly elf.

[Dresan]

As many have stated i like the combat system in arm. However if i had to change somethings it would be the kick to strike idea, however mine would be a bit different.

kick would turn to strike, allowing us to emote it better. Damage would stay about the same but i would love to see greater stun damage at higher levels, nothing too obsurd but still noticable. Also at high levels it should have a chance to daze.

bash would turn to knockdown and would work about the same way except allow us to emote it better.

Some other small tiny ideas:

There is a certain ability that a very experienced warrior can do with weapons, wish they could do it in combat.

Allow you to remove things your character is wearing in combat, maybe with a strike penality just like when you reach to pick something up.

[Blur]

It should be harder to flee from a character with high flee skill themselves, and at really high levels a character with high flee skills should be able to have a small chance to 'cut off' someone from fleeing combat with them.

[LauraMars]

I know it's not really a part of the combat code, but I'd want to change the "bleeding lightly, heavily, profusely" auto-ldescs to something more generic - you're not always bleeding when you get hurt in this game!  Instead, it could just use the wording that you see in the assess code "is here, in moderate condition" etc.

[RogueGunslinger]

This thread has all of the best ideas about combat from the past 5 years in it.

[AmandaGreathouse]

I know it's not really a part of the combat code, but I'd want to change the "bleeding lightly, heavily, profusely" auto-ldescs to something more generic - you're not always bleeding when you get hurt in this game!  Instead, it could just use the wording that you see in the assess code "is here, in moderate condition" etc.

This. Although I would love it if it wasn't a ton of extra work if instead 'moderate condition' etc, it was more like 'is here covered with bruises' if they've been sparring or on the recieving end of blunt/bludgeoning weapons, and bloodied to whatever levels for combat with live weapons / piercing/slashing/chopping weapons.

[LauraMars]

I think that would definitely be awesome.  However, there's a HUGE variety of things that can damage you in this game beyond just sparring weapons and real weapons...falling, poison, fire, starvation, dehydration, <redacted>, <redacted>, and so on...not sure if the code is capable of distinguishing between all these things.  My guess is probably not.