Injuries - Longterm effects

[RogueGunslinger]

I find that 5 days played can realistically be fairly tough. I mean I have had someone with less hold their own against people with far more time. (Or at least I assume they had more time)

What do you mean?

[theebie]

Mostly I like the idea, but I'm not sure we really want/need it.

My biggest worry is how battle RPTs are currently handled.  It would suck to be held up for lack of a medic or worse, having to quit the field due to too many injuries.

I do like the idea of a stool/system that tracks injuries but doesn't impose coded penalties as good a place to start/compromise, though.

Well, if your group gets beat up so badly that everybody is wounded, I would -WANT- everybody to get held up by a lack of medics ? And have the mission failed ? Since everybody's freaking wounded ?

When I see posts like this I wonder if you even play the game. If it were like you're suggesting, nothing would ever happen. Sergeants would be too busy trying to skill their underlings up in order to handle the mission, only to have them then die/store/suicide before the mission even comes around. Turnover in this game is about 3 real life weeks. That's how long you should expect to keep the average recruit alive. It takes more than 3 RL weeks to get someone trained to where they're competent enough not to be wounded on every single mission.


edit: For instance, I had a warrior who I gave skill bumps to, and ended up with 5days played. 5 days played warrior. Should be pretty fucking tough, right? He got hit by a scrab with the double-attack. Both vicious pinches to the neck, and then one more to the body. I had to flee from a goddamn scrab. At this point scrabs were lucky to even get a single hit on me, but freak shit happens. I was suddenly at about 70/110 hp. Now, this is high enough to regen. But, this was a fucking scrab, and I was a 5 day warrior who STARTED OUT with skill bumps. Now imagine your unit full of noob Rangers who you need to train up for a hunting mission... Imagine all the damn wounds you would get from the training itself.

I'm not sure if we play the same game, I must admit. What makes you think the average turnover in this game is 3 real life weeks ? My average character lasts like a real life year on average ? (And yes, combat pcs). And even with new chars I kinda never get into situations where I get chopped down to <55% health ?
If you get hit twice with vicious pinches to the neck, you're a fucking wreck and can be happy if you get out of the situation alife ? And yes, then you should be badly wounded ? Beyond the point of "sleeping it off" ? Which is the whole idea of this thread ?

I imagine a unit of full noob rangers who need to get out for a hunting mission. They better have a capable Sergeant around them then, to keep them safe ?

I mean, loads people here say "This is a hack and slash mud, deal with it". I can say "Fine, I'll treat it as hack and slash". Actually not that much of a problem for me. I just thought it ain't hack and slash.

best regards,
Theebie

[Lizzie]

I've never heard anyone say this is a hack-n-slash game. I have heard people say this is a DIKU game. This game utilizes a hack-n-slash game code. But the code doesn't define the play, it only defines the inner workings of the game mechanics themselves.

[theebie]

I've never heard anyone say this is a hack-n-slash game. I have heard people say this is a DIKU game. This game utilizes a hack-n-slash game code. But the code doesn't define the play, it only defines the inner workings of the game mechanics themselves.

Then let me just quote from this very thread:

I'd be all for this if we weren't running a hack and slash engine that sees all combatants getting severely hacked and slashed on a regular basis.  As it is, I'm skeptical, for reasons mentioned above.

[Lizzie]

I've never heard anyone say this is a hack-n-slash game. I have heard people say this is a DIKU game. This game utilizes a hack-n-slash game code. But the code doesn't define the play, it only defines the inner workings of the game mechanics themselves.

Then let me just quote from this very thread:

I'd be all for this if we weren't running a hack and slash engine that sees all combatants getting severely hacked and slashed on a regular basis.  As it is, I'm skeptical, for reasons mentioned above.

1) Erythil isn't loads of people.
2) It IS a hack-n-slash engine. I already said that, using different vernacular. DIKU = hack-n-slash engine. Again - the engine only defines the inner workings of the mechanics; it does not define the game play.

[Marauder Moe]

Well, if your group gets beat up so badly that everybody is wounded, I would -WANT- everybody to get held up by a lack of medics ? And have the mission failed ? Since everybody's freaking wounded ?

That may be the more realistic outcome, but it's not the better story outcome.

[RogueGunslinger]

When I see posts like this I wonder if you even play the game. If it were like you're suggesting, nothing would ever happen. Sergeants would be too busy trying to skill their underlings up in order to handle the mission, only to have them then die/store/suicide before the mission even comes around. Turnover in this game is about 3 real life weeks. That's how long you should expect to keep the average recruit alive. It takes more than 3 RL weeks to get someone trained to where they're competent enough not to be wounded on every single mission.


edit: For instance, I had a warrior who I gave skill bumps to, and ended up with 5days played. 5 days played warrior. Should be pretty fucking tough, right? He got hit by a scrab with the double-attack. Both vicious pinches to the neck, and then one more to the body. I had to flee from a goddamn scrab. At this point scrabs were lucky to even get a single hit on me, but freak shit happens. I was suddenly at about 70/110 hp. Now, this is high enough to regen. But, this was a fucking scrab, and I was a 5 day warrior who STARTED OUT with skill bumps. Now imagine your unit full of noob Rangers who you need to train up for a hunting mission... Imagine all the damn wounds you would get from the training itself.

I'm not sure if we play the same game, I must admit. What makes you think the average turnover in this game is 3 real life weeks ? My average character lasts like a real life year on average ? (And yes, combat pcs). And even with new chars I kinda never get into situations where I get chopped down to <55% health ?

Average turn-around has been stated by staff before. I'm having trouble finding it through searches though. Either way, your average is not the player average. The fact that we get something like 30-50 new characters a week, should show that turnover is pretty damn high.

Those numbers you can get from the weekly update: http://www.armageddon.org/updates/

[BadSkeelz]

I don't think anyone is saying "This is a hack and slash MUD."

Some of us have been saying "The combat code is too severe to justify adding on more penalties for being injured."

I've been dropped 60 HP in 2 rounds of sparring hall combat; I've taken 50 HP of damage from a single monster bite. I Roleplayed out injuries and had fun doing so, but I would not want the machine arbitrarily enforcing how debilitated my PC was.

Do you even play combat PCs theebie?

[Hauwke]

I find that 5 days played can realistically be fairly tough. I mean I have had someone with less hold their own against people with far more time. (Or at least I assume they had more time)

What do you mean?

Well what I mean is that depending on a few things, your 5 day warrior can be a bonafied badass. For example a long time ago I had a dorf pc. Went out grebbing, got attacked by a scrab, then another and a gith and came out hurt but definately on top. With from memory only half a day played.

[Saellyn]

Dwarves aren't a very good judge of being a badass. They have some innate benefits (massive strength compared to most people) that give them a perceived edge in battle.

Also, not all mobs are created equal. You may have lucked out with some weak scrab/gith. That does happen.