Nosave Parry

[BadSkeelz]

This is an idea to address the "imbalance" of skill progression between combat PCs who train within military clans through sparring, and those who just hunt.

Some of you may have noticed something I've come to think of as the Sparring Plateau - where a warrior or other combat guild's defense and Parry Skill reach a height that they begin parrying most attacks, being struck by those that get through and rarely if ever dodging. This plateau can come quite early in a PC's life.

Some of you may also know that a Parried attack gives no skill-gain benefit to either the attacker or the defender. It isn't a failed attack, so the attacker's weapon skills and offense do not raise; nor is it a failed defense, so the defender's defense remains unchanged.

All together it can make warriors rather inefficient sparring partners after a certain point. They are hard to Miss and to Hit, retarding everyone's skill gains.

My proposal:
Nosave Parry
Your character will not attempt to parry attacks.

While your Parry is toggled off, you would not be able to raise the skill (i.e. sustained hits do not count as parry fails). I envision it being of most use to characters who have already maxed their Parry skill and wish to rein themselves in during spars. They can be trying to focus on their own footwork, or they can be encouraging their partner to improve their aim by either landing hits or sidestepping swings entirely. The OOC justification remains as meta as ever - to make Warriors more viable sparring partners, and allow them to continue to learn by participating in clan life.

[MeTekillot]

But going out to attack NPC wildlife with high agility is much better roleplay??? bad idea! no i'm just kidding, yes, good idea.

[Delirium]

I like it.

You can also use only one weapon, with the roleplayed reason being that you are focusing on honing your footwork and aim rather than going for powerful blows or sheer offense (i.e. adding your other hand, or another weapon). Combine that with nosave parry and warriors could spar pretty effectively with lower level PCs.

I also think people neglect the "teach" command way too much. Use it liberally whenever it makes sense, IMO.

[Asanadas]

Absolutely yes. Absolute and completely yes.

And edit: if it could be made so that warriors could 'opt-out' of the parry fail check and get their base defensive checks, that would be even better. But I think that's what you mean in less bannable meta-words.

[BadSkeelz]

You can also use only one weapon, with the roleplayed reason being that you are focusing on honing your footwork and aim rather than going for powerful blows or sheer offense (i.e. adding your other hand, or another weapon). Combine that with nosave parry and warriors could spar pretty effectively with lower level PCs.

I really like this suggestion and how it reinforces the notion that this is something for use in training.

And edit: if it could be made so that warriors could 'opt-out' of the parry fail check and get their base defensive checks, that would be even better. But I think that's what you mean in less bannable meta-words.

That is the idea. Having Nosave Parry On (so you don't try to parry, ever - still not 100% sure how to properly phrase nosave states after all these years) means you're relying solely on your base defense to avoid blows.

[wizturbo]

This is an excellent idea.  A simple, but very effective way to resolve a problem that's been lurking out there for ages.

It also has some roleplay value, for those who want to "take it easy" on their opponent, conceal their own fighting ability, or are "practicing their footwork" as another poster mentioned.   I like the anti-guild sniffing potential of this too.

I would say that changes like this might have an undesirable effect on relative skill levels throughout these combat clans though, which might require nerfs in the future to offset...  Be careful what you wish for when it comes to combat skill gain improvements. The only reason warriors are allowed to become as bad ass as they're able to become now is because it's very hard and time consuming to do.  Having characters that can solo entire waves of gith may seem fun now, but if there are 15 characters like that floating around, it's going to get ridiculous when staff have to dish out 10 raging mekillots at once in order to create a risky RPT environment.  Power creep is a dangerous thing.

[Armaddict]

Yup.  Good solution.

I'd like it even more if we went back to forced brief skills, though.  I will never get behind the idea of 'I should be able to get incredibly good with relative safety while I keep track of some arbitrary ooc knowledge of how good I am in comparison to everything, not just those I train with'.  Just because of the principle of the thing.  But this is a good idea to assist with certain training problems.

[Refugee]

Yes yes.

[Asmoth]

I've only had a few pcs that went through sparring regularly.

But I've had a shitload of warrior/hunters or ranger/anythings and can tell you without a doubt that sparring is SHIT compared to fighting critters/gith/stilt lizards.

My pcs that sparred all the time hit that parry issue fast but sucked d at fighting when it mattered.

[hopeandsorrow]

It's good idea, though I will miss goofy loose reasons we all invented to go get fails.

Change objective Knock out a lizard with my fist.
Change objective Chase a turaal.
Change Objective Capture a Jozhal and let run around my apartment trying to kill me while I lie down.

[lostinspace]

Seems like a relatively simple change that would make a lot of sense IC. As of now non-sparring warriors max out pretty quick on the defensive side of things and they don't have a very good way of getting better without doing wonky stuff like hopeandsorrow just brought up. It would add to realism while allowing an indie warrior to progress naturally. Also I've hit that plateau with a good wisdom warrior and waiting for the others you joined a clan with to catch up can be excruciating, especially when it takes more than a month.

[Delirium]

With as brutal as Armageddon combat can be, I'm not too worried about power creep. There's always a way to die.

[lostinspace]

With as brutal as Armageddon combat can be, I'm not too worried about power creep. There's always a way to die.

What's interesting is that I'd imagine this change would make the average PC considerably more capable if they took advantage of it and put them on a more even footing with those that currently game the system to get stronger, who don't really need this, but would probably enjoy it for RP/ease reasons.

[Asanadas]

What it would do would be give the clans characters an opportunity to become as bad as the guys who walk around outside trying to punch furry little creatures. And I wholeheartedly believe there is nothing that would stop a staff member from being able to kill a character.

Even if you were the buffest dude, you might still be killed from one throwing knife. 

[Desertman]

We could just do away with the concept that you only learn when you fail.

Why is that in place anyhow?

Why don't I also learn in combat when I do things correctly?

I get that you are, "Learning from your mistakes.". Fine.

But, I would also propose that we implement, "Learning through repetition, even if the repetition is the correct repetition.".

It would do away with the issue of "I can beat everyone in my clan by a huge margin now, so I can no longer learn, no matter how many times I show up and spar for the next 10 IC years.".

[Asmoth]

What it would do would be give the clans characters an opportunity to become as bad as the guys who walk around outside trying to punch furry little creatures. And I wholeheartedly believe there is nothing that would stop a staff member from being able to kill a character.

Even if you were the buffest dude, you might still be killed from one throwing knife. 

The only thing wrong with this statement is that hardly any of the creatures are furry...

[Delirium]

We could just do away with the concept that you only learn when you fail.

Why is that in place anyhow?

Why don't I also learn in combat when I do things correctly?

I get that you are, "Learning from your mistakes.". Fine.

But, I would also propose that we implement, "Learning through repetition, even if the repetition is the correct repetition.".

It would do away with the issue of "I can beat everyone in my clan by a huge margin now, so I can no longer learn, no matter how many times I show up and spar for the next 10 IC years.".

I completely agree. My thinking is that this is a nice stopgap between now and the much larger code change that "no more fail to learn" would entail.

[Rokal]

Dont forget shield block. It could possibly included in nosave parry - but i generally agree with this idea

.

We could just do away with the concept that you only learn when you fail.

Why is that in place anyhow?

Why don't I also learn in combat when I do things correctly?

I get that you are, "Learning from your mistakes.". Fine.

But, I would also propose that we implement, "Learning through repetition, even if the repetition is the correct repetition.".

It would do away with the issue of "I can beat everyone in my clan by a huge margin now, so I can no longer learn, no matter how many times I show up and spar for the next 10 IC years.".

Dman here pretty much sums up my thoughts.

there should be a chance a skill goes up on a success. Even if its only a partial increase compared to a fail.

[Asmoth]

Dont forget shield block. It could possibly included in nosave parry - but i generally agree with this idea

.

We could just do away with the concept that you only learn when you fail.

Why is that in place anyhow?

Why don't I also learn in combat when I do things correctly?

I get that you are, "Learning from your mistakes.". Fine.

But, I would also propose that we implement, "Learning through repetition, even if the repetition is the correct repetition.".

It would do away with the issue of "I can beat everyone in my clan by a huge margin now, so I can no longer learn, no matter how many times I show up and spar for the next 10 IC years.".

Dman here pretty much sums up my thoughts.

there should be a chance a skill goes up on a success. Even if its only a partial increase compared to a fail.

Go fight some mantis and step your sparring game up.  You'll miss.

[BadSkeelz]

There already is a nosave shield ability: it's called remove shield

I honestly thought about including it, but really, if you don't want to block with a shield, don't use one.

As for Dman's thoughts... I don't disagree that the system as it stands is wonky. However, there's something to be said for the "Learn by Failure" system. It makes it so you level up fastest when you don't know anything, while slowing your rate of advancement the deeper into a skill you go. Skill Gain Rate decreases the more skilled you become. That seems nicely organic to me.

If you learned on success, I think you'd see a lot of people floundering at the bottom of the pyramid as they repeatedly fail while a fortunate few are able to skyrocket to godlike levels, their successes building on each other in a runaway reaction.

The big problem with the Learn by Fail system we have is that for weapon and combat skills, it becomes unreasonably difficult to fail if you're behaving reasonably. More experienced PCs parrying all your attacks away (negating everyone's advancement) is a big reason for this.

[Synthesis]

Turning parry off wouldn't help anything.

If you're parrying, it means you're not good enough to dodge that attack in the first place.  From my observations, the combat code doesn't run a parry check until you fail the dodge check, and it doesn't run a block check until you fail both the dodge and the parry check.

Turning parry off wouldn't help the attacker train, because then they would just get a useless hit instead of a useless parry-fail.

Turning parry off wouldn't help the defender train, because there is no PC-attainable level of just parrying that will prevent you from being hit.  I.e., whatever is getting trained by being hit will always be trainable, assuming it is training anything at all.

The "solution" is for parries and blocks to count as failures for the weapon/style skills.  That's not going to happen, because it would instantly entirely remove the plateau for weapon/style skills, because parry (as I believe it's coded) is a pass-fail check, not a dice-roll vs. dice-roll check.  That is, anyone with the parry skill AT ALL would be able to generate failures for even the most advanced weapon skill.  Consequently, mastering weapon/style skills would be far too simple and common.

[BadSkeelz]

If you're parrying, it means you're not good enough to dodge that attack in the first place.  From my observations, the combat code doesn't run a parry check until you fail the dodge check, and it doesn't run a block check until you fail both the dodge and the parry check.

I believe you are correct in the order of checks. But for training purposes, I believe it is better to be hit than to parry, because at least that way the Defender's defense will go up, allowing them the chance to dodge future attacks (assuming they keep parry toggled off). Right now, successfully parrying negates skillgains in defense. This leads to two warriors parrying the shit out of each other, very slowly easing their defenses up whenever they land a hit while largely negating their offensive gains. Sparring thus becomes the second least efficient means of skill progression for warriors, leaving hardened soldiers to tremble before Timmy the Turaal Hunter.

The least efficient being the sparring dummy.

Turning parry off wouldn't help the attacker train, because then they would just get a useless hit instead of a useless parry-fail.

See above. It may not benefit the attacker at that moment, but it will allow for someone to progress in sparring. That someone can become a better opponent, eventually causing you to miss.

Turning parry off wouldn't help the defender train, because there is no PC-attainable level of just parrying that will prevent you from being hit.  I.e., whatever is getting trained by being hit will always be trainable, assuming it is training anything at all.

Again, better to be hit and take the damage (and defense gain) than parry and gain nothing.

The "solution" is for parries and blocks to count as failures for the weapon/style skills.  That's not going to happen, because it would instantly entirely remove the plateau for weapon/style skills, because parry (as I believe it's coded) is a pass-fail check, not a dice-roll vs. dice-roll check.  That is, anyone with the parry skill AT ALL would be able to generate failures for even the most advanced weapon skill.  Consequently, mastering weapon/style skills would be far too simple and common.

This is a fair point and worth consideration. Advanced weapon skills may need balancing and reworking if they actually became common in the game world.

[CodeMaster]

I remember the Byn had barehand training days where you got to train without weapons (and therefore parry).  I bet other sparring clans have something similar?

I like the idea of being able to turn a passive skill like parry off. 

[Armaddict]

Advanced weapon skills may need balancing and reworking if they actually became common in the game world.

Is there a reason for this?  I've asked before and gotten only vague answers.  Are these more powerful than normal weapon skills in some way?  Do they build on each other?  Are the weapons of those types just 'better' than other weapon types?

I had said if they were no different, then I didn't see why they were so hard to get.  But that if they were superior to the other ones, then they should remain hard to get.  I keep hearing inferences of both types.

[BadSkeelz]

Advanced weapon skills may need balancing and reworking if they actually became common in the game world.

Is there a reason for this?  I've asked before and gotten only vague answers.  Are these more powerful than normal weapon skills in some way?  Do they build on each other?  Are the weapons of those types just 'better' than other weapon types?

I had said if they were no different, then I didn't see why they were so hard to get.  But that if they were superior to the other ones, then they should remain hard to get.  I keep hearing inferences of both types.

I suspect it has to do with your Skill in a weapon also improving your defense against said weapon. Since few people have advanced weapons skills, they're at a disadvantage against them. That's just conjecture, though. If you're getting beat on by someone who actually managed to branch an advanced weapon, they could probably beat you with anything. I've only ever seen two wielded in three years by non-Templar PCs. Not much data to work with.

I remember the Byn had barehand training days where you got to train without weapons (and therefore parry).  I bet other sparring clans have something similar?

They do. It still makes raising weapon skills difficult because no one (to my knowledge) has "Beat on an unarmed man with weapons" day. Attack an armed warrior with high defense = parrying and no gains.