Weapon type freedom with backstab/poison

[Armaddict]

Well.  Honestly, it would take a look at the code to see how much work it would even be (i.e. Is this a flag, or a simple check on the poison skill).  But I find that particular boon not really a boon.   Some people want it, some don't.

I am all for poison rework though, which has been discussed in multiple threads now.  Just that I think having poisons on big two handed swords and battle axes is kind of a meh idea.

[Riev]

I'm with Armaddict, I think the number of people out there using clubs and axes that just REALLY NEED TO USE POISON RIGHT NOW are few and far between. And if you have axes, you PROBABLY can use the piercing and/or slashing weapons that poison works on.

(this is all conjecture) Axes deal a higher range of damage, but are slow. Clubs deal stun damage. Swords are middling as the most common type, and piercing/stabbing allow for poisons and fast attack speed. If you're using an axe, you have your advantage. Going through the code so your hatchet can deliver a dose of poison seems unnecessary. Use throw/archery/piercing/slashing/any other type of method than "but axes are the best and should be better".

[SuchDragonWow]

I bought For Honor and my enthusiasm for text weapons melted like ice cream on a hot summer day.

[Miradus]

Heh. Yeah, but can you mudsex in For Honor?

[Synthesis]

I don't think it's any more preposterous to poison a hatchet than it is to poison a longknife.

Two (not mutually-exclusive) possibilities:

1.  Re-work the poisoning skill so that difficulty also takes weapon weight (size) into account.  (Yes, this would result in some crying about heavy spears that have relatively small blades, but OH WELL.)  A small hatchet (3-4 stone):  easy.  A massive two-handed sword:  almost impossible, even for the most talented.

2.  Re-work the poisoning code such that probability of being successfully poisoned by a hit from a poisoned weapon takes the weapon's weight into account.  Stabbed with a small knife? Maximum current probability.  Chopped with a double-bladed axe? Next to zero.

[Armaddict]

That's exactly where my mind was going when I said too much work for too little benefit.  Where we essentially have to not only come up with a viable criteria to deal with the new desire, but also figure out how to best code it within boundaries that were set up for another approach altogether.

Revamping the code just because you like to use hatchets -and- poison is pretty over the top.  If we can slip it in with changes already in progress, then that's a different story, but this is seriously a non-issue as it stands and not worth any time when we have much cooler ideas/higher priority things as we are.

[RogueGunslinger]

Pretty much every change made to the game is a non-issue. Seems rather pointless to talk about the difficulty of implementing ideas and what the staff should focus on. Staff seem to just pick what they feel like working on at random.

[Armaddict]

They choose the projects they want to, which is exactly why I choose to think of code additions and tweaks in terms of cost to benefit and speak about it in those terms.

They'll choose it if they think it's enjoyable, but I'd rather not people get the impression that stacking more and more code ideas means that any of them are important or worth it, nor should they be disappointed if something doesn't get done if it's pointed out that it could be a lot more work than fun, even if they like the idea.

It's also why I'm a lot more accepting of ideas that can be 'tucked in' with other projects that have been talked about with interest.

[SuchDragonWow]

Heh. Yeah, but can you mudsex in For Honor?

It's got that going for it, too.

They choose the projects they want to, which is exactly why I choose to think of code additions and tweaks in terms of cost to benefit and speak about it in those terms.

They'll choose it if they think it's enjoyable, but I'd rather not people get the impression that stacking more and more code ideas means that any of them are important or worth it, nor should they be disappointed if something doesn't get done if it's pointed out that it could be a lot more work than fun, even if they like the idea.

It's also why I'm a lot more accepting of ideas that can be 'tucked in' with other projects that have been talked about with interest.

I realize you're just dropping your own insight, so don't take this as a slight, but it gets a little old when players try to dominate a code thread by defining how staff should spend their free time coding this game for us.  It's not our call, and we hardly have the applicable knowledge of the code to even have a valid opinion on that.  So while I think it's fine if you try to denegrate the ideas you don't like in a thread about code by saying "oh that's silly, silly thread you guys!!" ...  we probably should not be squelching the discussion because you think it's a waste of staff time.

Just say you don't like it.

[Armaddict]

Because 'This is a terrible idea' or 'I don't like it' or 'omg yes, I want it' aren't accurate.

I think the benefit of it is very small and based on a desire for something neat-o.  I'm more okay with it if it ends up being something minor, and I'm less okay with it if it's something major.  I'm not 'dominating' anything by referring to things as projects to undertake rather than just neat ideas or stupid ideas.

Edit:
Most ideas that are presented have some sort of value that can be gleaned from them.  I'm not sure what you find so out of line by trying to put my input in context as high, medium, low, or nil priority, but if it really bugs you that much I'd consider it something to PM about.  In no place did I claim to assert authority or power over how staff chooses projects by saying where I think each idea could fall in terms of priority.

[SuchDragonWow]

I guess I wasn't  very clear in my wording, I'm posting on the phone while at work. At some point I was not speaking about your posts, and was addressing that common tactic of trying to shoot down ideas while speaking for staffs time/interests.  I wouldn't take it personally.

[Shoka Windrunner]

I'd be happy if we could stick large weapons in massive piles of shit, giving a chance of making someone catch a disease if they get cut.

[roughneck]

My anecdotal experience of the current state of affairs:

Stabbing weapons are always poisonable and have a bonus to % to successfully deliver poison. Balanced, imo because stabbing weapons have other offensive and defensive drawbacks.

Piercing and slashing weapons may or may not be poison able, depending on size, weight, etc. I've found a much lower chance of delivering poison successfully with these weapon types. Imo this code option makes sense because some knives are slashing or piercing and it's cool to be able to poison all knives. We get the bonus of being able to poison some spears and shortswords while we're at it -)) yay.

A good hatchet in this game is already a great weapon with strong offensive and defensive advantages over stabbing weapons (from what I've gatheredĺ). Give stabbing weapons their province and reject the preposterous notion of poisoning a jagged, gushing axe wound with a bit of poison coated on the blade. Axes are already boss anyways.

[RogueGunslinger]

There is nothing perposterous about an axe delivering poison.

[whitt]

There is nothing perposterous about an axe delivering poison.

Actually, there is.  Poison works by entering the bloodstream and being drawn back to vital organs.  The less blood out away from the wound, the better the chance of the poison not being washed out of the system by the weapon delivering it.   Hence, piercing weapons which cause pooled bleeding inside the wound are the most efficient means of poisoning, especially in the immediate effects of poison way that Arm relates to.  Axes and other chopping implements create gaping wounds that result in large amount of blood flow and are therefore poor choices.  Small sharp slashing implements, scalpels and razors also create long thin wounds not prone to tremendous gouts of blood. 

[RogueGunslinger]

Sounds like a bunch of arm-chair MD hogwash. I promise you stabbing weapons make you bleed a metric fuckton. And the difference between a bleeding axe-wound and a bleeding stab-wound doesn't amount to proportions that would make an axe delivering poisons "preposterous".

All that said we have no idea the potency of Zalanthan poisons or what type of "poison" they even are. Whether it takes a tablespoon or a nanogram matters a lot. If all it takes is a drop then it doesn't matter if it's a stab-wound or a full-blown decapitation, that poison is going to get into your system.

Also there's no accounting for how much poison each blade takes.' At the very best you can argue that an axe has less of a chance of delivering poison than a dagger, but you can't tell me you know for certain to what degree that chance is.

In real life you should NOT try to cut, bleed and/or suck out snake venom, despite what you may have seen in media.

In real life you can be poisoned by skin-contact alone and then die months later.

[SuchDragonWow]

I would be more apt to buy into the argument if there weren't poisons in the game that had instant and near-instant effects.

Also did you know Orochi can cancel Storm Rush after two steps and fake into a guard block and chain combo.  Epic.

[Shoka Windrunner]

There is nothing perposterous about an axe delivering poison.

Actually, there is.  Poison works by entering the bloodstream and being drawn back to vital organs.  The less blood out away from the wound, the better the chance of the poison not being washed out of the system by the weapon delivering it.   Hence, piercing weapons which cause pooled bleeding inside the wound are the most efficient means of poisoning, especially in the immediate effects of poison way that Arm relates to.  Axes and other chopping implements create gaping wounds that result in large amount of blood flow and are therefore poor choices.  Small sharp slashing implements, scalpels and razors also create long thin wounds not prone to tremendous gouts of blood.

Whitt...good point.

[RogueGunslinger]

Is it though?

[Armaddict]

Let's get cyclical!

[whitt]

Is it though?

Well technically, you have a good point too.  All weapons that enter and leave the wound are pretty lousy for delivery of toxins.  So the effectiveness should probably only be fairly good on bolts, arrows, and thrown weapons that stick in the target for any appreciable time.

[Synthesis]

omg it's a game mechanic, not a fucking fantasy physiology problem

We want to be able to poison people without having to exclusively train in one weapon style, or suddenly having our defense and offense magickally crippled because we switched to a longknife from a shortsword.

[Jihelu]

omg it's a game mechanic, not a fucking fantasy physiology problem

We want to be able to poison people without having to exclusively train in one weapon style, or suddenly having our defense and offense magickally crippled because we switched to a longknife from a shortsword.

Obviously you are power gaming because axes are too strong.
Even though piercing weapons tend to hit very hard in certain places and have a very good speed.

[Synthesis]

omg it's a game mechanic, not a fucking fantasy physiology problem

We want to be able to poison people without having to exclusively train in one weapon style, or suddenly having our defense and offense magickally crippled because we switched to a longknife from a shortsword.

Obviously you are power gaming because axes are too strong.
Even though piercing weapons tend to hit very hard in certain places and have a very good speed.

No idea what you're talking about.

[Jihelu]

omg it's a game mechanic, not a fucking fantasy physiology problem

We want to be able to poison people without having to exclusively train in one weapon style, or suddenly having our defense and offense magickally crippled because we switched to a longknife from a shortsword.

Obviously you are power gaming because axes are too strong.
Even though piercing weapons tend to hit very hard in certain places and have a very good speed.

No idea what you're talking about.

It's sarcasm.
I thought of throwing a /s on there but I thought it was obvious.