Can we talk about ride?

[kahuna]

I'm a bit confused about the changes made to ride. Logically if one had master ride back in the day you could dual wield, two handed, whatever. The idea was that a master rider didn't need their hands on the reins, so they could use whistles or guide the mount via their feet/legs. Now however for some reason we need to have knowledge of our weapon to do this? This really doesn't make sense to me. I'm okay with that being a deciding factor for those that don't get master ride, for instance guilds that branch ride thru use, or get it to only jman, or advanced, they could require skill in dual wield or two handed, after all if THEY are masters with their sword sure we can justify letting them use it while riding.

However I think the master ride classes have been done a disservice to remove the functionality of being a master rider. They should logically be able to do anything once they reach that level of riding acumen.

[titansfan]

I agree with this.  The idea of fighting with my weapon is different than the idea of riding with my hands full.

[ScramblesForPurchase]

I am finding this a little strange too. Especially since "dual-wield" appears to apply to basically anything held in the hands regardless of if it is a weapon. So if you are say, holding a bow and arrow, or a chisel and a bandage.. you can't ride, even though you probably don't plan to engage in a dual-wield battle with these objects.

I could see if weapon skill checks applied to actually USING weapons, like chance to get tossed off in a fight. Not coaxing the mount to move around.

Non-violent people ride animals too 

[Riev]

https://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,53544.0.html

Please see this link that Delerak found. It will explain it, but basically:

Stance (two handed, dual, etc) and your ride skill are both used to determine if you can no-hands ride.

[ScramblesForPurchase]

I still don't entirely agree this feels natural, explicitly because it also applies the check to non-combat objects held in the hands.

[kahuna]

https://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,53544.0.html

Please see this link that Delerak found. It will explain it, but basically:

Stance (two handed, dual, etc) and your ride skill are both used to determine if you can no-hands ride.

Yes I am aware of those changes. I am more making the argument that realistically if you have master ride (as old rangers did) you should be able to dual wield, two handed or shield use ride as you desire.

I am not against those changes.. I am all for that system being kept but for those guilds that DO get master ride I think this would be a nice buff for them. It just doesn't make much sense that a master rider that can charge into battle, run over enemies gets a two handed sword and goes.. "Eh I can't even move..." Does it?

[titansfan]

Its very jarring imo to be a great rider but not be able to move a smidge just because I'm holding a cup and teapot while earlier I was holding an axe and a shield. Nervous freezing?

[Riev]

I am not against those changes.. I am all for that system being kept but for those guilds that DO get master ride I think this would be a nice buff for them. It just doesn't make much sense that a master rider that can charge into battle, run over enemies gets a two handed sword and goes.. "Eh I can't even move..." Does it?

I could make an argument that it would make sense, but I wouldn't agree with it. I happen to agree with you, I just posted the link so anyone reading would (hopefully) be on the same page.

I think it is tricky enough knowing how to fight with two weapons, or a two-handed weapon, and when you add balancing atop an erratic beetle it can be difficult.

However, when it comes to JUST RIDING, I don't see the issue. If your Ride is sufficient, you can ride with two hands. Maybe just make the offense/defense you get from being mounted rely on your calculated weapon skill + ride.

[Brokkr]

So, you want to make it harder for people that get to master?  I mean, it makes zero sense that just because your max is master and you happen to be at advanced, you get to ride with stuff in your hands and someone else at the same skill level doesn't, just because you can get better, but haven't yet.

So I take it that you are arguing that if you reach [master] in riding, you can ride with stuff in your hands.  I mean, it is certainly easier to do so, as it is a combined cap.  And the truth is, very very few characters actually get to [master] riding.

As for why...I am going to make a huge leap and assume at least some of you ride.  So lets put you on a horse and put a rope in your hands and let you have a go at roping a yearling. Your ability to just get around is going to be dependent on how well you ride and how well you know how to use a rope.  If either of these things are missing, you are going to have one hell of a time. 

Even if I take an expert at dressage and put them on the horse, unless they have also done western pleasure they are going to have a heck of a time.  This isn't conjecture, my wife did dressage for years and when I went riding with with her the first time and asked her to open the gate she looked at me blankly, because you don't do that in dressage.  Despite being an advanced rider in her style, she couldn't do something I could do by the time I was 4.

So no.  Logically, you have to know how to ride AND you have to know what to do with what is in your hands (for example, with a shield, reins are in your shield hand, with two handed weight is important, with dual wield you rhands may or may not have the reins).

[Refugee]

I always assumed a master rider was guiding with their seat and legs rather than reins during times of holding two weapons.

[Medena]

However I think the master ride classes have been done a disservice to remove the functionality of being a master rider. They should logically be able to do anything once they reach that level of riding acumen.

I was used to playing legacy rangers with master ride and holding whatever I wanted in my hands.  So when I recently played a scout, I was a bit dismayed to find I could not ride holding a two-handed weapon because I was not skilled in that style yet.   So I know where you are coming from.  I put it down to not having master ride though.

However, I am wondering what classes do get master ride these days?  AFAIK only Stalker gets it now.

[Fenneko]

The new code and cutoffs make it harder to ride without reins but eventually it can be overcome. It increased the benefit of ride boosting gear like riding gloves. Ride boosting gear is sold and found in only a few odd places in game. Dual wield is, for some reason, a lot easier to train than two handed weapons.

[X-D]

I do not think it should apply to non-weapon items. That is rather silly.

Other then that, I mostly agree with Brokkr. Riding and using a bow at the same time...Good luck if you are not skilled in both. Riding while holding a beer in one hand and a sandwich in the other, I could do when I was 6...Well, a coke and a sandwich. Beer and a sandwich now.

And the above points is where I do not agree with how this is all coded. Why do I need to know how to use something in order to -Ride- with it in hand?

Now if you say I cannot fight while dual wielding because I do not know how to dual wield swords well enough to consider doing it mounted then I would agree. But If I am simply carrying a pair of swords, Well, they could be rocks or Ginka or just about anything, they are simply objects, you are not using them.

[kahuna]

I do not think it should apply to non-weapon items. That is rather silly.

Other then that, I mostly agree with Brokkr. Riding and using a bow at the same time...Good luck if you are not skilled in both. Riding while holding a beer in one hand and a sandwich in the other, I could do when I was 6...Well, a coke and a sandwich. Beer and a sandwich now.

And the above points is where I do not agree with how this is all coded. Why do I need to know how to use something in order to -Ride- with it in hand?

Now if you say I cannot fight while dual wielding because I do not know how to dual wield swords well enough to consider doing it mounted then I would agree. But If I am simply carrying a pair of swords, Well, they could be rocks or Ginka or just about anything, they are simply objects, you are not using them.

What if you could ride (master ride) while dual wielding/two handed (regardless of the skill) but once you get in combat you're screwed and are thrown from the mount if your dual wield/two handed isn't high enough to engage in mounted combat? We ought to separate the distinction of riding vs mounted combat. They are two separate things right?

[X-D]

Yes.

But I wonder on the likelihood.

As it stands it is based on what, 3 skills. Ride, Dual, Etwo. The proposition would mean adding several other skills. Though it would likely give more reasons to use the one handed ranged skills.

[ShaiHulud]

Not often I speak up, mostly listen. But here I go.
I was surprised and taken back by the inability of my char's ability to 'move' with, shield, two weapons, two handed, even after gaining levels in ride that allowed before.
This thread alerted me to the fact it was now tied to the skills of weapon stance and style. I would have been riding hard forever hoping to hold my wood and balls.
I'm okay with the realism of the change..but this..

I can fight with two weapons or mekfisted on a mount, but I can't move with those in hand. How is that realistic? Perhaps should be the other way around?

Anyways, just passing. Love you all!

[Brokkr]

However I think the master ride classes have been done a disservice to remove the functionality of being a master rider. They should logically be able to do anything once they reach that level of riding acumen.

I was used to playing legacy rangers with master ride and holding whatever I wanted in my hands.  So when I recently played a scout, I was a bit dismayed to find I could not ride holding a two-handed weapon because I was not skilled in that style yet.   So I know where you are coming from.  I put it down to not having master ride though.

However, I am wondering what classes do get master ride these days?  AFAIK only Stalker gets it now.

You most likely were not a master rider.

They point to ride with both hands full was advanced.  Not master.  Few rangers ever hit the master level.

The perception that you "had" to have a class or subclass that gave two hand riding was too widespread, and perhaps not incorrect.  The problem was that you could only effectively get that at charges, which led to a huge subclass bias, and a lot of subpr decisions.  And folks got it much too quickly.

This was the solution.  Slow down getting there considerably.  Make it so nearly every class can get it, eventually.  Make it not all or nothing.

As for non-weapons....yeah, except the code treats them as dual wielded.

[lostinspace]

I really wish that your archery skill was used to determine if you can ride with a bow and arrow instead of dual weild.

[kahuna]

The perception that you "had" to have a class or subclass that gave two hand riding was too widespread, and perhaps not incorrect.  The problem was that you could only effectively get that at charges, which led to a huge subclass bias, and a lot of subpr decisions.  And folks got it much too quickly.

This was the solution.  Slow down getting there considerably.  Make it so nearly every class can get it, eventually.  Make it not all or nothing.

Okay.. now we're talking. I get this, from a game balance perspective, I totally agree with you that rangers with ride/charge and being able to dual wield/two handed mounted combat was actually a bit over powered. The new system does indeed solve this issue.

[Armaddict]

So lets put you on a horse and put a rope in your hands and let you have a go at roping a yearling. Your ability to just get around is going to be dependent on how well you ride and how well you know how to use a rope.  If either of these things are missing, you are going to have one hell of a time.

You will not have a hell of a time holding the rope.  You will have a hell of a time roping anything.

[Brokkr]

So lets put you on a horse and put a rope in your hands and let you have a go at roping a yearling. Your ability to just get around is going to be dependent on how well you ride and how well you know how to use a rope.  If either of these things are missing, you are going to have one hell of a time.

You will not have a hell of a time holding the rope.  You will have a hell of a time roping anything.

Well yes.  But before that you need to get the horse where you want to get it.

I'm assuming you rope?

[X-D]

Well yes.  But before that you need to get the horse where you want to get it.

I'm assuming you rope?

That is his point and mine. I can hold the rope, and not change my ability to ride, I can hold the rope in both hands and not change my ability to ride, or as you say, "get the horse to where I want to get it." I can hold a rope in each hand and not have issues. It is when I try to -USE- said rope that there will be issues.

As for non-weapons....yeah, except the code treats them as dual wielded.

Which shows another flaw in having dual/etwo dictate if you can do it or not.

[kahuna]

Ideally.. I feel like ride should dictate whether you can move from room to room with no hands. The combat skill itself should dictate whether you can engage in mounted combat. So if you're just riding along and have master ride you can dual wield, two hand, teacup and kettle if you like, whatever. But if you engage in combat with dual wield and are mounted and have novice dual wield the mount will throw you and you'll be in a bad position because that makes more sense, agreed?

[Riev]

Ideally.. I feel like ride should dictate whether you can move from room to room with no hands. The combat skill itself should dictate whether you can engage in mounted combat. So if you're just riding along and have master ride you can dual wield, two hand, teacup and kettle if you like, whatever. But if you engage in combat with dual wield and are mounted and have novice dual wield the mount will throw you and you'll be in a bad position because that makes more sense, agreed?

This would be my preferred implementation. Let me ride with both weapons out, but if I try to attack, I don't have the dual wield skill high enough to know how to balance. If I have Journeyman Dual Wield, I barely know how to attack on solid ground with both weapons.

Let the mount buck me off if I'm attacked. Let that be my risk, the lag and the damage from the fall, and being sent to a seated position. The benefit would be that if I EXPECT an attack, I can dismount and prepare.

[Brokkr]

Well yes.  But before that you need to get the horse where you want to get it.

I'm assuming you rope?

That is his point and mine. I can hold the rope, and not change my ability to ride, I can hold the rope in both hands and not change my ability to ride, or as you say, "get the horse to where I want to get it." I can hold a rope in each hand and not have issues. It is when I try to -USE- said rope that there will be issues.

The reason I asked if they roped was because people are throwing out how they envision it working and I have no idea a) if they have ever even ridden b) if they have ever ridden with stuff in their hands like a rope.

Because just having a rope in your hands impacts your ability to get around.  To make the horse go where you want to go.  It doesn't suddenly only come into play only when you try to use the rope. Mostly what you need to get used to is the coils of the rope in your off hand and avoiding the saddlehorn with them.  Some horses are easier than others because you can just hold your off hand higher, but that tends to be a bad idea on horses that have a tendency to buck.  If you have to hold it lower because of that, you need to make sure the coils of the rope are on a certain side of the saddlehorn to avoid issues.  Although some reins are easier to rope with that others, a lot of the roping I did was with a hackamore which was kind of a bitch.

Ideally.. I feel like ride should dictate whether you can move from room to room with no hands. The combat skill itself should dictate whether you can engage in mounted combat. So if you're just riding along and have master ride you can dual wield, two hand, teacup and kettle if you like, whatever. But if you engage in combat with dual wield and are mounted and have novice dual wield the mount will throw you and you'll be in a bad position because that makes more sense, agreed?

This would be my preferred implementation. Let me ride with both weapons out, but if I try to attack, I don't have the dual wield skill high enough to know how to balance. If I have Journeyman Dual Wield, I barely know how to attack on solid ground with both weapons.

Let the mount buck me off if I'm attacked. Let that be my risk, the lag and the damage from the fall, and being sent to a seated position. The benefit would be that if I EXPECT an attack, I can dismount and prepare.

And then we would be right back to where we were, essentially.  That isn't a solution, that is regression. It doesn't solve any of the issues the old system had.

[Riev]

Can you define, without spoiling things, what problems the old system had? Even from the post I linked, it sounds like the major problem was that people believed you HAD to have no-hands ride. Whether that was because at that point your Offense/Defense were BETTER while riding, or because you were prepared while riding, I'm not certain.

But maybe we could all help the discussion if we were on the same footing.

[X-D]

Because just having a rope in your hands impacts your ability to get around.  To make the horse go where you want to go.  It doesn't suddenly only come into play only when you try to use the rope. Mostly what you need to get used to is the coils of the rope in your off hand and avoiding the saddlehorn with them.  Some horses are easier than others because you can just hold your off hand higher, but that tends to be a bad idea on horses that have a tendency to buck.  If you have to hold it lower because of that, you need to make sure the coils of the rope are on a certain side of the saddlehorn to avoid issues.  Although some reins are easier to rope with that others, a lot of the roping I did was with a hackamore which was kind of a bitch.

True enough.

But when talking horses IRL the horse matters as much if not more then the rider.

For instance, If I am going to go fishing and ride a horse while holding the rod and having tackle and drinks bouncing behind me, I am not going to take the 8 year old quarter horse who is most used to herding and racing and loves to jump and barely knows how to do anything but gallop (not kidding, a temperament of "spirited" does not cover it). I will take the 16 year old gaited mare who I can literally just tell to go fishing and otherwise mostly not pay attention to.

To my knowledge that that does not exist in arm...it would be pretty cool if it did...This mount is better tempered then that mount, or at least the type.

I am interested in the answer to Riev's question.

[Delirium]

Mounted combat has gone through some serious changes over the years. I remember when being mounted in combat was such a disadvantage that the meta was to dismount whenever you expected trouble. It led to some interesting scenes where dusty wanderers thudded boots to the ground and it created this foreboding tension. Looking back, it also encouraged a pause between when you entered the room and when combat ensued. It did need some work, though I'm not sure what the motivations were behind the change. It did make it easier to get hit as a high-level combat character, which was nice, but perhaps it was being abused. Mostly, nobody in their right mind actually used cavalry units, which felt like a code conflict with IC reality.

Then we got trample, charge, and a mounted combat update, which went off the ride skill and gave rangers and a few others with the right class/subclass an edge in the wilderness. It was cool. It felt flavorful and thematic. Cavalry units were now feasible and desirable. There wasn't as much scrambling on and off mounts when taking units of fighters through the wastes. This ended up placing a lot more value on being able to ride reins-free, since mounted combat gave most people such a bonus in a fight. You wanted to not have to fiddle with draw/sheathe when you were attacked or if you had to flee.

These latest changes seem like an attempt to push back on that being an easy or common thing to achieve. Unfortunately it means that no matter how good at riding you are, you can't go reins-free until you're better at the requisite combat skill, which as people have pointed out, feels jarring and inconsistent.

If I could wave a magic wand and have a do-over, I would suggest that mounted combat be its own separate skill. Being able to fight while mounted would be separate from being able to ride with both hands occupied. So if ride and mounted combat were separate skills, you could keep your weapons out, but unless you have a high mounted combat skill, you are going to be dismounting when it's a fight that matters.

[LindseyBalboa]

Squires in medieval times trained weapon and mount, at the same time. It's a combination of those skills that allows mounted combat, jousting, and mounted melee. If you're not training specifically for it, and the huge benefits such combat allowed, you weren't going to be getting those benefits.

I think the same applies here. It should be something you have to really work at to be great at, and it should be a combination of skills. However, not every mounted calvary unit was a master at fighting or riding, or even close.

Given how hard it is to raise up weapon skills, perhaps lowering that part of the requirement for mounted combat would be beneficial in terms of balance. Staff has said on GDB that most people are just going to get to "okay, maybe good" in relation to the rest of the world. That's fine. Being okay or good at weaponry and good at riding should be enough to be an average, okay mounted soldier, though.

[Armaddict]

I'm assuming you rope?

I ride.  I have tried roping several times as a 'thing to do' with people.  Yes, I could be moving at a trot or canter without hands while trying to rope.  No, I could not catch shit with the rope.

There, you can stop feeling that everyone who disagrees with you must have no idea what they're talking about, so that you can actually talk about gameplay features in a game that already makes all sorts of balances between 'how things are in real life' and 'how things should be in a game'.

[Bebop]

Just because something is realistic doesn't mean it translates into playability for a game.  I feel like we're hitting that event horizon where major code changes are happening too often and the meta isn't getting balanced out enough.  The amount of code and skills is already really convoluted.  This game is hard to learn and get good at --- weapon skills being chiefly difficult.  I really wish we would balance the new classes and changes --- and stop adding more layers of complicated hoops for the sake of realism in a game where people throw fireballs, alcoholic elves run across the desert and people ride giant beetles and lizards around.

[Brokkr]

Just because something is realistic doesn't mean it translates into playability for a game.  I feel like we're hitting that event horizon where major code changes are happening too often and the meta isn't getting balanced out enough.  The amount of code and skills is already really convoluted.  This game is hard to learn and get good at --- weapon skills being chiefly difficult.  I really wish we would balance the new classes and changes --- and stop adding more layers of complicated hoops for the sake of realism in a game where people throw fireballs, alcoholic elves run across the desert and people ride giant beetles and lizards around.

People were hitting the ability to ride with any combination of weapons in about 1 day played.  The targeted timeline with the change was more like 5-10 days played, depending on your mix of combat vs riding, and having it be more limited, while at the same time be eventually available to a broader number of characters.

Then I gave in with how shield use was handled and for that style it can now be rather quicker than what was targeted.

Playability and balance have to take into account those targets, rather than being mechanisms for a rollback to something easier to get.

[Riev]

So going back to my question.

Is the reason the 'old system' wasn't working, at its core, because people were able to get to the "No hands ride" perks too quickly?
In the originally linked post, you said it was because people felt it was 'necessary' to be at that level.
The new changes do make it more difficult (time spent) to get to the same level.

If the reason behind the change was "people get there too quickly", is there a specific reason you are not amenable to "You can ride with two hands full, but if you get into combat, you are going to fall off"? Or even making "ride with two hands full" and "combat capable while riding" be based on different factors?

[Bebop]

Just because something is realistic doesn't mean it translates into playability for a game.  I feel like we're hitting that event horizon where major code changes are happening too often and the meta isn't getting balanced out enough.  The amount of code and skills is already really convoluted.  This game is hard to learn and get good at --- weapon skills being chiefly difficult.  I really wish we would balance the new classes and changes --- and stop adding more layers of complicated hoops for the sake of realism in a game where people throw fireballs, alcoholic elves run across the desert and people ride giant beetles and lizards around.

People were hitting the ability to ride with any combination of weapons in about 1 day played.  The targeted timeline with the change was more like 5-10 days played, depending on your mix of combat vs riding, and having it be more limited, while at the same time be eventually available to a broader number of characters.

Then I gave in with how shield use was handled and for that style it can now be rather quicker than what was targeted.

Playability and balance have to take into account those targets, rather than being mechanisms for a rollback to something easier to get.

Hmm, that makes more sense to me then.  I guess I don't mind newer characters hitting it because being out in the desert without being able to dual wield makes things really, really challenging.  I'm undecided as to whether I like the change or not.  I feel like it's a quality of life issue but I dunno.  My head space is just not that of a code grinder.  I really wish people would stop code grinding (though I know that's not going to happen.)  It's turning the game into a dichotomy of roleplay vs coded skills.  I already don't have the willpower to skill grind and while I appreciate the changes make it harder for those who don't really play until they feel codedly badass but hmm....

I'm starting to think there should be some kind of skill point system that allows people to pick some skills they start out good as or a way to balance stats better so people don't get poor stats that way everyone isn't starting off with the same dopey skills.