Combat Improvements...No Auto ATTACK

[Agent_137]

A split off from Combat Improvements Discussion on page 8.

When you are attacked, you should automatically move to defend yourself, but not automatically attack. Defending and attacking are TWO separate things. One is nearly reflex and the other relies on volition. Defense can be automatic, but attacking is a decision that should be left up to me, and how I think my character would react. less automation = better RP | more control for PC = better RP | etc. The PC has so much control in emotes and crafting and everything except combat.

[Mr.Camel]

Balance Points?
Your ability to defend yourself would depend on how many balance points you have. And when you attack someone, you'd lose balance points. When you parry an attack, you'd lose some. While remaining defensive (not attacking), you slowly recover them, increasing your defense?

[Agent_137]

no no, no balance points, because some forms of attack cost less balance, there for you would need to introduce a whole set of code involving types of attack.

The easiest thing to do is make defense automatic when your character is attacked, and then make a seperate command to initiate attacking, which is carried out automatically by your character as it is now until you type STOP or FLEE.


P.S.
while having a balance system and a whole set of types of attacks would be great, I think it's too far from the current code to be wished for at this point. If you want something like that, go to Dragonrealms (www.dragonrealms.net) which has a fantastic combat code.

[Anonymous]

I think if something like that was implemented it should be something that can be toggled.
Some fighting styles respond to an attack...with an attack...

For example, Bruce Lee talked in an interview about how in order for someone to attack you...they have to bring themselves within range where you can also attack, by responding quickly enough you can actually strike them before their attack has a chance to land, which in turn can stop their attack on you.

[Larrath]

Definitely a toggle.

Noattack on, noattack off.

As for balance points, though...this will make things even harder to emote during combat.

"emote blah blah....no, wait, DUCK!  PARRY!  DEFEND!  SLASH NECK!  CROUCH!  PARRY!  SUNDER! emote blah."

I think the combat code is really nifty, and I don't really see why it should be changed like that.  Not that I'm completely against change, but if anything, I see more of a toggle thing.

"change attack foot" for example, to concentrate mostly on the foot...different parts with different bonuses, maybe, but we don't even need that.

[EvilRoeSlade]

I like this idea, not only because of the fact that there is occasionally a situation in which you simply want to defend, but also because I think it could be used to change unarmed combat in an important way.

Let me clarify something.  Unarmed combat sucks, yes, when you put a fistfighter against some warrior with a halberd.  But why does it suck?  Somebody can do a lot of damage with their fists and feet.  And using your body to fight is far less awkward than fighting with a weapon.  The answer, is reach.  A fist doesn't extend as far as say, a mace.  Therefore it's difficult to get within striking distance with your fists without giving your opponent the opportunity to beat the living shit out of you.

Where am I going with this?  The disadvantages of unarmed combat only come into play when you're actively attacking.  Somebody who's simply trying to stay out of their opponents way would have a far easier time of it.  Therefore, I propose a defensive bonus to those who decide not to fight back.  It would include those who are wielding weapons.  It is far easier to simply defend, then it is to defend and attack at the same time.

Incidently, a combative character could use this to their advantage very well.  How many times has some idiot ran into the room and attacked you without emoting, getting in free damage before you could draw your weapons and whup their asses?  It's twinkish, and bloody annoying.

But if a warrior toggled on pacifist mode, or whatever the hell you want to call it, then the warrior has a better chance of avoiding the opening attacks.  Then that warrior can draw his weapons, toggle it off, and bring down house.  What's happening ICly, is the warrior is scrambling back out of reach (as opposed to automatically flailing away with their fists), and getting their blades out of their sheaths before comitting themselves to the fray.

Vote yes on pacifist mode.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

Agreed. Pacifist mode is a good idea.

[Dan]

The only problem I can see with no automatic attack is when you go linkdead due to some outside force. Your phones go down or the server you play off of.

I remember one time I was a few rooms off of the North Road with a d-elf of mine. A bolt of lightning struck right in my backyard, screen blinked and I was disconnected for like a day and a half. I came back to three different NPC corpses around me. I am sure glad I attacked back while I was disconnected.

[Anonymous]

Good point Dan.

[Agent_137]

good point dan, but are you willing to sacrafice all sorts of options and other positive scenarios because of the possibility of link dead?

Plus, if you think you might go link-dead, just leave pacifist mode off!!!!


Seriously, though, Dan, if you don't want pacifist mode, don't ever turn it on.

But there's no reason not to have it (except coding difficulty), and many many reasons for.

[Lazloth]

But there's no reason not to have it (except coding difficulty)

Cheap sparring?

This has been discussed numerous times in many forms (see example); I don't think there's a big hurry to implement anything similar.

[number13]

Pacifist mode makes a hell of a lot more sense than nosave.  So much sense that it's strange that nosave was implemented instead of nofight.  Is there a situation where I'd actually want to automatically flunk climbing checks?  (Am I automatically flunking sneak and hide checks with nosave on too?)

I'd have the pacifist flag on by default to save noobs from stuipid guard related deathes (like trying out pickpocket for the first time, or selling one of those militia items).  If you're prone to going linkdead, or are bounding about in the wilderness amid hostile critters, then just turn the flag off.  Since defense mode would offer some defensive advantages, it wouldn't lead to the fubar situations that forgeting to toggle nosave can lead to.

When sparring in real life (boxing, for example) usually one person is defending and the other attacking.  Open to twinkery?  Of course it is: but name one system in the game that isn't.   In this case, the benefits to roleplayers clearly outweigh the potential for powergamers.

edit:  Just downloaded and looked at the diku code for the first time.  After a quick skimming, I'd say a pacifist flag and defensive mode wouldn't be all that hard to add.

[John]

1 question I have is, if my defense is amazing and I have no attack on. And someone's attack is pathetic and they're attacking me. What would stop us from attacking fighting forever?

[Gilvar]

I like the idea... except the part about your defenses kicking in.

What I always find funny is that a person not even at their computer could kill a man that had attacked them full in their senses.

Like Person A could be browsing a shop, then person b walks in and attacks them... lets say from behind, and they get whomped, because the Person A is automagickally swept into action. It should be a two-way street.

This is also good in situations where you don't want to fight back.

I'd have to go with the above suggestion for a toggle, if it were to ever be considered.

[Tamarin]

1 question I have is, if my defense is amazing and I have no attack on. And someone's attack is pathetic and they're attacking me. What would stop us from attacking fighting forever?

This is where the stamina drop should kick in, but that's another thread entirely.  This will flat out prevent people from sparring days on end without a break, even moreso than bad account comments will.

[EvilRoeSlade]

1 question I have is, if my defense is amazing and I have no attack on. And someone's attack is pathetic and they're attacking me. What would stop us from attacking fighting forever?

The realization that it's twinkish, would be my guess.

All I can really say is that I don't think a code abuse loophole is enough justification to warrant it not being implimented.

[Agent_137]

"1 question I have is, if my defense is amazing and I have no attack on. And someone's attack is pathetic and they're attacking me. What would stop us from attacking fighting forever?"

The same thing that stops two people who are equally skilled and never land hits on each other from fighting forever. . . NOTHING. I now refer to you to this quote:

"All I can really say is that I don't think a code abuse loophole is enough justification to warrant it not being implimented."

-------------

reason against: "Cheap sparring"

Ok, i read most of the example thread...and I don't see a problem. You're saying it might be abused because a strong defender could just learn off a weak attacker forever? Well, that may be the case if you learn soley by doing. But does learning invole a measure of difficulty? This is a code question. Do you learn less from beating a runner as a Sarge than you would destroying a HG?  If so, then there's no abuse potential. A strong defender would learn nothing from a weak attacker. If you learn the same amount regardless of the difficulty . . .then I could see a problem. Can I get a firm answer to this question before I strain for a way to solve it?


----

all you naysayers out there are just bitching about potential abuses, not about actual IC problems that it would create, or playability problems. You're just complaining about twinks and twinkish behavior. While we should be prepared for such abuse and be vigilant, i still refer you to this quote in regards to implementation of this idea:

"When sparring in real life (boxing, for example) usually one person is defending and the other attacking. Open to twinkery? Of course it is: but name one system in the game that isn't. In this case, the benefits to roleplayers clearly outweigh the potential for powergamers. "

---------------------

[EvilRoeSlade]

If you learn the same amount regardless of the difficulty . . .then I could see a problem. Can I get a firm answer to this question before I strain for a way to solve it?

You don't.  The skill system is dependant on failure, so a bad-ass warrior whupping a wimpy warrior probably won't see a rise in his skills.

The concern for code abuse isn't nearly as bad as you all make it out to be.  What it would come down to is, that a n00b twink would have to find a bad-ass twink and then convince him to put pacifist on and let him attack him forever, when the bad-ass twink would gain nothing by doing so.

In the end, it wouldn't be any different from joining a clan and attacking a sparring dummy forever.  Except that you have to convince the sparring dummy to sit still forever.

[Agent_137]

. . . therefore, the no attack option is a solid idea with no downsides and many upsides. I don't care if "no attack on" gives you a defense bonus or not, but it should definately be heavily considered by Imms for addition.


This leaves another question, though, what to do with nosave?

No attack on shouldn't make you fail to avoid a subdue, it'll only keep you from attacking back. Or should it?

Should we combine No Attack with Nosave for a pacifist flag?

Or should we instead keep them as separate options?

[spawnloser]

Does anyone know what the most abusable command in the mud is?  Emote.  We are still allowed to do it.  The ability to abuse something is not the issue...the issue is, would abuse give someone something they should never have been able to get?  I mean, there are things acquirable through normal means that could be acquired with abuse (ex: winning a combat), and things that could only be acquired with abuse (ex: Carnage being nice).  Personally, I see no abuse potential with this change that could not (bascially) be done previously.  How do you get a good defense?  By getting your ass kicked.  You'll never get better at defense by consistently defending yourself and not having any hits get through (recall that you will improve by failing)...now, the attacking of someone like this could allow one to get better...but, you know what?  After too long, I would assume that an IMM would notice.  If insufficient RP is going on, or something is unrealistic...the IMM can deal with the situation, much as is done now, when people can already pretty much spar forever.

[Angela Christine]

This leaves another question, though, what to do with nosave?

No attack on shouldn't make you fail to avoid a subdue, it'll only keep you from attacking back. Or should it?

Should we combine No Attack with Nosave for a pacifist flag?

Or should we instead keep them as separate options?

Separate.  Nosave covers too many things already.  I don't want to fail a climb attempt because I was chosing to fight defensively.

AC

[number13]

Separate.  Nosave covers too many things already.  I don't want to fail a climb attempt because I was chosing to fight defensively.

A bit off the subject, but seriously: is there ever a time when you'd -want- to fail a climb check? Seems like nosave shouldn't effect that. If there's no utility, it's just an accident waiting to happen.

[Kalden]

If there's no utility, it's just an accident waiting to happen.

I agree. There should just a straight "let the guards subdue you" toggle.

[Carnage]

and things that could only be acquired with abuse (ex: Carnage being nice).

That makes absolutely no sense. Are you trying to say that verbal "abuse" or physical "abuse" is going to make me be nice?

If you're going to try and make a potshot at someone, why don't you double check it first to see if it makes any sense and then to see if it's funny?

[Agent_137]

Just because your sense of humor is too constricting to find something funny regardless of its accuracy doesn't warrant a spam-flame post empty of content!

*clink*
*parry*
*clink*


:mrgreen:

[Carnage]

Just because your sense of humor is too constricting to find something funny regardless of its accuracy doesn't warrant a spam-flame post empty of content!

First of all, that wasn't "spam". Second, that certainly wasn't a flame. And third, your post is now going to be my example when someone asks me the definition of 'irony'.

[Angela Christine]

A bit off the subject, but seriously: is there ever a time when you'd -want- to fail a climb check?

I don't know.  Maybe if you were trying to convince someone that you are not a burglar by repetedly failing to climb up something?  That would be a weird OOC metagaming situation though, so it probably isn't worth a coded work around.

Um, maybe if a templar sentanced you to be thrown off something, and if you survive the fall you are free to go (meanwhile him and a buddy have a bet on whether or not you will survive).  Grabbing onto the wall would be cheating, and would mean certain death, so your best chance would just go limp and hope for the best.

Seems like nosave shouldn't effect that. If there's no utility, it's just an accident waiting to happen.

If you've played a tabletop RPG you are probably familiar with the concept of saving throws, situations where you have a chance to use your own natural traits or abilities to resist something.
Nosave has you skip all of your saving throws, including the one to stop from falling by checking your climb skill.

But you wouldn't want to have it changed so that you _only_ allowed subduing.  For one thing, people would be far more likely to leave it on all the time, which could quickly lead to non-soldiers abusing subdue.  If you don't resist subdues, a halfling or a half-elf could subdue you regardless of your race, size or skill.  You take a shortcut through an alley and a waiting newbie mugger (who may not even have the subdue skill) easily subdues you, and has his partner beat you about the head and shoulders untill you are dead.  Icky.  It would be better to have a command where you only submit to soldiers and templars, not everyone.

There are also other situations besides climbing and subduing that are affected by nosave.  I've never seen it myself, but apparently some PCs have a chance of resisting magic.  Now if a friendly magicker was going to heal you or cast some other beneficial spell with your permission, then you wouldn't want to auto-resist that spell.  Ok, this probably doesn't come up as much now as when the MUD was young, but it could happen.


AC

[flurry]

I've never seen it myself, but apparently some PCs have a chance of resisting magic.  Now if a friendly magicker was going to heal you or cast some other beneficial spell with your permission, then you wouldn't want to auto-resist that spell.  Ok, this probably doesn't come up as much now as when the MUD was young, but it could happen.

Right, but if you had some kind of natural resistance to magick, could you really turn it on or off voluntarily?

[Kalden]

But you wouldn't want to have it changed so that you _only_ allowed subduing. For one thing, people would be far more likely to leave it on all the time, which could quickly lead to non-soldiers abusing subdue.

That's a good point. I was thinking that my character should be able recognize the difference between a 'rinther half-giant and a militia member, coming to subdue him.  It's too bad the guards can't have a unique flag to their subdue or whatever.

[number13]

The mechanic probably shouldn't even be the normal subdue used by PCs.  An arrest ability unique to city-state guards (and maybe given to PC militiamen) makes more sense to me. The game would send a message:

"You are being arrested by the tall, dumb guard.  Type  FLEE to attempt escape, KILL or HIT to resist with your fists."  --which by the way would be made possible by the fact that your character wouldn't autoattack as per the orginal suggestion in this thread.

Then a 15 second delay to allow the player respond.  If the player types kill his wanted status is upgraded to a new flag: "You now have a DEATH SENTENCE.  Guards will attempt to kill you on sight."  Death sentence eventually disappears, just like a wanted flag.

[spawnloser]

That makes absolutely no sense. Are you trying to say that verbal "abuse" or physical "abuse" is going to make me be nice?

No, I'm saying one would need to cheat the rules of real life to get you to be nice, Carnage, as everything you post borders on being a flame.

Now, back to on topic things...I agree that the 'subdue_me' flag could be abused...but it is something that I would not personally leave on.  If I committed a crime and new that I could be wanted, I'd turn it on.  I would much rather do that than no_save as I couldn't climb to get away from the law, if they were to find me.  I'm fine with a flag that allows anyone to subdue me...I just want it seperate from no_save.

[Agent_137]

Just because your sense of humor is too constricting to find something funny regardless of its accuracy doesn't warrant a spam-flame post empty of content!

First of all, that wasn't "spam". Second, that certainly wasn't a flame. And third, your post is now going to be my example when someone asks me the definition of 'irony'.

Don't you realize, Carnage, that when some one includes a smiley after a "potshot" it means they are being sarcastic?

Lighten up.