Of those magick extra hands

[SailorMars]

Inspired by the RP'ing PK thread...

How about code to prevent using 'get' if your hands are full in combat. I figure if your hands are full out of combat and you 'get' something, there's some implied shuffling around of whatever it takes to make it happen. In the heat of battle it's different.

Suggestions:
1) If you're dual wielding, you can't get at all.
2) If you're 2-h wielding you can get, because you can remove one hand long enough to get something.
3) Shields would have to be classified as large or small. Small meaning straps over the forearm, large requiring a strap for the hand. Small would allow you to get, and large would not.
4) Get would work normally in every other way, i.e. the free attack sometimes, etc.

Why do this? To prevent unrealistic disarm/get, and simple get/flee in the heat of combat -- two things that I've seen handled in a cheesy way more often than not. Also from a RP perspective, when a weapon hits the floor in a big fight, it's -not- easy to pick up. There's feet trampling it, bodies moving around and over it, blood making it slippery (though maybe not in sand), etc. Drawing another weapon is much easier, and this code would emphasize that.

Keep in mind if you're not tanking you can disengage and get, because then you'd be out of combat. In short there'd still be ways to get, it'd just be harder.

[Gilvar]

Why just combat? People 'get' things when their hands are full in situations nearly every day. Some people get things with inventories full of backpacks while holding a bag and a sword or something.

I was holding a baseball bat one time and something in my other hand, and I was able to reach down, with the bat-holding-hand and pick up a second bat that had been left.

I dont think a sword or a dagger would be much different.
Its just the problem lies more with 'inventory' then the getting. Like where does this second sword someone picks up in battle go? Its obviously not in their hand because they are holding a mug, or a sword, or a shield or something. Is it held under their arm? What about all the other things in their inventory? How are they fighting while juggling a couple packs, maybe a pile of meat, or something else.

[aeshyw]

Perhaps one option would be a penalty to combat skills dependant on the percentage of available inventory space full.  That could  realistically mimic the ability to hold more then two things at a time while making holding the entire contents of a kitchen cabinet while fighting off a gang of wild, hungry half-giants more interesting.

[SailorMars]

I visualize inventory as stowed somewhere, but not stowed well. (Slotted equipment is stored well.) Inventory is something left generally vague because it doesn't have to be spelled out, and therefor gives a player freedom to emote. For example, out of combat you could just be holding a bunch of shit in your arms, and tucked under your arms. In combat those backpacks are probably haphazzardly thrown over your shoulders, and the bowl of stew is jammed into a pocket leaking down your tregilhair boxers. The effect of weight on objects in your inventory is a literal disadvantage, and suggests wherever the object is, it's not in an optimal place.

Out of combat you can adjust as needed. I'll hold this under my arm, jam this into my belt, throw this over my shoulder, and then pick up Lady Fancypant's fallen veil, etc. In combat? Much harder. Much.

For your bat example: Have two or three friends attack you while you try to pick up the second bat in the hand holding one already. Have them, use, say, other bats or swords. Have the bat being kicked all over the place by the fighting bodies. Post back with how that went. :twisted: Just kidding Gil, we love you.

Basically I don't have issues with inventory. I can explain it away. I do have issues with someone in the heat of battle (perhaps against multiple savage foes) making those necessary adjustments to grab a scimitar off the ground when they have both hands already wielding weapons.

Course, this isn't just a reality-factor thing. We done need no steenkin' reality in our fantasy. It would, however, reduce some cheesy shit both PCs and NPCs do.

Thoughts?

[Carnage]

Those coins in my inventory are stuffed into the virtual pockets of my pants, or in a virtual purse hanging from my belt.

That extra sword may be tucked between my belt and my pants. Not secure enough to be sheathed, but it's there.

That bag my be just slung over one arm, or may be underneath my other pack.

That pile of meats could be in a bag that's in a shoulder strap over my chest.

If you want to absolutely screw over thieves, go ahead and make there be a huge penalty to having shit in your inventory. Every warrior, ranger, assassin, or combative character in town is now going to put everything in a pack.

I do, however, like the idea of a no 'get' if your hands are full. If you stop any gets whatsoever during combat, warriors with uber pumped disarm are going to rule the fucking land because you'll never be able to recover your weapons.

[Larrath]

Together with the use of the Way, the Zalanthan creatures have all been born with a pocket dimension up where the sun don't shine.  This is also why there is no need for chamberpots.  Except for Bynners, 'cuz they're such degenerates.  Or something.

*nod self*

[Gilvar]

Im not saying to add a penalty, I was saying that people seem to  be making a large fuss over picking things up with your hands full, but not thinking of the larger problems that are based on the same concept. That's like, "don't plug the hole in the boat, just start bailing water."- like lets fix all the consequential problems of the larger problem and not address it.

Basically you have the problem: "Picking stuff up with no open hands."
Well first the code takes this into consideration. You take a major combat penalty when you 'reach down to get something' including your own disarmed weapons. So we already have something to work the 'stopping in combat to reach down' thing. The next problem is where does this thing your picking up go if your hands are full. And that is your 'virtual' storage. Wheather under an arm or tucked in your belt.

With that being the case there is really no reason to make you unable to pick things up. Its along the same lines as people that eat and sleep with their weapons wielded etc.

[Carnage]

From now on, my warriors will simply disarm; get weapon; junk weapon as it seems to be endorsed as a perfectly fine technique to use.

[Dan]

Not exactly Carnage.

[Carnage]

Not exactly Carnage.

Why's that Dan?

[Agent_137]

You take a major combat penalty when you 'reach down to get something' including your own disarmed weapons.

Is this true and implemented right now? If so, what's the complaint about? It seems this answers the original request:

How about code to prevent using 'get' if your hands are full in combat.

Why take this a step further for little/no benefit/difference? If I disarm JoeBlow and he wants to incur a great penalty to reach down and grab his sword, fine! I'll whack 'em on his head more easily now.

Further more, if I disarm him, his hands won't be full anymore, now will they??? He can just grab it up like like nothing. Leave it like it is, at least now they incur a penalt.

[Carnage]

Further more, if I disarm him, his hands won't be full anymore, now will they??? He can just grab it up like like nothing. Leave it like it is, at least now they incur a penalt.

That's not the main reason for the argument.

The point is that I, as a warrior, can disarm you and just grab your weapon even while wielding two weapons, hold a shield and a weapon, or just holding onto one giant weapon. I can then just as easily junk it. If you're using a shield or etwoing something, you're basically pretty boned. Dual wielding, well, all it takes is one more round of it and then you're gone.

The 'penalty' is nothing more than a free slash, and if you time it right you can bypass it completely. Hence my sarcastic reply and my favoring of not being able to pick things up while wielding/holding things in combat. It throws warrior into the overpowered position where they can easily slaughter anyone else, and there doesn't seem to be any immortals condemning the technique either.

[Lazloth]

It throws warrior into the overpowered position where they can easily slaughter anyone else, and there doesn't seem to be any immortals condemning the technique either.

This was one of Gesht's original points here.   I'm of the opinion, however, that if it's the mechanics that are shot, fix it there rather than penalizing players.

[John]

I was holding a baseball bat one time and something in my other hand, and I was able to reach down, with the bat-holding-hand and pick up a second bat that had been left.

Was that while you were trying to fight for your life?

I think it's a good idea for in combat to stop people who have both hands full from "get"ing. Inventories are described as a pack so they're not necessarily being held.

If you want to absolutely screw over thieves, go ahead and make there be a huge penalty to having shit in your inventory. Every warrior, ranger, assassin, or combative character in town is now going to put everything in a pack.

I already do that most of the time. Not to screw over thieves, I never even thought of that. But because I prefer using coded pockets to virtual pockets.

[Agent_137]

Ok. I see where you're coming from. But this roots in a deep problem with mud room and inventory design itself.

...so...just have an immortal call it illegal, or get rid of disarming all-together. There's so many loopholes and problems and no simple solution to this.

My last mud was very H&S oriented, with a sprinkle of RP, and there was no disarm command. You could be forced to drop your weapons in certain scenarios, though, by a specific spell or by getting your hand (but not your arm) chopped off. Of course, you could just go and pick it right back up, so the spell was under-used. One big difference though, that prevented this type of abuse is that dragonrealms had no inventory system. You had two open hand slots, and then any sort of containers you had to wear. So...there's that.

[Carnage]

It throws warrior into the overpowered position where they can easily slaughter anyone else, and there doesn't seem to be any immortals condemning the technique either.

This was one of Gesht's original points here.   I'm of the opinion, however, that if it's the mechanics that are shot, fix it there rather than penalizing players.

Right, so now we have Gilvar, who's response can be interpretted as 'it's okay because there's a penalty for reaching down' versus Gesht's post. However...

As for disarm, I love watching players killing one another, and I will immediately karma-slap anyone I see grab a disarmed weapon unrealistically. You have been warned.

Where's the line for realistic? I could simply throw in an emote about navigating into position. If I get karma busted? "Oh, well there's a penalty, which makes it realistic, and I -did- emote picking it up". Voila.

[Lazloth]

..so...just have an immortal call it illegal, or get rid of disarming all-together. There's so many loopholes and problems and no simple solution to this.

One would presume that the premise of this thread is to address a viable alternative.

[Agent_137]

that is my viable alternative:

Have an immortal declare an official position.

[grog]

If you want to absolutely screw over thieves, go ahead and make there be a huge penalty to having shit in your inventory. Every warrior, ranger, assassin, or combative character in town is now going to put everything in a pack.

That's why you can now steal out of said packs, belts, cloaks, and quivers.  All it takes is a little bit of watching your mark before hand.


I really like the idea of making it impossible, IN COMBAT, to pick up something when both your hands are holding something.  If you really want to get their weapon after you disarmed it, drop your own and pick it up.  

I say that even though I have a pet peeve about people picking up their weapons two seconds after I knocked it from their hand!

[Lazloth]

that is my viable alternative:

Have an immortal declare an official position.

*shrug* It's not mine.
Fix it in the code and be done with it; you're in the wrong forum.

[creeper386]

I've honestly never seen anyone pick up a weapon they just disarmed from someone, and certainly never seen them junk it.

The only thing that's bothering me right now, is people just instantly picking up a weapon after they are disarmed as well as the people acting as if it's IC to instantly snag a weapon out of the air just after it was removed from your hand.

Anyways, again I don't see a huge problem, yes, it's a potential huge problem but maybe I'm just not playing where alot of twinks are? I don't know. I'm thinking if the staff sees/hears about disarming and getting/junking alot they should probably look into it, as it's no where near kosher IMO and start cracking down on the people that are doing it.


Creeper

[Forest Junkie]

I've honestly never seen anyone pick up a weapon they just disarmed from someone, and certainly never seen them junk it.

It's been done to me. It sucks. Bad. Then you die. Quick like.

[SailorMars]

Why take this a step further for little/no benefit/difference?

Heh, what I am suggesting is like kalans and ginkas compared to the current paradigm. You should probably understand the difference before you make a comment like this. The "great penalty" which might be too IC to describe does nothing to prevent the get unless it disables you, which is generally rare unless you like fighting silt horrors all the time.

Further more, if I disarm him, his hands won't be full anymore, now will they??? He can just grab it up like like nothing. Leave it like it is, at least now they incur a penalt.

:roll: Obviously someone with a free hand can get. The cheese occurs as Carnage described. I disarm you, reach down with both my hands full, get your weapon, junk it, or simply leave with it. Disarm is only one of many ways weapons can land on the floor during a fight, but serves as a good example.

Gilvar has more of an issue with where the object goes after you get it. I have more of an issue with how you got it in the first place, in combat.

Edit: Let's make the example more extreme. How the fuck can I yank the body armor off a corpse while I'm dual wielding in a fight? Would I? No. Can I? Yes.

Edit2: I'm starting to cuss like Venomz. Shiver.

[SpyGuy]

Another major problem here is that the penalty for getting in combat favors the disarmer, not the disarmed.  If I am using a sword and shield and someone disarms me I'm now left weaponless.  So if the guy who disarmed me picks up my weapon I get a "free" hit... with my bare hand.

In contrast, if I reach down and pick up my own weapon he gets a free hit with that bone saber he's using.  So there is a huge gap between the damage that the guy who was disarmed (who is already at a disadvantage for being disarmed) and the dual wielding warrior who grabs the weapon will deal/take.

As it stands there is no benefit (that I know of) to wielding only one weapon at a time.  Etwoing gives some plusses.  Holding a shield lets you take less damage and deflect blows.  Dual wielding gives you more attacks and increases the chance to parry.  Why not give an extra advantage to those guys wielding a single weapon, giving them the advantage of being able to 'get' while in combat and prevent others from doing so.

Also OOCly the disarmer knows when he's disarming someone, the disarmed needs to read it on the screen then react.  There is a delay there (especially if people are trying to emote in the fight) that gives a further edge to the attacker to get the weapon from the ground before the person who was disarmed.

I like disarm as a skill.  I just feel that its a serious suspension of reality to get with your hands full during combat, and also that the current system strongly favors the disarmer in more ways then just having knocked the weapon from person X's hand.

Note to self:  always carry at least two weapons around

[jhunter]

Sounds like everyone's problem with it is -only- that the disarmer's hands might be full.
So does anyone see any problem with it if the disarmer sheaths a weapon,emotes what they are doing and then picks up the dropped weapon?
It would give the one disarmed more time to pick up their dropped weapon and solve the problem of the disarmer's hands being full.

[Carnage]

Sounds like everyone's problem with it is -only- that the disarmer's hands might be full.
So does anyone see any problem with it if the disarmer sheaths a weapon,emotes what they are doing and then picks up the dropped weapon?
It would give the one disarmed more time to pick up their dropped weapon and solve the problem of the disarmer's hands being full.

Nope, I don't.

[SpyGuy]

Sounds like everyone's problem with it is -only- that the disarmer's hands might be full.
So does anyone see any problem with it if the disarmer sheaths a weapon,emotes what they are doing and then picks up the dropped weapon?
It would give the one disarmed more time to pick up their dropped weapon and solve the problem of the disarmer's hands being full.

Nope, I don't.

I agree with Carnage and jhunter here.  If someone sheathes the weapon they free up their hand and then are able to get anything on the ground.  If code supported this it would definitely be more realistic and balanced IMO.  In addition, emoting this out would go that extra step and in my mind would be able to perfectly justify the practice in most cases.

Sadly this doesn't seem to be the case as it is.

[John]

So does anyone see any problem with it if the disarmer sheaths a weapon,emotes what they are doing and then picks up the dropped weapon?

If the disarmee can do it why can't the disarmer?

[Dracul]

So does anyone see any problem with it if the disarmer sheaths a weapon,emotes what they are doing and then picks up the dropped weapon?

If the disarmee can do it why can't the disarmer?

Uhh...because the disarmee just dropped that very weapon in a hand which is no longer full because of that.

...

*sigh*

[John]

Uhh...because the disarmee just dropped that very weapon in a hand which is no longer full because of that.

But if the disarmer has just sheathed a weapon, they too have a free hand. You might want to read what I quote next time.

[Dracul]

Uhh...because the disarmee just dropped that very weapon in a hand which is no longer full because of that.

But if the disarmer has just sheathed a weapon, they too have a free hand. You might want to read what I quote next time.

I'm not sure, I paused for a moment here to reread it a few times. Maybe it's how both are phrased as questions, but you seemed to be contrasting his statement.

*sigh* I'm confused now....

[John]

I was agreeing with him

[Dracul]

Ahh...well then.

I think because you put a question mark also it looked like you were disagreeing. Damn...I really am not in an intelligent mood tonight.

[sacac]

A certain creature does that, disarm snatch deal.

[Kukichiro]

Well, you know, if you -really- wanted it both ways you could...

1. Not allow people to pick up anything while in combat, or just increase the penalty so it discourages people more.

2. Code a new skill that branches from disarm, called like 'de-weaponize' or something and instead of disarm the person, you actually grab the weapon out of their hand. Maybe at low levels of the skill, you have to have a free hand to do it, but when you are a de-weaponize master you could have two weapons equipped, and flip the weapon into your inventory. (I could see myself catching a bat if I had a bat in each hand, provided it was coming towards me in a way that I would be ready for it, ie. I flipped it to myself)

heh, deweaponize. Me fail english.  

[John]

1. Not allow people to pick up anything while in combat, or just increase the penalty so it discourages people more.

Increase the penalty to it causing you to die? Cause unless you flee, your going to die if you have no weapon

[grog]

Sounds like everyone's problem with it is -only- that the disarmer's hands might be full.
So does anyone see any problem with it if the disarmer sheaths a weapon,emotes what they are doing and then picks up the dropped weapon?
It would give the one disarmed more time to pick up their dropped weapon and solve the problem of the disarmer's hands being full.

That's exactly what I want!!!!

[Dracul]

disarm victim
:slashes at %victim exposed wrist with a vicios sideswipe
The victim's weapon clashes to the floor
:raises both blades menacingly at ~victim as he leaps towards the downed weapon
get weapon
:smirks at ~victim as his foot pins the weapon to the road.

[Quirk]

disarm victim
:slashes at %victim exposed wrist with a vicios sideswipe
The victim's weapon clashes to the floor
:raises both blades menacingly at ~victim as he leaps towards the downed weapon
get weapon
:smirks at ~victim as his foot pins the weapon to the road.

Your coded actions are at variance with your emotes. If they score a couple of hits to drive you back, or bash you, are you going to drop the weapon to signify your foot being forced off it? Even if you intend to, the lag from being bashed won't let you. This would be abusive, IMO.

Quirk

[jhunter]

disarm victim
:slashes at %victim exposed wrist with a vicios sideswipe
The victim's weapon clashes to the floor
:raises both blades menacingly at ~victim as he leaps towards the downed weapon
get weapon
:smirks at ~victim as his foot pins the weapon to the road.


Your coded actions are at variance with your emotes. If they score a couple of hits to drive you back, or bash you, are you going to drop the weapon to signify your foot being forced off it? Even if you intend to, the lag from being bashed won't let you. This would be abusive, IMO.

Quirk

A. Very little chance their going to manage to hit you without a weapon and if they are good enough to, most likely you'd wouldn't have successfully disarmed them.

B. What's to stop you from dropping the weapon as soon as bash lag wears off?

[SpyGuy]

disarm victim
:slashes at %victim exposed wrist with a vicios sideswipe
The victim's weapon clashes to the floor
:raises both blades menacingly at ~victim as he leaps towards the downed weapon
get weapon
:smirks at ~victim as his foot pins the weapon to the road.


Your coded actions are at variance with your emotes. If they score a couple of hits to drive you back, or bash you, are you going to drop the weapon to signify your foot being forced off it? Even if you intend to, the lag from being bashed won't let you. This would be abusive, IMO.

Quirk

A. Very little chance their going to manage to hit you without a weapon and if they are good enough to, most likely you'd wouldn't have successfully disarmed them.

B. What's to stop you from dropping the weapon as soon as bash lag wears off?

I have to disagree with jhunter here, Quirk is right that your coded action and emotes disagree with one another.

A)  What if they pull out a second weapon or were dual wielding and then hit you?  Or when you used "get" what if they got the free hit off, wouldn't that signify they hit you and if in RL (likely) would have blocked you from standing on the weapon?

B) Its more a matter of your coded actions disagreeing and therefore not being IC.  I'm not going to say this is bad RP because the code doesnt allow any "guard weapon" stuff but it requires the person getting the weapon to pay close attention to the fight and drop the weapon the second he would realistically have his position moved.

[Quirk]

A. Very little chance their going to manage to hit you without a weapon and if they are good enough to, most likely you'd wouldn't have successfully disarmed them.

Very likely they have a second weapon or a shield in their off hand, or perhaps even might draw a backup weapon if they were disarmed of a two-handed weapon (a somewhat ludicrous notion in the first place, as I'm sure X-D would point out). Don't assume a successful disarm leaves your opponent defenceless.

B. What's to stop you from dropping the weapon as soon as bash lag wears off?

Provided you do not stand up before dropping the weapon, that would be somewhat adequate, although by delaying the recovery of the weapon you're getting a free strike or two at their expense from the prone position. If you do stand before dropping the weapon, you're negating the breathing space they should have had to pick the weapon up.

Quirk

[jhunter]

If they do draw another weapon or have another one, then doing any of this to begin with wouldn't make any sense, so I assumed they didn't.

I think it's rather ridiculous to think one would try this if the other had a weapon still.


Exactly my point, if you do it correctly. it's fair for both parties and somewhat interesting.