Charge Skill

[Tamarin]

Oooooh you just want it to be able to attack the other MOUNTS.

[Kill4Free]

Actually that would be rather cool, but I mean like raptors, tembo, braxat, gith, scrab, things like those that a rider might run into.

[Tamarin]

Ok, but if you put that in, people are going to want to be able to use it again PCs.  I don't even know if there would be a way to distinguish PCs from NPCs in terms of something to specific as mount attacks.

And then combine it with a pair of wrist razors and clawed gloves, and you've got like 4-5 extra attacks coming to your opponent.  I think that's a bit much.

[Kill4Free]

There isnt much of a difference between an extra 3-4 attacks compared to 4-5.  And a mounts attack would be a lot slower then gloves/bracers as well as one could parry it, making most of the better PC's immune to whatever a mount would do.
I think the command to do it before was pull reigns, and it made the mount attack, and if it had the same delay as the 'kill' command, that I think it would be entirely reasonable.

[Kill4Free]

But if anything what I would like to see is less body/head/neck hits on a mounted rider, and more leg/foot hits, that alone would make it more realistic.

[Tamarin]

But if you have to "pull reins", it isn't an extra attack.  It's just a plain attack.

[Kill4Free]

True, but I meant extra, as in your character didnt do it himself.  I just like the idea of a mount attacking in combat, makes a better fight senario.
Even if they made it sorta equivalent to 'kick' on a mount, and the damage depends on the mounts strength, and the delay on its agility, that would be cool.

[Tamarin]

Ok fine, but it's not an extra attack.  An extra attack is what you get from special equipment as mentioned before.  What you want is a combat command, which I suppose would be an ok addition, but in no way necessary to the game at this time.

[SRB]

I just like the idea of a mount attacking in combat, makes a better fight senario.

Such an added bonus would:

1) Have deliriously horrid delay.

2) Have insane spam filling the screen.

3) Make rangers essentially unbeatable by other melee classes.

4) Give mounted fighters a coded advantage against ground fighters. (Give me a break)

5) Add nothing to the game, other than the four points mentioned above.

[Kill4Free]

Most additions arent necessary, like dozens of new items are created every week, and we could easily live without them.
This would just make it more fun to fight mounted, as well as making it be a fun "cool" addition to the game.

[SRB]

Most additions arent necessary, like dozens of new items are created every week, and we could easily live without them.
This would just make it more fun to fight mounted, as well as making it be a fun "cool" addition to the game.

Your argument is trite.

Such an addition is a bad idea, and would only be detrimental to the game world. (check my 4 main points in the above post)

[Tamarin]

Most additions arent necessary, like dozens of new items are created every week, and we could easily live without them.
This would just make it more fun to fight mounted, as well as making it be a fun "cool" addition to the game.

Your argument is trite.

Such an addition is a bad idea, and would only be detrimental to the game world. (check my 4 main points in the above post)

I hate to agree with SRB.  The arguments for it are weak to say the least, considering what needs to be added to the game.  And I think 12 items per week of new stuff is vastly more useful and fun than a new combat skill, especially when the new items are integrated into the crafting code (thank Gilvar...)

[Kill4Free]

Such an added bonus would:

1) Have deliriously horrid delay.

2) Have insane spam filling the screen.

3) Make rangers essentially unbeatable by other melee classes.

4) Give mounted fighters a coded advantage against ground fighters. (Give me a break)

5) Add nothing to the game, other than the four points mentioned above.

First of all, why would their be spam filling the screen from an extra attack onve every long while?

Second of all, if you read what I said, I said the attack would be similar to kick for mounted classes, does kick make warriors unbeatable?  Does it fill the entire screen with 'insane' spam?  I think not.

Mounted riders have every right to have a coded advantage over ground fighters once they learn how to ride, so far I havent seen a single reason why they shouldnt have an advantage.

And for your 5th point, that doesnt really mean anything, as we dont need an extra dozen items a week, they dont add much to the game, in fact lots of major skills, like bash doesnt add a lot to the game, maybe it should be removed due to its lack of game adding ability.

I hereby propose we remove bash on the grounds of what SRB stated.

[Agent_137]

Ok. Ignoring addition priority, because that's largely irrelevant to discussing the MERIT of an idea:

Kill's idea isn't bad. It's a fucking warbeetle. It's got big pincers meant to eat people with. A very skilled rider and a very skilled warbeetle SHOULD be able to do some damage. Maybe this is what pull reins did, maybe it isn't. I don't know. But riding a mount should give more advantages if youre AWESOME at it than just "charge." Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. but it SHOULD.

I don't think the mount should be fighting as if it was on its own, if it's going crazy biting and spinning, then staying on top would be questionable. But an extra attack now and then like those special wristwraps would be nice.


For your ideas, SRB,

1) Have deliriously horrid delay.

Depends on the final format of the addition.

2) Have insane spam filling the screen.

Depends on the final format of the addition.

3) Make rangers essentially unbeatable by other melee classes.

By warriors? I doubt that. I'm sure a warrior can handle a BEETLE and a ranger at the same time, and that's the worst case scenario. A new de-mount special command would compliment this, though. Now, this WOULD make a ranger better than all other non-warrior melee classes. And this is good, because . . . they should be. The docs call them, "Demi-warriors." They don't give this title to anyone else.

4) Give mounted fighters a coded advantage against ground fighters. (Give me a break)

This is kinda the same as point 3, but . . . so what? A -skilled- mounted fighter on a -skilled- mount that is bred for fighting SHOULD gain an advantage and be able to beat a ground opponent of equal skill.

5) Add nothing to the game, other than the four points mentioned above.

You're such a downer, you know that? Cheer up. Add more "i thinks" and "in my opinions" and you're likely to come across as less of a "THIS IS WHAT I THINK AND I'M RIGHT SO YOU CAN GO HOME" type.

[Angela Christine]

I think mounted combat should have slightly different benefits and disadvantages then it does now.

:arrow: Mounted combat should render the rider's wrist-razors, clawed gloves, and spiked bracers ineffective.  You simply aren't going to get nearly as many chances to get close enough to your target to use them.  You'd be more likely to slice open your own thigh than to score on an oponent with them.

:arrow: You should have a significant penalty to hiting man-sized and smaller creatures that are on the ground or on another mount when using small weapons like daggers and short swords.  Again you simply aren't going to be close enough to the target to get a good deep hit.  (Unless you have the freakishly long arms mutation.)  To use these weapons at all you're probably having to lean sideways off the saddle, so the penalties make sense.  Erdlu  and sunback riders might be an exception here, though even on an erdlu I'd think a very small creature like a snake with a hand-held dagger.

:arrow: Riders should suffer minor to-hit penalties when using longbows while mounted.  You can't hold the bow the usuall way because of the gigantic bug you are sitting on, most of the available mounts would be even more akward to fire a longbow from than a horse.  You can still fire it by holding it gangsa style or some other equally akward manuver, but your aim shouldn't be as precise because it is a non-ideal position.  Shortbows, horseman's bows and other small bows should work as well as usuall -- the extra height might even improve your aim a bit, but that is offset by the fact that the animal is likely to make small movements even when you tell it to stand still.

:arrow: Riders shouldn't suffer penalties when using weapons designed for cavelry and mounted hunters:  a horseman's mace, a mid-length spear, that sort of thing.   If the weapon is designed to be used from kankback, then you shouldn't be suffering penalties when using it from kankback.

:arrow: Riders should have a better-than-average chance of scoring head and neck shots against oponants on foot.  Likewise, anything smaller than a half-giant should have a hard time scoring a head or neck shot against a mounted opponant.


Tailoring the benefits of penalties of mounted combat would generally make it more satifiying, and would encourage mounted warriors to use equipment that doesn't look silly.  Unfortunately, from past topics I have the impression that mounted combat is a low priority item for the staff, because mounted combat is rarely used.  Of course it might be used more if it was better balanced, but there is no way to know.  As it is now often sergeants will tell everyone to dismount for combat, because, they say, no one fights well while mounted.


I wouldn't want mounted combat to become vastly superior for straight up melee, but I don't think it should always be inferior either.   Assume we have some "typical" rangers who like to ride and warriors who like to fight.  We'll say they have 10 days under their belts, so they are competent but not totaly badass.  All are using, say, a spear and shield.  All humans with average stats.

ranger on foot vs. warrior on foot = advantage to the warrior because warriors are the masters of melee

ranger mounted vs.  warrior on foot = small advantage to the warrior because warriors are the masters of melee, or a draw as the master rider's advantages are nutralized by the master fighter's techniques.

ranger mounted vs. warrior mounted = small advantage to the ranger, because rangers are the masters of mounted combat -- the warrior is not an expert rider, so he loses some advantage by staying mounted.

ranger mounted vs. ranger on foot = advantage to the mounted ranger.

As it is it seems like riders, even very good riders, are usually better off dismounting after an initial Charge, because of the mounted combat penalties.


Angela Christine

[Kill4Free]

Nicely said AC, I agree with everything you put down, there is nothing I can really add to that, again nicely said.

I have the impression that mounted combat is a low priority item for the staff, because mounted combat is rarely used

Yeah, it is a somewhat circular problem, the staff dont change it because it is rarely used, and it is rarely used because it doesnt really help anyone  :?

[Anonymous]

By warriors? I doubt that. I'm sure a warrior can handle a BEETLE and a ranger at the same time, and that's the worst case scenario.

You obviously have not played a skilled ranger. I mean that with all due respect.

You're such a downer, you know that? Cheer up. Add more "i thinks" and "in my opinions" and you're likely to come across as less of a "THIS IS WHAT I THINK AND I'M RIGHT SO YOU CAN GO HOME" type.

I'm sorry. I was abused as a child. =(

[SRB]

The post above was mine.

[Koala]

I think I played one skilled ranger and one skilled warrior, at least once... I am almost sure that during hand to hand combat a skilled warrior can handle a skilled ranger (on foot) plus a skilled beetle ... Again, I believe that a warrior can beat the ranger & beetle combo even if he is under the effect of skill_charge...

I love skilled beetles They are responsible of the deaths of some of my characters..

Besides that I would like to see some additions to the mounted combat code and I fully agree with AC's previous post...

[Tamarin]

If you put a maxxed (and I mean MAXXED) warrior against a maxxed (and I mean MAXXED) ranger AND a beetle, the warrior WILL die.

[Ghost]

Now you dont see MAXED guys all around, hopping and winking at you..  Maxed guys get maxed after 100+ days of playing?  What ipercentage of the playerbase is that?  And why are we getting worried about such a small percentage of playerbase?

And no.  I would put my vote on warrior even maxed cases.  Cause I have not seen a ranger on a warbeetle beat a bahamet, or a silt horror ALONE on pure melee combat.  (Please dont argue for poisoned weapons or so).

Now coming to maxing skills..  Even if a maxed ranger was able to beat a maxed warrior, why would it should bother any of us?  Maxing a warrior is relatively easier.. Maxing a ranger is more of ass harping.  So we cant just whine about their comparison AT MAXED CASES.

EDIT TO ADD:  For the original post, yes I am in favor for additinal benfits and disadvantages of mounted combat.  I personally liked AC's post a lot.

[Vettrock]

I agree with AC's post as well and would like to see some advantages to riding.  A ranger who has advanced his riding skill to the point where he can hold weapons in both hands and ride, and and aquired the charge skill, is still better off fighting on foot than mounted.  And it does take a while to get there.  Maybe at some point that is no longer the case, or maye with a war bettle it isn't the case, but from my perpective (I think I had a sunback) it was still the case.

[Armaddict]

I'm going to come back into this discussion for just one post, after reading back over the entire thread.

I wasn't saying we shouldn't have bonuses to mounted combat.  It's more along the lines of I don't want them just tossed around.

I don't think average joe ranger should just be able to hop on a kank, powergame his skill, get really good at ride, and become a kickass mounted fighter.  For cavalry to be effective, a good amount of training in the saddle, as well as training out of the saddle has to take place.  Not only this, but cavalry must be used -effectively-, using tactics and such, in order to be at any sort of advantage against other forces.  Just because you know how to ride well doesn't mean you can -fight- and ride well.

If it were decided to improve mounted fighting, I'd much rather have it be something you had to actually work for and develop, IC'ly, rather than just giving bonuses as a whole to all riders who happened to get a good ride skill.  There are just too many factors that can completely nullify a mounted unit's advantages.

Thus, I think it would be something that would have to be appropriately handled by an immortal who would decide whether or not those advantages are present.  But that puts even more of a workload on immortals who are already busy improving this game in ways that are more of a necessity.

-That- is what I wanted to say, but my past posts sounded more like I was in disapproval of the whole idea, so I wanted to clarify.

[Grey Area]

Why not just have a mounted_fighting skill, like any other? It'll only be available to certain classes/subclasses (some might have to branch it), and would require just as much training as anything else. It could even be made specific to certain mounts, such as warbeetles.

[Armaddict]

Because you can powergame to get it, and being effective in cavalry is something that is trained and taught, not learned.

As of now, I think the game pretty well reflects how cavalry can be if you learn it on your own.  For significant advantage to come, some -thought- has to go into it, and it has to be trained into the unit.