It seems to be a very popular belief that most situations, when it comes to combat and skills can be rp'ied through to accomplish the desired affect. This has become even more apparent with my recent rash of ideas and the feedback resulting from them.
So let me field a question to you all:
On Arm, where death is (almost always) final and 90% of the time a result of coded combat, how much effort should be invested on the code?
(Note: The 90% figure I pulled out of my ass)
I've used RP to get around code. I admit it.
When? With people. When ICly we're supposed to be evenly matched and the code doesn't back it up, we played it out. I'd much rather play out a swordfight than code it. It adds a lot more depth to the game. 'Swords clash as the agafari-eyed man swings out at the blonde-haired mercenary, piercing grating sounds echoing throughout the forest' is a lot more fun to see than 'The blonde-haired mercenary deftly parries your attack.'
How would you play out a sword fight against a raider in that case?
How would you decide who won a battle that was not a friendly match or that had deadly consequences?
My point is, there are many many many situations where code must be used. How balanced/(un)realistic does that code need to be for playabilities sake?
Having watched one of the displays I believe Carnage is referring to, I definitely agree. It's a lot of fun (and suprisingly challenging, for me) to describe just -how- you're fighting. Of course, Gith will remain completely unimpressed by your emoting skills, so it's probably a good idea to have code there to back up that fancy sword-swinging. ;)
And before you say my post was worthless, I'll include that I believe things are pretty balanced as they are now. The only thing I would like to see changed is to make emotes and says unaffected by combat lag.
Oops. I realized my final point hasn't been clear. I put roleplaying above the code. I'd rather have the code enhance it then dictate it.
Marc, I understand what you're saying. I agree, too. I fully support the code during those times. I realize we don't live in a perfect world here everyone plays fair. We're all victim to that, because we panic. At that point, I support the code. Although it's fun to root for the underdog (unless they have it coming) and hope they survive, they usually die. I'd say that's pretty realistic and well done.
And I'd like to clarify my point. I am -NOT- saying combat code should replace rp. I am saying I think the combat code needs to be as bug-free and balanced as possible with all the effort that can be mustered put into it BECAUSE most of our characters meet our end from the same code.
Personally, I'd think it would be awesome of pc's could do a "time-stop" in the spirit of mushes to mutually pause combat and emote our asses off (or something similar), but thats a whole other topic.
Making the combat code perfect and bug free is probably a goal of the imms. It's a goal of imms everywhere. Unfortunatly, 'perfect' is all relative. As new ideas come in, they come in conflict with perfection and add bugs to the system.
Not to mention that there's always going to be a group of X players calling Y skill or function overpowered, while Z players say it's fine as is. What then? It's interfering with 'perfection'.
Your statement is very general. It's like saying 'I wish the world was a perfect place'. Everybody has a different point of view of perfection, so you can't satisfy them all. The most you can do is resort to utilitarianism, doing what makes the most amount of people happy.
Quote from: "Carnage"Your statement is very general.
I think he had some specific things to address via the
kick,
bash,
subdue and
wait-state posts found in the forum. I think each was intelligibly pieced together and has my (albeit worthless) support.
Quote from: "Carnage"Making the combat code perfect and bug free is probably a goal of the imms.
Then why do we still have attack lag?
Quote from: "one man posse"Quote from: "Carnage"Making the combat code perfect and bug free is probably a goal of the imms.
Then why do we still have attack lag?
To give NPCs an avantage so that you can't outrun a pack of raptors, I imagine. I don't think it is so bug.
I put roleplay into categories, some people are better at some then others.
-Battle Roleplay (which comes into affect here)
-Noble Roleplay (It really is different, I'd say half of the nobles ever were some of the most horribly played nobles)
-Evil roleplay (not many people play this role, I happen to love it, the problematic mercenary in the byn, the insane dwarven hunter, nazi elves.
That's nearly all of them, but battle roleplay is something you acquire after a while, you just know how to roleplay when in battle, the Byn sometimes will teach you this, any Lieutenant PC you see is usually a top-notch battle roleplayer.
now i dont know whether i am just a bad rplayer but i think its completly stupid to deside who is gonna win i say if you guy is better than the other guy he kicks his ass if not his ass gets kick nbot uuuh well sinse im a raider i should win thats bullcrap. :x
About emoting combat=
Whenever I emote out combat instead of going right to kill, I always make sure that both of us have a general understanding of our relative skill levels...rarely will I emote battle with some guy in a tavern who let his mouth run, usually we just trade insults...and I always keep the emotes open-ended, and let some of their hits actually connect...adds a level of tension and excitment.
To swordmaster=
The situation you gave is hardly indicative of all emote battles, and an illogical statement. It might be better if you phrased your thoughts more clearly (punctuation, semi-decent grammar and spelling) and flesh out you statements more. From that previous post, I would disregard anything of value in the post as meaningless simply because it takes me more time to figure out what you were thinking than you spent typing it up.