Armageddon General Discussion Board

So, I was wondering about the charge skill.  You get your mounting running at something, and knock it over.  Great.  But right now it just seems like another way to bash, when it could be a bit more.

What do people think about adding in directional functionality?  So, for example, you could charge tregil north.  I would envision that if you did that, it would first set your mount to running.  Your mount would then run north, charging the critter.  For most things, I guess this wouldn't be that useful, but for fleeing creatures...at that point if you fail your charage, the critter flees.  If you don't fail your charge, a further check of the critter's speed vs your mount speed and your charge skill vs the critter's flee skill is done.  If you fail, the critter still flees.  If you don't fail, the critter is knocked to the ground instead of fleeing.

I see this basically as a way to run something down.  As most fleeing critters seem to be small, running them down on your mount would seem to me a possibly effective strategy, moreso than running after them until their movement points drop to zero would suggest.

AFAIK, each room - at least, outdoors - is equivalent of between a mile and a league in distance.

Quote from: "From the Measurement Doc"...a mile being 5333 cords and a league equalling three miles

I can't envision someone charging their mount at top speed for a mile, or two, or three, just to try knock someone over.  That'd leave your mount exhausted.  It seems more reasonable to keep it limited to the immediate area.

What if both people are on the edges of both rooms? Closer to each other. Not everyone is in the middle of an outdoors room at all times. It is all how you rp it.

Carru do it, the charging people into other rooms.. So.. a president has been set that it's apparently possible.

Quote from: "Username"AFAIK, each room - at least, outdoors - is equivalent of between a mile and a league in distance.

Quote from: "From the Measurement Doc"...a mile being 5333 cords and a league equalling three miles

I can't envision someone charging their mount at top speed for a mile, or two, or three, just to try knock someone over.  That'd leave your mount exhausted.  It seems more reasonable to keep it limited to the immediate area.

Actually, if you set your mount to run, you can run several rooms before it tireing, so I don't that that this charge function would make much difference to that.

I agree that something should be done to the charge skill so that it's not just another guild's version of bash.

Quote from: "jhunter"I agree that something should be done to the charge skill so that it's not just another guild's version of bash.

I dunno.  I like charge exactly the way it is.  It's not as beefy as bash, and comes at a higher risk.

Quotejhunter wrote:
I agree that something should be done to the charge skill so that it's not just another guild's version of bash.


I dunno. I like charge exactly the way it is. It's not as beefy as bash, and comes at a higher risk.

Right...not as beefy as bash...yet you are using a beast many times larger than most humanoids to do it...and it comes with more risk.

I think it should be a bit stronger than a bash from your average humanoid warrior.

As someone else said, there are beasts that can knock you an entire league with a bash.

Charge as it stands is just repetition of a skill in a different form.  I like this idea alot, take away charge's bash aspects (which jhunter points out are a little unrealistic) and put in something that will help with hunting, etc.  I like this idea alot, maybe even as an addition enable lances or something of the like (spears, etc.) to be able to be braced and do extra damage when you use them combined with charging into another room.

Seems to me to make mounted combat still useful, more unique and a little bit more accurate.

Maybe change it so that charge is more like a ride by attack.

You must have a weapon wielded, you must have a target within the same room or up to one room away...so you could charge "critter" north

If it's in another room you'd move the proper direction...charging toward the target...if successful, you land an extra powerful hit (due to your increased momentum) continuing that direction into the room on the other side.

If unsuccessful, you pass it by, missing your target.

A critical failure would be that you miss and your mount throws you, also that the target would then attack in defense of itself.

Maybe something like that. *shrugs*

It sounds nice, but...

...do the proper saddles and riding equipment exist in Zalanthas to keep you on your mount if you do a charging strike at something?

It'd be nice if you could charge in and strike something with your mount, I guess, but jousting-style mounted cavalry charges seem unrealistic.  Besides, half the fun of hunting is tracking down those damned auto-fleers.

I was thinking the current way, in which your mount knocks something over, only being able to charge at something a little further away.  Not so much a cavalry charge, but more like running something to the ground.

I still say with it being that way...it should have the potential to do more damage.

As it is it's really unrealistic that a kank slamming into someone at a charge and trampling over them doesn't do anymore than a human warrior bashing them with their shield.

The stun damage is substantially higher. I've knocked out an animal on a single charge before.

Okay, still doesn't change the fact that the overall damage should be higher.

Getting trampled by an animal many times your size is going to fuck you up, broken bones and shit most likely.

jstorrie wrote:

Quote...do the proper saddles and riding equipment exist in Zalanthas to keep you on your mount if you do a charging strike at something?

I'm sure there are saddles, since I have seen saddlebags in the game before.  However, I doubt these are of the sort that would keep you in place once you hit something on your mount.  Just basically a pad of toughened leather or strapped-down blanket.  

I have seen it written before that the stirrup does not exist in the game, which is really the advance in our world which allowed for cavalry to play major roles in battle.  Without that loop of metal (hence why it isn't found in the game), the rider would be less balanced in the saddle and thus very likely to be thrown off his horse after charging into something.  

BTW, I don't like the idea of lances and jousting and whatnot entering into this game.  That's more of a western RL thing from ages past (and the knights had the stirrup to brace themselves, which we don't) which doesn't at all fit into the game world.  I could see a hit and run saber swipe or that tactic of charging past and shooting arrows backwards (forgot the people who first did that).  However, jousting would be too out of place.

Wow, stirrups are only made out of metal? That's interesting ... I'm sorry, but I DOUBT that things aren't that advanced. They'd HAVE to find a way to secure themselves to their mounts. Maybe not a saddle and stirrups but it's not that advanced for some sort of riding harness. I mean, they AREN'T riding horses. Most mounts in the game wouldn't work with a modern saddle/stirrup idea. Or even really an older saddle.

But, most likely there is still a way to secure one to ones mount. Otherwise, I don't see how it'd be even possible to STAY on one. Just a blanket or piece of leather wouldn't keep you in place on a shell.


Creeper

And still...nowhere can I find where it says there are no stirrups on Zalanthan saddles.

If anyone can find such documentation please let me know.

Quote from: "jhunter"And still...nowhere can I find where it says there are no stirrups on Zalanthan saddles.

If anyone can find such documentation please let me know.

Quote from: "jhunter"And still...nowhere can I find where it says there are no stirrups on Zalanthan saddles.

If anyone can find such documentation please let me know.

There is also no documentation stating that there are not nuclear weapons.

The stirrup is a relatively modern invention.  The world existed for thousands of years with people riding horses without anyone thinking to throw a loop on the bottom of a saddle for the feat.  The romans, whose civilization I would say surpasses those of Zalanthas, did not have the stirrup.  It is entirely possible that Zalanthas has not developed the stirrup either.

Further, there is a difference between fighting atop a mount and simply riding on it.  In order to fight atop a mount you need a way to be able to basically throw your weight and the weight of the animal you are riding into a swing.  If you can't do that, you are going to be on your back the second your weapon meets any resistance.  If you tried to use a lance without a stirrup, the first idiot to put anything in your way is going to send you on your back.  If you even tried to use a sword without a stirrup you are not going to be fighting to any advantage.  You are in fact going to be fighting at a disadvantage as you can't use the momentum of your body to swing and if you swing too hard you will find yourself on your back.  There is a very good reason why the Greek and Roman armies did not have the terrifying calvary that was seen during the middle ages.

More to the point, the code is pretty clear about the issue.  If you fight atop a mount and you are not a master rider, you are going to be fighting on your back in the dirt on short order.  The code states pretty clearly in my opinion that you are riding without a stirrup or any other device that would give you the leverage to effectively fight atop a mount.  I fail to see how anyone can argue what the code makes crystal clear.

As to the original topic of the charge skill, I don't ever want to see it become some uber powerful skill.  Mounted fighting is suppose to be suck for most and be difficult for the rest, that goes triple if you are riding a pack animal into combat (read as kank).  Just because something is relatively big doesn't make it a powerful war animal.  I wouldn't want to ride a cow or donkey into battle even though it is much bigger then I am.  Some animals are meant for war, others are meant for carrying large objects over long distances.  If a ranger wants a deadly war animal, great, but it shouldn't be the same animal that he rides across the known world without resting.

If true war animals are feeling a bit underpowered, then I wouldn't mind seeing it get tweaked, but if the complaining is because a newbie ranger isn't able to take out Mek's atop his kank, I am less then sympathetic.

QuoteThe stirrup is a relatively modern invention. The world existed for thousands of years with people riding horses without anyone thinking to throw a loop on the bottom of a saddle for the feat. The romans, whose civilization I would say surpasses those of Zalanthas, did not have the stirrup. It is entirely possible that Zalanthas has not developed the stirrup either.

This is on Earth...many things about Zalanthas are WAY different than on Earth.

QuoteMore to the point, the code is pretty clear about the issue. If you fight atop a mount and you are not a master rider, you are going to be fighting on your back in the dirt on short order. The code states pretty clearly in my opinion that you are riding without a stirrup or any other device that would give you the leverage to effectively fight atop a mount. I fail to see how anyone can argue what the code makes crystal clear.

This is simply untrue, even with stirrups an unskilled rider can easily be thrown just trying to maneuver the animal...stirrups are not a guarantee that you will be able to stay on if you don't know what your doing.

I do know quiet a bit about riding, I'm from Montana and have been raised around horses my entire life.

It does seem that mounted combat is pretty weak, even for a master rider with the charge skill on a war-animal.  It's still better to just be on foot in most cases.

I'd say that considering that bash is an almost useless skill for failing to do what the helpfiles promise it does, then charge is going to be that much worse.  I love bash nonetheless, just for the thrill of shoving your opponent to the ground through pure brute strength.

Charge on the other hand, I would say never makes sense to use.  And if there aren't any situations to use a skill, why even have it?

Quote from: "Rindan"... the code is pretty clear about the issue.  If you fight atop a mount and you are not a master rider, you are going to be fighting on your back in the dirt on short order.  The code states pretty clearly in my opinion that you are riding without a stirrup or any other device that would give you the leverage to effectively fight atop a mount.  

If you are not a master rider, stirrup or not stirrup, saddle or not saddle, you are going to be fighting on your back.  I know how to ride IRL.  I have had the experience.  But give me a sword or a lance, and I wll show you how to fall off the saddle even with a stirrup.

And I do believe, people should have something to stay on the mounts, if they are riding an insect.  There are some riders, who can stay on the mounts thorough all the fight.  No matter how good a rider they are,, they can not stay on a piece of naked shell while fighting for their lives.  

For the mount types.  Yes kanks can be considered pack animals.  And may be an erdlu is not a heavy cavalry mount either.  But there is the issue of War beetles.  I dont know have you checked how much strength a beetle might have.  Well I have witnessed many beetles, and I know if someone charges me with one of them, I am pretty sure that I will be fucked up a way much more than a human warrior's slamming me with a shoulder or a shield.

Well.. The topic is going to some other arguements here.  Twilight made a point and I totally agree, that is, you should be able to charge people from a league or a few leagues away.  Ride by attack suggestion might be a little hard to put into the game, but maybe some added damage might be good at all.

I think your all underestimating the capabilities of a highly-skilled charger. Things aren't as bleak as you people make them out to be. Charge is a powerful skill and it isn't as much of a bash clone as it is being made out as.

Quote from: "Ghost"And I do believe, people should have something to stay on the mounts, if they are riding an insect.  There are some riders, who can stay on the mounts thorough all the fight.  No matter how good a rider they are,, they can not stay on a piece of naked shell while fighting for their lives.

It is called a saddle.  The saddle was invented long before the stirrup.  One does not demand the other.  I don't think anyone was suggesting that people ride atop insects on their bare shells.  What was suggested is that the essential piece of equipment to fight as effectively atop a mount as people want is missing.

Quote from: "Ghost"This is on Earth...many things about Zalanthas are WAY different than on Earth.

The fact that Zalantahs is not Earth is a moot point.  That just means that they either could or could not have the stirrup.  Seeing as how I have never seen one, never seen a description even suggest one, and that with only a few exceptions fighting is done on foot, I would say it is a pretty good assumption that they don't exist.

Further, to be even more blunt about what the code says, a ranger with absolutely perfect riding skills is at best the same as a ranger with the same combat skills standing on the ground.  In other words, even the best mounted warrior does not get an inherent combat advantage, which spells out very clearly that the stirrup does not exist.  If a ranger is going to get any sort of advantage from being atop his mount it is the fact that he is more maneuverable on a tactical level (running and chasing) or because the mount itself is some how participating in the battle through charging or some other script.

The simple point is that mounted combat on Zalanthas is not king and is not meant to be.  It has its advantages, but they are not in raw brute power.  A ranger atop his mount is a scary thing, but not because he can ride into a pack of warriors and kill them all without being dismounted.  The advantage is that if the ranger can separate the people on the ground with their own mounts, which is a much easier task when you can fight from a mount, he can basically walk circles around them and attack at a distance at his leisure.

Zalanthas has its own unique take on mounted combat that is different from medieval Earth.  This is a good thing.  A mounted warrior is a quick thinking mans warrior who might be able to fight up close, but more likely just wants to stay out of range and do hit and runs.  I have no desire to see it changed such that a ranger just needs to type 'mount kank' to suddenly be bad ass at hand to hand combat.

My point is you are making assumptions that stirrups do not exist with no  -concrete- evidence to back it up.

I'm not saying I think there are stirrups, I'm not saying I think there aren't.

I think it's something that the imms need to decide and let us know at this point.

I suggest that stirrups do in fact exist in Zalanthas. My supportive evidence is the fact that riding boots exist. The function of riding boots is that their heels are made in such a way to fit in stirrups. Without the heels being designed to serve this purpose, the boots would be some other kind of boots, and not specifically riding boots.

So there. Nya.

You've got a good point there Bestatte.

They could also be riding boots in the same way that some people have ponytails.   Because it gives us a visual image OOC for something IC.  

And if they were IC riding boots, then maybe they are called that because they have a spike on the side that you can stick into a kank shell to keep herself on the fecker?

Then one might as well carry a dagger, and stan the kank in the back to get it to move faster, and yet, somehow, I dont think that will work out too well.

It was noted that Rome didn't have stirrups.  I'd like to note that they also had an effective cavalry.  So, if they indeed didn't need stirrups, neither should we.

Mounted fighting is something I've thought about a lot, ever since playing here.  The constant argument of 'earth vs. zalanthas' never tires.  I do, however, feel that with significant skill with an animal, especially a 'war mount', one that is bred for combat, a mounted opponent should be a guy you don't want to deal with.

But you're all thinking too directly.  We do -not- want to put uber bonuses on mounted fighting, otherwise that's all we'll see.  Getting a mount is just far easier on zalanthas for the common man than it was in earth's history.  So there is a balance issue that has to be taken into account.

As to the charge skill, I've had very little exposure to it.  If it -does- work just like bash, as in the damage is minimal and it doesn't even stun the target...it really -will- need to be revamped.  I understand the need to keep things fair, but considering that it's a fairly hard skill to get for most people, as well as the factors involved...a toned down 'charge' shouldn't exist.  It's a pretty brutal skill, realistically.

Having used charge myself, I can tell you it's great, and that it doesn't need to be tweaked at all.

Charge is basically bash :P  With the penalty that you have fight mounted afterwards with the charge delay.

Although It does make rather cool setups for emoting.

You say with a penalty of fighting mounted afterwards.

You have to do plenty of mounted fighting to -get- the skill.  If it's a penalty to be mounted fighting for your character, and not his style, then how'd you get the skill?

I said the penalty of mounted fighting, as compared to fighting on the ground.  Dismounting and fighting on foot, is almost always better, and if you are a master rider, you are just as good mounted as on foot.  Im not sure on the damage charge can do though, I do know it does some stun, as I was charged by an inix before, but for the most part, it isnt really a pratical move.

Fyi, there are saddle AND stirups IG.  While I know the former are represented with objects, the latter are represented in the descriptions of certain mounts and other items.  Unless those are changed (and they haven't been for a LONG LONG time) or the immortals say something definitive I'd have to say stirups exist.  Whether they are widely used is another debate.

Quote from: "Kill4Free"but for the most part, it isnt really a pratical move.

You are -extremely- mistaken.

Quote from: "Tamarin"You are -extremely- mistaken.

I've spoken with people that disagree with you completely.  Personally, I think you should either add some supporting facts to your arguement or stop being contradictory.

Bash is a worthless skill because it doesn't do what it advertises in the help file.  That is, it doesn't transfer the skill's delay to your opponent if you use it succesfully.  The end result is that a skill which clearly seems to be coded to stop people from fleeing makes it even easier for them to flee if you use it succesfully, since they can stand up and flee three rooms away before your delay ends.

In my experience, charge is just like bash except you are mounted.

I have been charged by a mounted PC, and and lost all my stun points to be completely knocked out.  So yes, it is a useful skill.

I was charged by a wild inix, and I only lost a handful of stun.

Congrats.

There is a randomness factor to add into this, as well as how high the skill is, and -probably- the type of mount used, as well.

Me, personally...I'd use the charge skill even if it was -identical- to bash because it makes a fighting style.

I don't just go for max damage.  I go for a certain style that makes sense for my character.  Usually, I already know what weapons my characters will use before I enter the game, based on his background and character concept.

I don't just shop around for 'dude!  That item looks like it does so much damage!'

The only varying factor to this, is strength.

As noted in another thread today, I'd like to see the minute discussions of mechanics reigned in (so to speak.)  This thread is close to being locked.

Agreed.  Lock it up.

Yes, Rome had an -effective- calvary, but that's all. It wasn't great, it wasn't fantastic, and it wasn't the key to roman military power. Repeatedly, their calvary took a backseat to their footmen. And only sometimes would it defeat the enemy calvary, and then flank the enemy footmen.

The calvary did win some bouts with other nations' calvaries, but I don't think they had saddles, either.

You can ride bareback, you can fight bareback, but it damn sure isn't as easy as with a saddle.

Quote from: "Twilight"So, I was wondering about the charge skill.  You get your mounting running at something, and knock it over.  Great.  But right now it just seems like another way to bash, when it could be a bit more.

What do people think about adding in directional functionality?  So, for example, you could charge tregil north.  I would envision that if you did that, it would first set your mount to running.  Your mount would then run north, charging the critter.  For most things, I guess this wouldn't be that useful, but for fleeing creatures...at that point if you fail your charage, the critter flees.  If you don't fail your charge, a further check of the critter's speed vs your mount speed and your charge skill vs the critter's flee skill is done.  If you fail, the critter still flees.  If you don't fail, the critter is knocked to the ground instead of fleeing.

I see this basically as a way to run something down.  As most fleeing critters seem to be small, running them down on your mount would seem to me a possibly effective strategy, moreso than running after them until their movement points drop to zero would suggest.

I like it!    It would be at running speed, so you would lose more stamina than walking, but not all your mount's stamina.

If successful, the critter is on the ground and normal combat ensues, just like if you charge a critter in the same room as you.

If you fail to hit the critter, then they get their normal flee check if they are an auto-flee creature.  

If you fail to trample the creature and it is not an auto-flee creature, then normal combat ensues.  

For the sake of balance and sanity, charging a creature from far away (adjacent room) should be a more difficult feat than charging from nearby(same room).  The pounding of hooves (or equivelent) is more likely to alert the prey.  The fact that you are going at top speed for a long sprint may also make it harder to manuver if the bunny hops a few feet to the left at the last minute.  Making distance charging a little more difficult than local charging means that not only is your chance of missing the target higher, but your chance of being thrown on your ass is also higher.  With bad luck you wind up on your ass,  you just had the breath knocked out of you (under a movement delay so you can't stand instantly)  and you are slightly dammaged/stunned, while the target either flees or attacks you -- neither is a good situation.  It would be a risky manuver, as it should be.


Mounted combat would also benefit enormously by returning "pull reins" perhaps under a different command name since pull sometimes gets confused with quivers.  A command that lets trained mounts do minor combat tricks.  It isn't a decisive advantage, but it is damned stylish.  Especially the echos when you do the trick outside of combat.

* * *

On a related note, we could consider running bash and running subdue.  You basically charge at full speed toward the enemy, and throw yourself at him.  I suppose it is more like a "tackle" than bash or subdue.  If you succed you are both on the ground, and you have the target subdued.  A partial success would leave you both on the ground.  A failure would leave you both standing (you misjudged and ran past the guy) and a critical failure would leave you alone on the ground with your face in the dirt, while the other guy is still standing.


Distance doesn't matter:
I wouldn't worry too much about distance, distances are kind of fluid, because the "room" system is artificial outside of buildings.  Code wise you have point blank range and REALLY, REALLY FAR AWAY.  You can't charge from 40 yards away, because that isn't a distance the code understands.  A wilderness room may be a mile or a league accross, but that doesn't mean that you are a mile away from the guy in the next "room".  You might be on the very western edge of your room, and he might be on the eastern edge of his room, so you are only a couple feet apart.  If we really assumed that we were always a league apart, then throwing a spear at a guy in the next room would be practically impossible and foolhardy.  Even Superman would have trouble shooting an arrow two or three rooms away (6-9 miles) no matter how good his bow is, because not only would it be almost impossible to propell the missile that far, your accuracy at that distance would be nil -- normal arrows just can't preform under those conditions.  So we fudge the distances to make long-range manuvers possible.

AC

QuoteYes, Rome had an -effective- calvary, but that's all. It wasn't great, it wasn't fantastic, and it wasn't the key to roman military power. Repeatedly, their calvary took a backseat to their footmen. And only sometimes would it defeat the enemy calvary, and then flank the enemy footmen.

Actually, time and time again, calvary were part of the key to winning battles, as even a relatively small amount, could route massive amounts of infantry, once their formation was broken up.  Their only weakness, was that they couldnt attack fortified positions, or infantry that were in a solid formation, thats why other infantry were used to break them up.  Numbers of infantry didnt really matter, only really highly trained infantry, or infantry that were well prepared, could hold against them.
Even, say, 5000 calvary, if they broke through the defenses, could route 4,5 times that many men.
The time when they stopped being effective, and one of the most important parts of war, was after the longbow was invented, as calvary just got slaughtered at that point, far before they could reach their targets.

Quote from: "Xygax"As noted in another thread today, I'd like to see the minute discussions of mechanics reigned in (so to speak.)  This thread is close to being locked.

I'd like some clarification on that.

Quote from: "Kill4Free"

Actually, time and time again, calvary were part of the key to winning battles, as even a relatively small amount, could route massive amounts of infantry, once their formation was broken up.  Their only weakness, was that they couldnt attack fortified positions, or infantry that were in a solid formation, thats why other infantry were used to break them up.  Numbers of infantry didnt really matter, only really highly trained infantry, or infantry that were well prepared, could hold against them.
Even, say, 5000 calvary, if they broke through the defenses, could route 4,5 times that many men.
The time when they stopped being effective, and one of the most important parts of war, was after the longbow was invented, as calvary just got slaughtered at that point, far before they could reach their targets.

Alright, maybe post-republic, but not -during- the republic, which is what I'm studying now. The only strategy they had during the republic was (at best) attack with a long line, have the middle fall back, and then have the sides flank the enemy (and calvary can come help too, if they survive their engagement).

Then obviously they didnt know how to use calvary ;)
Study Hannibal, he destroyed several roman armies, and his calvary was what did it.

Quote from: "Kill4Free"Then obviously they didnt know how to use calvary ;)
Study Hannibal, he destroyed several roman armies, and his calvary was what did it.

Hannibal was the shit, Rome only won when they finally refused to engage him, and then just wear him down until they could attack carthage and make him go home. Flammius, or something, was the Roman Consul's name who came up with that plan.

Kind of like what George Washington did with the continental army. Keep the filthy redcoats on their toes and ready for battle, but never give battle.

See? And some people say history is worthless. There are too many modern parallels . . . best to learn from past mistakes than repeat them.

Ok.... back to topic. Heh.

Yeah I know, I studied his battles a decent amount, quite impressive stuff ;)

Quote from: "Kill4Free"Then obviously they didnt know how to use calvary ;)
Study Hannibal, he destroyed several roman armies, and his calvary was what did it.

Some historians disagree strongly with the notion that cavalry is a decisive factor for most of the really successful historical powers.  A book called "Carnage and Culture" by Victor Hanson addresses the subject really effectively by analyzing nine historical battles (or series of battles) which actually hinged not on cavalry, but on what the author calls "shock" infantry.  His core argument is that western cultures, whose soldiers preferred direct and decisive infantry combat, have often enjoyed victories over other, more maneuver-oriented cultures, even when vastly outnumbered.

Cavalry have a number of telling weaknesses when faced with well-organized, boldly led infantry....  cavalry on Zalanthas may lack some of these weaknesses (since, for example, a kank may be more maneuverable and versatile than a horse).

Also, Hannibals great victories had more to do with his being a strong (and inventive) leader, and his enemies being weak ones, than any particular advantage of cavalry.

What topic?

Yea, it's funny. Every single republican war, the romans are like:
"Hey, lets throw some men at the enemy, lose a couple of battles until we get everything figured out. Then, we'll know the land, not get fucked in ambushes, and then we'll throw MORE men at them. We're the shit!"

Well, I just want to say I like the idea of being able to charge from a room away.

Quote from: "RandomMonkeys"Well, I just want to say I like the idea of being able to charge from a room away.

Nod, because rangers & npcs need more ways to kill from afar.

QuoteSome historians disagree strongly with the notion that cavalry is a decisive factor for most of the really successful historical powers. A book called "Carnage and Culture" by Victor Hanson addresses the subject really effectively by analyzing nine historical battles (or series of battles) which actually hinged not on cavalry, but on what the author calls "shock" infantry. His core argument is that western cultures, whose soldiers preferred direct and decisive infantry combat, have often enjoyed victories over other, more maneuver-oriented cultures, even when vastly outnumbered.

Cavalry have a number of telling weaknesses when faced with well-organized, boldly led infantry.... cavalry on Zalanthas may lack some of these weaknesses (since, for example, a kank may be more maneuverable and versatile than a horse).

Bold infantry will only get so far, but it isnt near the key part of the battle for most fights.  For instance, in the battle of new orleans, the americans were far from bold, they hid their troops, in trees, ground, made traps, and the British were bold, just marching in there, and you see how far it got them ;)  They did the same thing on the battle of the sommes, and were slaughtered.
In medieval warfare, bold troops can have the advantage, but it wasnt the boldness that was the deciding factor, it was moral.  Just marching in and attacking the enemy, will hurt their moral if they dont expect it, and moral was one of the main things in almost all battles.
The thing about calvary, is that if you get attacked by one, the only thing you want to do is back up, get out of the range of its hooves, and the dudes sword/lance, other people see them backing up, so they back up as well, then as the calvary advanve further, you have to run to back up fast enough to get away, that is where their moral takes a massive blow, they are no longer a cohesive fighting unit, but a bunch of individuals.
Infantry can win a battle, but odds are, that most of the enemy troops will escape, and possibly regroup.  With calvary, to run away, is to die, and running is the only choice a single person has.  Only a strong group effort, with brave well trained men, can hold up against it.

Take the wars in the 1800's for instance, the British had 'square' formations, designed specifically to defend against calvary, and if you werent in a square, even a small number of calvary could wipe out a small army.
But since they were closely packed in a square, the artillery didnt have much trouble shooting them, so they would get slaughtered by the artillery.  So even the threat of calvary being close, was enough to basically wipe out companies.

The main evidence of calvary was in medieval times, where the French had knights, the knights could charge almost any infantry formation, and as long as their army held together, and charged all in a straight line, they would destroy armies, with almost no losses to themselves.
Their only real weaknesses, were fortified positions, and british longbowmen.  Fortified positions, basically included spiked walls, lots of small pits, to break horses legs.  But the British longbowmen, basically they could shoot their arrows through a bracelet at a hundred yards, and their bobkin arrows (basically just a long narrow metal tip at the end) could break through any armor, and that would break up the french formations.
But at that time, calvary owned the open grounds (as long as longbowmen werent there, the armor they wore made them almost immune to the typically used shortbow though), to not have calvary was generally to die.[/quote]

For instance, the way Hannibal destroyed the first Roman army (and keep in mind that the Romans were bold, well trained, and well armored troops, and Hannibal's troops, werent very well equiped, or trained) was he attacked the roman army head on, in a long line.  Then he made the troops in his center pull back, and since the Romans believed they were cowardly barbarians, they followed them.  Eventually they had the romans enveloped in a half circle (the Romans still had the advantage), then he charged the roman army (I think it was 40,000 troops) with 5000 calvary from behind, and since the Romans couldnt retreat anywhere, and mounted men have -every- advantage over ground troops in close combat (especially the romans, since they only had short swords) the entire army was slaughtered.

When Hannibal went back to carthage, to defend his homeland, he actually outnumbered the roman infantry, quite badly, but he had a fair bit less calvary, and I believe we all know the outcome of that battle ;)

The main reason why calvary have all the advantages over ground troops, is that
1) You cant get close to the horse, as it is kicking, biting, always moving, and its very hard to get a deathblow on it.
2) You cant really hit the rider well, his legs are usually -very- well armored, since they dont have to carry themselves, and its almost impossible to reach up, and deal a death blow, or even a major blow to a mounted rider, but meanwhile, he can get headhits on almost anyone below him.

I think the charge skill would be good enough, if there was a mounted advantage, I dont think it would be hard to increase the number of leg and foot hits on you, as opposed to body or head strikes, and increase the amount of head/neck hits on your foe (for a master rider of course, a typical rider couldnt even stay on a mount while its jumping around during a fight).  Cause it just doesnt make sense, that if you are skilled in riding, but not a master, your opponent has a higher change of dealing a major blow in your head or neck, I just dont see how that happens, as for most of the beasts/pcs/npcs in the game they are shorter then you while mounted.

We've discussed mounted advantages before, and it is a general consensus that with things the way they are now on Zalanthas, there is not a mounted advantage.

Some changes must take place to make mounted fighting a better situation for the rider.

Quote from: "Kill4Free"and keep in mind that the Romans were bold, well trained, and well armored troops, and Hannibal's troops, werent very well equiped, or trained)

Quote


Quite the opposite, actually.

The roman troops were city-militia types, as they were for the entire republican period. Often they'd send a bunch of veterans home. There were no career soldiers in rome.

Hannibal had some highly trained mercs. Career soldiers.

QuoteThe roman troops were city-militia types, as they were for the entire republican period. Often they'd send a bunch of veterans home. There were no career soldiers in rome.

You understate the Romans, although at that time, they might not have been as good as they were later on.  Not to mention that they have some mercenaries too, and Hannibal didnt have a whole lot, most of his army were good fighters, but not that well trained.  The Roman's were better trained, but they werent really brought up fighting.  But they did have better armor, Hannibal's troops, mostly just had fur, and some had hardened leather, wood was quite common for shields though.

You know what though?  Those are the romans.

I have news for you.

This is Zalanthas.

We aren't riding horses.

We are riding huge fekking beetles and inix for the most part.

And you know what else we have that the Romans didn't have?

Magick.  And sorcerors.  And mindbenders.  And silt horrors.  And psionic-attack gaj.

So like...if this is going to be a discussion on the effectiveness of various earth-based cavalry systems, fine.  Put it in the OOC board.

But I repeat - this is Zalanthas.

Quote from: "Lazloth"

Quote from: "RandomMonkeys"Well, I just want to say I like the idea of being able to charge from a room away.

Nod, because rangers & npcs need more ways to kill from afar.

You wouldn't kill from afar, you'd just be able to start a hand-to-hand battle before the movement delay wore off.  Rangers are not the masters at hand-to-hand combat, and they would have to be mounted to attempt the manuver and therefore suffering mounted combat penalties when the fight started.  It would mainly be useful for hunters who wanted to be able to hunt jozhals or tregils without using up dozens of arrows.  It would give you a chance to engage an auto-flee creature before their flee check.  It isn't like you can set snares for the little buggers.

Archery is a mature ranger's real strength, so one who relied on Charge to avoid ranged combat altogether would be screwing himself in the long run.



AC

QuoteYou know what though? Those are the romans.

I have news for you.

This is Zalanthas.

We aren't riding horses.

We are riding huge fekking beetles and inix for the most part.

And you know what else we have that the Romans didn't have?

Magick. And sorcerors. And mindbenders. And silt horrors. And psionic-attack gaj.

So like...if this is going to be a discussion on the effectiveness of various earth-based cavalry systems, fine. Put it in the OOC board.

But I repeat - this is Zalanthas.

Yeah, as if a massive several ton inix would be worse to ride in a fight, or a half ton kank with a hardened carapace, compared to a horse.  The inix has a extremely tough shell as well.
I doubt the ability to fight mounted matters at all, when dealing with mindbenders, sorcerers, or even silt horrors.  And it is very unlikely that anyone will run into a gaj.
It is obvious this is zalanthas, but that doesnt mean that all of a sudden fighting mounted is worse then on foot.
All of my reasons above of why I stated why mounted riders have an advantage over not being mounted, shouldnt apply even in Zalanthas.

Now honestly what would you rather ride, a horse, or a massive insectoid with an exoskeleton, that has the power to pierce almost anithing with massive pincers?  As if that should be worse then a horse.[/quote]

you know....after three beers, on an empty stomache, and massive amounts of Counter-strike with my buddies, I really don't give a damn.

I prefer enemy territory myself, but you are right, I do need a beer.
*goes to fridge*

Quote from: "Kill4Free"Yeah, as if a massive several ton inix would be worse to ride in a fight, or a half ton kank with a hardened carapace, compared to a horse.  The inix has a extremely tough shell as well.

That's not the point.  The point is that probably no one on this game has ever engaged in any sort of mounted combat of any kind.  I would hazard to guess that only a handful, at most, have any experience with dressage at all.  And if no one here has every used a horse for combat, how can anyone here say that using a kank, beetle, ox, ratlon, suback, or inix would be an ineffective tactic?

Quote from: "Kill4Free"I doubt the ability to fight mounted matters at all, when dealing with mindbenders, sorcerers, or even silt horrors.  And it is very unlikely that anyone will run into a gaj.

I have run into all these three things more often than I would have preferred.  Again, I only brought them up here to show how much of a difference there is between earth and Zalanthas.  We don't have sorcerors, or gaj, or mindbenders, or silt horrors, to the best of my knowledge.  Things are different.  Get over it.

Quote from: "Kill4Free"It is obvious this is zalanthas, but that doesnt mean that all of a sudden fighting mounted is worse then on foot.
All of my reasons above of why I stated why mounted riders have an advantage over not being mounted, shouldnt apply even in Zalanthas.

I don't entirely understand why you are saying this.  I am in -favor- of mounted fighters having advantages.  However, this talent would have an extremely difficult learning curve to overcome, so I can see a dominant rider/fighter coming to his or her full potentioal only after many, many years of experience.  This is fully possible as the code stands now, and I have seen it happen this way in what I would suggest is an appropriate manner.

Quote from: "Kill4Free"Now honestly what would you rather ride, a horse, or a massive insectoid with an exoskeleton, that has the power to pierce almost anithing with massive pincers?  As if that should be worse then a horse.

It is irrelevant what I would rather ride, because I am Terran.  I didn't grow up in a world where horses are extremely uncommon, and everyone rides large bettles up and down the streets.  If I was Zalanthan, I would likely ride a kank if I was southern, an inix if I was northern, and a war beetle if I was from Red Storm.

The imms have created this game in such a way, along with the code, to say that "this is how things are."  In this world, mounted combat has certain advantages, including the charge skill, and debating endlessly over Terran history and our own reservations about mounted combat has no relevance whatsoever in my opinion.

If you want an opinion that counts, find a way to transfer yourself into binary and hop into the world of Zalanthas.  Then get back to me, and I might listen.

QuoteThat's not the point. The point is that probably no one on this game has ever engaged in any sort of mounted combat of any kind

From helpfiles.

QuoteThough larger and slower than kanks, domesticated war beetles are prized by mercenaries and professional soldiers alike for their thicker shells and overall strength in combat. Large armies often employ units of riders mounted upon war beetles as heavy cavalry in battle.

also you said

QuoteI have run into all these three things more often than I would have preferred. Again, I only brought them up here to show how much of a difference there is between earth and Zalanthas. We don't have sorcerors, or gaj, or mindbenders, or silt horrors, to the best of my knowledge. Things are different. Get over it.

That doesnt mean anything, I could name a dozen similarities, and earth and zalanthas are a lot closer then you might think.  In fact there are some cultures in earth, that come really close to zalanthas (I mean attitude and resource wise).  Saying a few differences means nothing at all, and I am not quite sure why you did that.

QuoteIf you want an opinion that counts, find a way to transfer yourself into binary and hop into the world of Zalanthas. Then get back to me, and I might listen.

Zalanthas doesnt have a real detailed history like earth does, so it is pretty hard to come up with senarios that might fit an example using only Zalanthas examples.  And any one that I might be able to bring up, would be considered 'too IC', so apparently you will only listen to an arguement that no one is allowed/able to bring up?

kill4free, I don't entirely understand what you are aguing.  You don't seem to have a point.

MY point is that the staff have decreed that on zalanthas, riding happens the way it does, with the effectiveness that is does, with the damage that it does, with the delays that it does.  Why are we even arguing this?

Quote from: "kill4free"That doesnt mean anything, I could name a dozen similarities, and earth and zalanthas are a lot closer then you might think. In fact there are some cultures in earth, that come really close to zalanthas (I mean attitude and resource wise). Saying a few differences means nothing at all, and I am not quite sure why you did that.

Did you even read that?  THEY RIDE HUGE ENORMOUS BEATLES FOR KRATH'S SAKE!!!  Have you ever seen a beetle that was even bigger than your foot?  No.  If you want to, I can come up with a list of about 200 ways that Zalanthas is different than earth.  As for the differences I noted before, I would have to say that they are pretty HUGE ones.  We all know that a DEFILER (something that does NOT exist on earth) pretty much raped all of the known world with the type of force that vastly outdoes any of our nuclear missles.  That one thing ALONE could count for many if not most of the differences, if you take into account possible effects of apocalypse, mutation, etc.

Through all of your "rebuttals", you still have not answered my question:

How can ANY of us know whether or not riding a big assed <insert mount here> is going to be difficult enough to offer a huge penalty to the rider?

QuoteHow can ANY of us know whether or not riding a big assed <insert mount here> is going to be difficult enough to offer a huge penalty to the rider?

Lots of large animals are ridden, like elephants for starters.  Not to mention that it does say they are extremely effective heavy calvary, and are used by armies in the helpfiles.  [Mildly disparaging remark removed]

Now answer this, if they are as effective, and as useful as the helpfiles say, why would any army use them if all they offered was a penalty?

Temper, temper.  Don't start insulting each others.

Im just getting a bit annoyed cause he reads only what he wants to  :?

Quote from: "Kill4Free"Im just getting a bit annoyed cause he reads only what he wants to  :?

Welcome to the internet.

Quote from: "Kill4Free"Now answer this, if they are as effective, and as useful as the helpfiles say, why would any army use them if all they offered was a penalty?

k4f, what on god's green earth are you talking about?  

Quote from: "Kill4Free"Lots of large animals are ridden, like elephants for starters. Not to mention that it does say they are extremely effective heavy calvary, and are used by armies in the helpfiles. [Mildly disparaging remark removed]

Um...I never said that they couldn't be ridden!!  Could you please quote me the passage where I said they can't be ridden, or aren't ridden in real life?  Yes, I know people ride elephants, and I know that they were in fact used in real life combat.  Great.  So that only proves my point that huge animals should be able to trample little tiny people with relative ease.

Alright.  Can I assume that we are both -agreeing- that they -should- be effective?  It seems to me that we are on the same side regarding that.

As for the following: "why would any army use them if all they offered was a penalty"

Answer:  they wouldn't.  They wouldn't at all.  It would be a stupid crummy idiot thing to do.

However, certain classes in the game can use mounts with no penalty, once they've trained enough.  In the real world, is that not how things go?  You suck at something when you start (ie that's the "penalty") until you get good enough with it (it that's when you get a "bonus" or "advantage"), and some people will always suck at certain things because they don't have an aptitude for it (ie merchants trying to use a sword).

I am stating my position flat out: certain classes are good at mounted combat once they've practiced it, and should be able to trample enemies with a serious amount of damage.  But this is only after a lot of experience.

Now.

What exactly are you arguing, because I -reaaaaaly- don't see it.

Quote from: "Kill4Free"Im just getting a bit annoyed cause he reads only what he wants to  :?

Not true...I'm trying to find some kind of point to what you yourself are writing.

I personally think that there is a good way to explain away why mounted combat is not so hot: Most Zalanthas animals are skittish.  So, let us say you have a big old kank.  A kank is easily the size of a horse and considering that it has an exoskeleton, probably much heavier.  You don't want this thing to step on you.  However, it has no horns or anything else that would suggest that it would naturally use charging as a defense.  Instead it has pincers that it can use in a pinch (ha ha, pun).  So, you have taken a herbivore hive animal and you tell it to charge into a group of noisy humans that are busy killing each other.  A kank might simply be too skittish to want to do it  In fact, once it is in combat and scared, it is far more likely to run like hell.  Even if you do manage to get it to charge (with the charge skill), realize that it has no horns or even a head shaped for ramming.  This is a creatures that is designed to bite.  So, maybe it can knock the wind out of you, but combined with the fact that it is skittish and simply not meant to charge, it isn't going to instantly kill anyone.

The same could be said for most Zalanthas mounts.  They simply could be skittish creatures that are impossible to really train to charge.  A good ranger can make do, but it might never have the fortitude of a Earth war horse that can merrily ride over men.  Think of it like trying to train a deer or a moose to be a war animal.  It simply might not be possible.  It isn't that a deer or a moose are physically incapable.  On the contrary, a moose as a war mount would be utterly terrifying.  You just can't train it to do it though.  So, one could assume that Zalanthas creatures are naturally skittish and finicky animals.  They are hard to train as mounts, and nearly impossible to train effectively for war.  You still might use a mount for war, but you probably are not going to use it the same way you use a horse.

Personally, I think it gives Zalanthas a neat flavor.  I like how the first thing everyone does when they meet the enemy is jump off their mount and charge forward into battle.  It gives combat in Zalanthas its own unique flavor.  I am more then happy to make rationalizations to keep Zalanthas unique in that way.

That doesn't make sense for all animals.  You know like... WAR beetles.  I think that the code should be much more forgiving to someone who is riding the right type of mount.  I'm not entirely sure whether it is or is not, though.

A war beetle might very well be better the the rest of the animals, but that doesn't mean it is going to be up to Earth standards.  It might be nice if war beetles would offer better stats for riding in combat (and they might, I have no idea), but I think it is a minor point and one I am not going to lose sleep over.  Zalanthas beasts just suck at being ridden into combat.  It doesn't take a very large leap of faith to believe that they are just poor combat mounts.  If I can accept that there I can ride a multi-ton bug to begin with, I can accep that it is just a skittish little bastard.

Im just gonna ignore tamarin, since he doesnt actually have any sort of argument, and all he does is try to say I dont have one.


As for mounts being skittish, that is possible, but I dont think a kank is a herbivor, as how would it chew plants with pincers the size of the ones it has.  It could rip something out, but unless it was a really really big leaf, it would have a hard time eating it.
Also, I have never known a kank to run away from a fight, the only times I saw them fight, they fought very well.
Also if you are good enough at riding to not have a mounted disadvantage, then one could say that you know how to control your mount well, so it wont shy away.
After all horses are herbivors, and in the wilds will run away at first sign of trouble, yet they can be trained.

Also the helpfiles arent really helpful in this situation, as it has several statements of how good some mounts are at combat, and yet there is nothing codely wise there to back it up.  Charge can be good, but it isnt as good as kick/bash/disarm overall, so even a master rider, will suffer an advantage compared to a walking warrior.

And realistically, how is something gonna hurt you bad when you are mounted, it would be nearly impossible to get an upper body hit on you if you are on the ground, compared to the fact that a mounted rider will nearly only get upper body hits on unmounted target.  Zalanthas isnt earth, but some basic rules of combat like these should still apply.

Quote from: "Kill4Free"Im just gonna ignore tamarin, since he doesnt actually have any sort of argument, and all he does is try to say I dont have one.

I have come to the conclusion that you are blind.

If you would read my posts, you could see that I have a very clear argument.

It is as follows.

The current code supporting mounted combat is fine.  A mounted ranger with maxxed ride and charge can seriously fuck up a walking opponent, and that's the way it should be.

from helpfiles

QuoteSunback : In the wild, these long-necked lizards are scavengers and small-prey hunters that appear to be more docile, or more intelligent, cousins of the raptors. They are very maneuverable as mounts, but few have the strength, raw quickness, or lasting power of a kank. But, being hunters by nature, they tend to adapt better to mounted combat, the better trained among them able to tactically utilize their heavy tails like a great whip

QuoteWar Beetle : These large, highly agressive insects are almost identical to ordinary beetles save in size. Covered in a thick chitin, typically ranging from dark browns to blacks, these beetles boast very powerful mandibles which can deliver hard bites. Though larger and slower than kanks, domesticated war beetles are prized by mercenaries and professional soldiers alike for their thicker shells and overall strength in combat. Large armies often employ units of riders mounted upon war beetles as heavy cavalry in battle.

Notice how it says highly agressive, doubt it would be skittish much.

QuoteKank : These large insectoid creatures, not wholly unlike gigantic ants, are commonly used as beasts of burden for riding and packing. They are both strong and quick for their size, eat relatively little, tend to be hardy, and when food is plentiful and younglings nearby certain drones produce a highly nutritious honey on relatively little supplied water. In the wild they form loose clutches, but survive well independently

Like gigantic ants, ants dont really try to run from something, also if they survive well independently, considering how 'harsh' Zalanthas is, and assuming they dont run from the first sign of danger (I have never seen them run away from a PC once), one can assume they know how to fight.
Also if they didnt need to fight, they would have been built for speed, and they wouldnt have had so much of an exoskeleton to reduce its weight.

QuoteGwoshi : Attacks on nomadic humans and elves have been reported, their large, clawed paws adding to their painful bite.

Doesnt sound skittish to me, if it goes out of its way to attack people.

and last of all

QuoteErdlu : These flightless, usually featherless birds are sometimes employed as mounts by the lighter races of Zalanthas, although they cannot last great distances and are not particularly strong. They are, however, quite quick and eat relatively little compared even to kanks. Great care is taken in taming them, since they are capable of wreaking great damage in a fight. Despite this, their meat is usually very tender.

It says it is able to wreak great damage in a fight, and this being one of the smallest mounts, and the only one that flees.  One would think it could be used for combat, if trained a bit.


So even directly from the helpfiles, it says, or implies, that most mounts are able, and very capable, of fighting, and something that is quite deadly in a fight, probably wont be too skittish.

k4f, why am i getting the impression that we are arguing the same point?

I dont think we are, you are arguing why charge is so good, I am arguing why there should be a mounted advantage with lots of types of mounts, as opposed to a disadvantage.

Also a warrior with bash as high as that ranger's ride, can take out any mounted ranger with ease.

You think there should be a mounted code advantage?

There is.

You need to be around awhile and learn how to use it.  Your sap who just learned to ride his kank without it being a bitch and not moving a week ago is not a master rider.  He's not going to be effective cavalry, just because he can move around mounted.

You're also thinking far too directly, as opposed to some -different- advantages.

I'd think less along the lines of 'mounted people should get combat bonuses so that they can kill more easily and everyone will start fighting mounted', and more along the lines of what being mounted -really- adds, as is.  Mobility...stamina...keep going.

I meant a mounted advantage in fighting, not just walking around.  And mobility, it lowers it if anything, as even if ride is maxed for a ranger, it is still slightly worse then not being mounted.  Very very slightly, but it still isnt as good, I think it should be the opposite.
And obviously I know that some guy who just got a mount wont be good at it right away, how else would I know anything about the charge skill?

The mobility you speak of, is not in the fight, sure you can emote, running all around the room you are in, but that doesnt really help.
It might help when you want to flee, but it is easier to dismount, fight, then mount, then flee, then just flee on your own anyway.

You still aren't thinking in broad enough of terms.  I've used mounted fighting -very- effectively.

You, unfortunately, are too stuck on run;w;kill so and so

QuoteYou, unfortunately, are too stuck on run;w;kill so and so

How so?  As a matter of fact, I have never once done that, and as for using mounted fighting effectively, you can use fighting on your own feet just as effectively.

I'm not explaining any further.  I'm not about to give away tactics of mounted combat to everyone.

But that's exactly what cavalry always needed.  Tactics.

Not just mad bonuses to hit and to damage because they're higher.  They'd still get swamped, stuck, and mutilated by other soldiers without careful planning and logical thought.  Which you are exempting when you ask for obvious bonuses to mounted combat.

Trust me.  Mounted combat already has some very decisive advantages, to anyone who experiments a little with the strengths and weaknesses of being mounted.

You can be just as decisive getting off your mount as well, and shooting from on top of a mount doesnt count as mounted combat, since you arent actually in combat.

com·bat   Audio pronunciation of "combat" ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (km-bt, kmbt)
v. com·bat·ed, or com·bat·ted com·bat·ing, or com·bat·ting com·bats or com·bats
v. tr.

  1. To oppose in battle; fight against.
  2. To oppose vigorously; struggle against. See Synonyms at oppose.


Setting a -trap- counts as combat, my friend.

We both know that isnt what we were discussing, as you dont even need to -fight- on the mount to do what you want to do, you just need to have a mount, and be able to ride it.

Okay.  Whatever you say.

I am backing out of this conversation.  But I will say that this has been brought up in the past, and without significant work IC, as well as some broader ways of thinking...I don't think you're going to get bonuses added to fighting riders.

I'm not an immortal, but that's just my opinion.

Peace.  Out.

Ok, cya later.
Ideally I would like it the way it was where mounts had their own attack occasionally, even if it doesnt happen very often, it would be fun to emote around, and would also back up all the helpfile's statements.

I don't ever remember mounts having their own attacks.

It wasnt really their own attacks, but they would help attack (alas very slowly) as a secondary fighter in combat, it was gotten rid of, because some guy found some sort of loophole to exploit it with I believe :/

So all you want is for mounts to do an extra attack, am I right?

Basically yes :P
Even if they put some code in it so you couldnt hurt pcs/npcs, so it couldnt be exploited like it was before.

Like the gloves or bracers that give an extra attack, although a bit more damaging.

Like the sunback could whip its tail, like it says in the helpfules, the war beetle could gore targets, kank shouldnt get one as it isnt really a combat animal.  But an erldu could peck things, gwoshi could bite.  It would be consistent with what the helpfiles imply, and it would make it more fun to be mounted.

It doesnt have to be often, like it tries to attack once every 30 seconds or so with maxed ride, and it will attack less often if your ride is lower.
I think that would be reasonable.

Now that I think about it, it would also help fix the problem that kanks are too good compared to everything else, if kanks were one of the few, that didnt do anything.

Quote from: "Kill4Free"Basically yes :P
Even if they put some code in it so you couldnt hurt pcs/npcs, so it couldnt be exploited like it was before.

So...you just want it to automatically emote?  Because if it can't hurt pcs and npcs (ie other players and stuff you hunt, for the most part), then it's totally useless.  You can just emote it yourself.

No I mean it will be able to hurt beasts and stuff, I meant it wouldnt attack dwarves/elves/humans/HG's/half-elves, it would be cool if it did, but I could see how someone could exploit that part of it :/
Or even if it just couldnt attack PC's.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Quote from: "Kill4Free"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.

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.

Quote from: "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.

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)

Quote from: "SRB"

Quote from: "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.

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...)

QuoteSuch 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.

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,

Quote1) Have deliriously horrid delay.

Depends on the final format of the addition.

Quote2) Have insane spam filling the screen.

Depends on the final format of the addition.

Quote3) 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.

Quote4) 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.

Quote5) 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.

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

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

QuoteI 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  :?

Quote from: "Agent_137"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.

Quote from: "Agent"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. =(

The post above was mine.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I'd like to see some maneuvers like

- attempting to shove another mounted rider off balance (increasing the chance that they'll tumble off so you can trample them)

- goading specific mounts into making a one-round attack on the person you're fighting, but only when they're on the ground (i.e. not mounted). Vaguely similar to the 'whip' code.

Neither of these would necessarily enable someone to twinkishly overpower anyone any more than 'charge' would, and with combat lag, you would have to use your smarts and a good sense of timing in the use of these maneuvers.

Imagine four or five riders, working together to time their attacks and charges in practiced maneuvers - damn that would be cool.

I also think it would be nice if a subguild could be added to give anyone the coded riding maneuvers - but not necessarily a higher ride skill cap.

Kind of like how a burglar could take the thug subguild.

Quote from: "Delirium"I also think it would be nice if a subguild could be added to give anyone the coded riding maneuvers - but not necessarily a higher ride skill cap.

I think mercenary subguild may fit to it... They should be very good at riding as the helpfiles states.

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

Please..Not again twinkable/powergamable/abusable response.

All of the skills, and by saying all skills I mean ALL SKILLS, in game can be powergamed.  Period.

And there are many, I mean MANY skills that require long lasting training. Like, Backstab, trap, steal, pick, brew...etc etc..

All of those are branchable, yet they can only be learned by training.  

QuoteI 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.

I dont get it.  Now that average Joe Ranger is going around, powergame his fighting skills on foot and becoming a kickass on foot fighter, and this is the reason why we should not have a better mounted combat code?

Powergaming your ride skill, is a lot more harder than powergaming your fighting skills on foot.

No, it's not.  Know why?  Because especially at the beginning, -everyone- will be trying to get it as fast as possible.  Thus, you'll find ten to fifteen indy rangers who are constantly fighting mounted and doing the exact same thing, and a few will actually live long enough to get it.  You missed the point of the post.

You cannot become -effective- cavalry through your own learning.  It requires instruction.  What is in game, right now, accurately reflects cavalry in it's non-refined form.  There is -not- a ranger in game right now who could refine it to it's 'bonus-to-combat' form.

Like I said, it would have to be role-played, developed, and then approved by an immortal, otherwise it'll just be another silly skill that everyone will powergame to and complain about.

Don't even try to pull that bullshit, either.  Yes, -every- skill is twinkable.  But how many do you see twinking it?  Guarantee, this skill would blow them away in the number of twinks on it.

QuoteYou cannot become -effective- cavalry through your own learning

Define effective, because as it stands, your definition of effective, means anything better then fighting on foot.
How do you think the first calvary came to be used?

Not to mention that you said it requires instruction.  How many of the dozens of skills in arm, should need to be taught to someone, and one cant realistically learn them on their own, yet people can.[/quote]

Wow...you say every skill listed above needs to be taught?  I gotta say, I have seen this mentality prove to be disastrous in terms of RP, especially when relating to newbies.

His head bowed, the small, bald man says to you in sirihish:
   "Sir, could I please take you outside the gates to practice sap on you?  I will pay you 500 coins and I promise I will bring you back inside once you're unconsious.  I can't do it here in the city because the guards don't like it.

With your head cocked in a confused manner, you say to the small, bald man in sirihish:
    "Have you lost your fucking mind??"

***

In my heart of hearts I believe that you can learn a skill to its absolute pinnacle of perfection without any sort of instruction.  Obviously not everyone could do this.  The way the code works, however, it -is- possible for an PC to become a master at the various skills he or she has (keeping skill caps in mind of course).  Is that to say that every being in the game should be able to be maxxed?  Of course not, because to me, the PC population represents that "exceptional" fraction of the population that can do really great things, supposing they live long enough.  But this is a whoooooole different debate, imho.

QuoteWow...you say every skill listed above needs to be taught?

I never said that, I said I can name many of the skills in the game where this should be so.

For example, I will take the most used one, combat.

Just because you fight a lot, realistically, does not mean you are a good fighter, it might mean you are tough, strong, but one of those ninja dudes, who was taught for a decade or so, would take him apart fast.  Only masters really make their own combat techniques, and they learned everything they know from their masters, what do you think the chances of them getting even a fraction of the skill they have, if no one at all showed them how to fight.
Your arguement was it needed teaching to be able to be effective with calvary, and learning to use a mount in combat, seems a lot easier then mastering the arts of fighting.

Also another basic example, contact, how is your characters supposed to know how to harness his mental energies like that.  I can safely assume that one has to be passed their 'teen' yeards before they can use it (hence the minimum age PC chars can be) and how would you just learn to use it, it doesnt just work, it takes a lot of concentration, and effort, almost to the point of unconsciousness, before you even realise that you can succeed.  One would think that it would need a bit of teaching to get it started.

I was talking about armaddict, not you k4f...

oops
*slaps self*

QuoteOnly masters really make their own combat techniques, and they learned everything they know from their masters, what do you think the chances of them getting even a fraction of the skill they have, if no one at all showed them how to fight.

So..uhm..is there an unending line of masters dating back to the dawn of time?  Who taught the very first "master"?  I am going to take a shot in the dark and say he taught himself.

Someone teaching you a skill just means you learn it faster.  It is not impossible for one to teach themselves how to do something and even end up as good as one who was taught.  The more you do something, usually the better you will get at it and that works for RL as well whteher you are being taught or not.

Not meaning to flame in any way, just throwing in a little arguement.

Simply....no.

Nope.

And one more time...nuh-uh.

Wanna hear about the first effective cavalry?

Mongols.  They had been raised on horses, but that wasn't it.  Every single bleeding one of them had been -taught- by someone -else- that rode all their lives.  And another before that taught -him-.  It was constantly built upon.  Not just one guy jumping up on a horse and riding until he was good.

So yes, there were instances of cavalry before then.  But they weren't -effective-.  They weren't good cavalry that were pivotal to the outcome of a battle.  They didn't have any significant advantage over those they fought.

And K4Free (I think it was you?), let me define what I mean by effective cavalry.  It could be completely wrong, but when I say it, this is is what I mean:  Cavalry that has improved it's war tactics to include mounted soldiers that have refined a technique of riding and fighting, and learned well enough when and where to use that technique and how, to allow cavalry to gain a significant advantage against the opposing force.

Anyone can jump on a mount and attack someone.  But as it was stated earlier in the thread, groups of infantry -do- take down cavalry unless the cavalry is used correctly.  Which leads back to my original argument...it needs to be learned by other means than hunting mounted for your whole life.


Once again, the thing you're talking about...in -my- not so humble opinion...isn't something that needs to be widely distributed to a broad group of players.  Any, in fact, who choose a guild and hunt for however long it was decided, while happening to be mounted.  It brings elements to the game that will bring -drastic- change to the way things are done through little to no rp...just a post on the OOC board.  And then they're granted knowledge they didn't have before...*snap*, just like that.

Every other branching sequence can be at least -somewhat- reasonable.  Either the skill before it being a -part- of the branching skill, some new technique learned, or even just time freed up so that you have time to look into this.  But this skill branch would instantaneously put knowledge in the characters head...knowledge that has to be -learned- in the first place, that you won't get through just riding around.

I dunno, I realize I'm beating on a dead horse, that you all just want the skill in, but I'd rather see it be policed.  It's a skill that would completely change what zalanthan standards and practices are...and it would just be sudden and drastic, with nothing leading up to me.  Kind of like if you just woke up one day and...holy shit, your dad's going hunting, as usual, but where'd they get those goddamn laser guns?!

I don't want mounted combat to become universally superior to combat on foot, I would just like to see some of the heavy penalties reduced or redistributed in a more sensible fasion.  If a pair of combatants are equally skilled at fighting, and one is an expert rider, then the rider should be able to fight roughly as well while mounted as he would if he dismounted.  A warrior who is a good rider, using a mount suited to combat, and weapons suitable to mounted combat, ought to be able to fight about as well on kankback as he does afoot.


AC

What AC said.

*shrug*  I think it's accurate the way it is.

Just because you can ride a kank well does -not- mean you can fight well.  Balance is completely different when you're swinging a weapon.

The penalties are fine.  Fighting is -not- the same when you can't move your feet to dodge, and your riding is not good enough to make the mount move quickly enough under you.

Once you learn to ride better than most, you're picking up on it.  And you eventually suffer no penalties whatsoever (I think), which would accurately reflect self-trained cavalry.

this discussion has gone so far past being useful...

QuoteAnd K4Free (I think it was you?), let me define what I mean by effective cavalry. It could be completely wrong, but when I say it, this is is what I mean: Cavalry that has improved it's war tactics to include mounted soldiers that have refined a technique of riding and fighting, and learned well enough when and where to use that technique and how, to allow cavalry to gain a significant advantage against the opposing force.

Calvary already had a large advantage over ground troops, even with very little training, dont you know anything about history?
Mongols, used mostly bows, and didnt often come close for hand to hand combat with calvary.  Obviously it takes a great deal of training to learn how to use a bow while mounted.
That was why the great wall of china was built, to keep out the mongols, because without the horses, they werent much of a threat, and there was no way to bring horses over the wall.

You claim you know about history, but you only care to bring up what you want to hear.
I have far less respect for you now, after you go out of your way to message me on AIM, calling me the "stupidest person who posts on the general discussion boards".

Not to mention that your earlier claims about why being on foot was better then being mounted, now you contradict yourself here.

Quote
So..uhm..is there an unending line of masters dating back to the dawn of time? Who taught the very first "master"? I am going to take a shot in the dark and say he taught himself.

Yeah thats true, but I thought it was too obvious to point it out, also I might mention that the masters today, could probably take out the masters before.
Take school for example, how many of you have a profession that you learned completely on your own scratch, for lots of programmers this was the case as computers are relatively new, and they taught themselves.  But now you need to learn how to do that, and you learn by being taught.  Wether the teacher is a book, or person, generally it is quite hard to learn something like that that is new.
A lot of the skills in the game work the same way, I dont see how one can just learn it, so I dont see how learning as opposed to teaching applies to this, but for some reason armadict brought it up, but his same arguement could be used against a large fraction of the skills that are available.
And one can learn by ones self how to fight effectively mounted, they might never be the best our history has seen, but they can still be quite effective.

Quote from: "Kill4Free"

Quote
I have far less respect for you now, after you go out of your way to message me on AIM, calling me the "stupidest person who posts on the general discussion boards".

Quote


Actually I was the one that sent that message.. *Coughs*

K4F, your logic here is really flawed.  The skills employed on Zalanthas aren't even close to specific enough to warrant the kind of specialization you're talking about when you mention programmers.  The things that most people use in the game are sort of the base skills that everyone kind of has an idea about, because a majority of the people rely on them to survive.  Everyone sort of knows how to cook, everyone sort of knows how to ride, everyone sort of knows how to fight to some degree.

The reason this doesn't mesh with what you say about the game is that in real life, our society has evolved to a point where we have so many organisations and disciplines that have nothing to do with hunting/gathering.  I mean, who the fuck really knows what an ebusiness solutions company does?  Why do we even need it?

On Zalanthas however, if you go up to any shmuck and say "how do you ride" or "how do you skin a scrab", they will more than likely have a vague idea of what you're talking about.  All this goes to say is that the skills probably don't warrant the kind of specialization and mastery that you are talking about, since -everyone- sort of does said skills in the first place.

I was using an extreme example, so you could best understand what I was trying to point out.

Basically I can sum up everything by saying
If ride needs to be taught, to be effective, so do many other skills.  So if being able to ride has to be taught, it is inconsistent with other similar skills.

It doesn't need to be taught to be effective...


Will someone please lock this thread already?

I didn't message you, Kills4Free, sorry.

And whoever did do it should cut it out, because it's a discussion board.

And you still aren't getting the point I'm trying to get across, after repeated posts.  I agree, the thread should be locked, because I think we've got two stubborn people (myself and at least someone else, heh) who are just butting heads over and over again.

I think all the points that have relevance have already been discussed, and that this will be beating the dead horse until it's a black and blue pinto.

lol, sorry for blaming you, his name looked very similar to your own (he used a lot of numbers and stuff oddly enough).  I was just annoyed that someone would do something that low :/

I will do one final thing though.

emote lowers head
...
...
...
emote charges forward, ramming his head into ~armaddict

I've been waiting to see if someone would lock this thread.  It must
be like a train wreck...can't look away and all that.  It is for me, at
least.

You guys can believe in black powder being made in a tech-starved
world like Zalanthas, but not that someone in millenia of history
in Zalanthas could have developed mounted combat to the point
where it was beneficial.

This is bizarre.  Please report back to red sector for your new mission...

Did black powder (which we can't even be sure is the same as what's in game) just appear out of nowhere because someone on the board said, "I think we should have something that explodes"?

Things in game can't just fly out of left field with the squirrelmaster.  There has to be something to bring it on, as opposed to a random appearance and 'wow, now it exists!  Yay!'

Quote from: "Armaddict"Things in game can't just fly out of left field with the squirrelmaster.  There has to be something to bring it on, as opposed to a random appearance and 'wow, now it exists!  Yay!'

I agree.

Continuity is what you make of it.  It can simply be a skill that's come
about recently, developing from simpler techniques.  It can be a skill
that has come into the mainstream that has always existed.  And,
heavens forfend, it could even be a skill that has always been in
the mainstream, just being implemented now.  Ic is not the same as
ooc.

What happened to actually mudding as part of a creative exercise?
Where is your imagination?  Why is the above paragraph something
I had to tell you?  Is the first time you have ever played a roleplaying
game?

I don't mean to sound rude, I'm just trying to figure out why a game
design matter as this is being turned down just because you can't
wrap your mind around the concept of graceful implementation in a
currently running game.

It's not that I don't comprehend it.

I don't -agree- with it.

Based on what I've seen in seven years of playing this game, mounted combat is not -ready- to be brought about.  It's rarely even been -contemplated-.  For it to be implemented now would be it just spawning out of nowhere, a bit of sandspawn knowledge.

And yes.  I have role-played before.

Screw you guys, I'm doing it myself IG. Just wait, you'll all be jealous because I'll have this ub3r l33t calvary and you'll all be sucking wind on foot.

QuoteFor it to be implemented now would be it just spawning out of nowhere, a bit of sandspawn knowledge.

Not true...it's in the documentation.

QuoteWar Beetle : These large, highly agressive insects are almost identical to ordinary beetles save in size. Covered in a thick chitin, typically ranging from dark browns to blacks, these beetles boast very powerful mandibles which can deliver hard bites. Though larger and slower than kanks, domesticated war beetles are prized by mercenaries and professional soldiers alike for their thicker shells and overall strength in combat. Large armies often employ units of riders mounted upon war beetles as heavy cavalry in battle.

I havn't read much of the thread, but since we're all talking about mounted combat.  Here's some ideas.

-Mounts should get hit when it's rider goes fighting people on it, it's not that hard to move away from the rider attacking you and just lodge your axe in the kanks head is it?  And it sucks doing this.
The rider attacks you.
kick kank
change opponent kank.

I think you should be able to change opponent kank even if it isn't fighting you but the rider is, essentially it is in combat with you because it's so close.  

-I love the idea for being able to pull people off their mounts, maybe the bash command could do it, or it branches from subdue or something.

-Looking over the thread briefly I think that mounted combat should be dangerous, you can die pretty easily if you fall off a horse/kank/inix whatever and hit your neck the wrong way, you can break bones if you are thrown from a mount, and this should happen in game.  If you're going to take the risk of fighitng mounted you should get positives and negatives, I do believe mounted combat is superior to fighting melee with someone, because realistically you can just charge over someone and trample them underfoot over and over, or charge by and attack them before wheeling around.  However if you take note, mounted combat can also screw you over, demonstrated beautifully in Braveheart when 300 Heavy-horse charged to their death.  So it's a question of how much realism you want put into it.  You want more bonuses to fighting mounted? Fine if your going to put in bonuses so charge tramples people and they take 10d10 damage, then the subdue skill should be expanded so you can be ripped off your mount with a simple shove, or if you are thrown you can break your neck and die instantly?
I like it the way it is right now, but things can always expand if you argue about it enough, I think.

-RM

QuoteNot true...it's in the documentation.

Damn straight. After reading that early on, I had one character with the goal of becoming some kind of mounted warrior. After carefully equiping himself with a warbeetle, heavy armor and a huge fucking polearm, he set off to see who wanted some heavy cavalry.

Turns out nobody really did, and even then he was faced with the ridiculous prospect of charging off into battle on his warmount, then politely dismounting and getting stuck in with the other infantry. Why? Because no matter how long he lived and trained, he'd still get his ass handed to him if he tried to fight while mounted.

So yes, I'd love to see some changes to mounted combat.

QuoteTurns out nobody really did, and even then he was faced with the ridiculous prospect of charging off into battle on his warmount, then politely dismounting and getting stuck in with the other infantry. Why? Because no matter how long he lived and trained, he'd still get his ass handed to him if he tried to fight while mounted.

Right, even though ICly it's supposed to be possible, used and effective. The code doesn't support it and people are making those decisions based on the OOC knowledge that it doesn't.

I admit, since it's stated in the documents, that -does- pretty well nullify my arguments.

However, I'd be more inclined to say that it's a discrepancy in the game documents, as there have been in the past (and that have been changed).  Not a real discrepancy, just something that was -intended- to be that way, but it didn't end up that way.

The reason I say that is that in the major conflicts I've seen, there has been -no-...none, zero...representation of mounted soldiers.  Not even in an npc 'unit of mounted soldiers'.  It is also not highly recognized by -either- of the clans, in-game, that are known for their military knowledge and research.

I'd need a staff opinion to clarify on the way things should be before I continued...but I still say that with zero thought and representation of it, not even thought of it by any mind in the game world...it would still be way more unrealistic than the lack of mounted combat in itself to have the knowledge and sudden practice of it by various groups suddenly 'spring up' out of nowhere.

I dunno, really.  *scratches his head*

I agree with AC.  If your good enough at riding, you should receive NO penalties in combat for being mounted.  A ranger/half-elf/mercenary with excellent riding skill, should fight just as well mounted as they do on foot.  Thats my feelings on it.

I personally tend to agree with Armaddict in that mounted combat is never represented in the mass combat that occurs.  There might be exceptions to this, but they are pretty rare exceptions.  If mounted combat takes place, it is pretty rare.  That is still not a perfect argument against it though.  It simply could be something that was over looked that can be added after the fact.  However, before you go ahead and do that, I think you would first need to reconsider the entire balance of a mounted person fighting a person on foot.  Namely, you then need to recode weapons so that they work appropriately.

It is all well and good to give a guy on a kank a bonus or the ability to run me down while I am wielding my dagger, but it is very different when I am armed with a ten foot spear that can merrily use the force of a charging rider to impale themselves.  Sure, riding down on some sucker with a knife might be easy, but it would be damn near impossible to ride down on a firm warrior with a spear planted into the ground.  So, if you are going to make calvary suddenly have an advantage, you also need to allow for all of the counters that would be developed to deal with that advantage – namely getting a nice long spear, planting it into the ground, and inviting the mounted sucker to charge into it.

Personally, I don't a need to go to such lengths.  Eh, maybe if they ever redo the combat system it would rock if they put in considerations for weapon reach and such, but until then you are talking about a lot of special coding to kludge in something that has extremely little history in Zalanthas.  Calvary is not desperately needed, and it is no challenge to explain away the lack of calvery in Zalanthas.  I can think of a horde of reasons why Calvary might in Zalanthas might be nearly useless, or at least used only used by archers.  The mounts could be too skittish in serious combat (yes, even the war mounts), they could simply suck at maneuvering and be unable to ride down on a human that simply steps out of the way, they could be too apt to want to fight or run themselves and throw off their rider.  There are a plethora of possible explanations as to why Calvary isn't common despite mounts being common.  It is a lot easier to come up with a reason to not use Calvary then it is to recode all weapons to work properly with it.

QuoteI personally tend to agree with Armaddict in that mounted combat is never represented in the mass combat that occurs.

Thats because there is no reason to be mounted, as if you are mounted due to the penalties almost any master rider will get (with the exception of a ranger and half-elf) you will more likely die, and do less damage on your way down.

QuoteI am armed with a ten foot spear that can merrily use the force of a charging rider to impale themselves. Sure, riding down on some sucker with a knife might be easy, but it would be damn near impossible to ride down on a firm warrior with a spear planted into the ground. So, if you are going to make calvary suddenly have an advantage, you also need to allow for all of the counters that would be developed to deal with that advantage – namely getting a nice long spear, planting it into the ground, and inviting the mounted sucker to charge into it.

That is true to an extent, there are ways for mounts to avoid long weapons, but how many pc's, or even npc's do you see in the game with polearms, or longspears, or pikes?  I played this game for nearly 8 months, and I saw one NPC with a polearm.  The next closest is a short stabbing spear, which isnt much better then a mid sized sword.

You wouldnt have to recode all the weapons, to do this, just take into account the reach check of a weapon.  And a change like that to compensate for better calvary, will make it so armies will actually have to have polearm groups to defend against charges.

Right now you are basically saying
"Mounted combat shouldnt be good, because there are weapons which have an advantage over it"

There are weapons which have an advantage in almost any type of combat, but it is unlikely everyone would have those weapons, or carry those weapons around with them.
[/quote]

The long-haired hippy rides in from the west, mounted on a black-scaled inix.

The long-haired hippy nicks you with his longsword!

The long-haired hippy rides to the east, mounted on a black-scaled inix.

Your feel the burning poison in your blood and suffer!

====
Maybe just coding mounted warriors so they can flee combat without many (or any) penalties would be enough.  And reasonable, I think, expect when in combat with other mounted riders?

Im not sure, but I dont think there is a bad flee penalty, I am not sure about that though.  And you dont have to be mounted to hit and run either.

I'm not sure I see any problem with mounted combat. It isn't as effective as unmounted, but we already knew this before creating our characters. I might not be able to take down a tarantula, but I get a kick out of jabbing my steel-tipped wickedly sharp spear down on a jozhal from atop my tamed mekillot - then whacking it with the back of my deadly-sharp silt-flyer-clawed gloves when it jumps up in its attempt to bite my nose off.

For me, it's just the sheer fun in making up these emotes that explain WHY I'm sitting on the mount while smacking around the littler critters. I don't need to be uber to do that. I just need to be capable of staying on top of the damned mount. And so far I'm having no trouble doing that, so it's all good as far as I'm concerned.

Im not saying I want mounted fighting to be uber, I am saying that I want it to have some advantages, as opposed to only disadvantages.

Quote from: "Kill4Free"Im not saying I want mounted fighting to be uber, I am saying that I want it to have some advantages, as opposed to only disadvantages.

It does have advantages:

Quote from: "Helpfiles"
SKILL_CHARGE                                                       (Combat)

  This skill causes a highly skilled rider to attempt to trample an
opponent
while mounted on an animal.  Upon success, the victim will be knocked over
and left on the ground (if he/she was not already there). This leaves the
victim prone to attack and disables his/her ability to do things other
than stand.  This skill, while combative in nature, is primarily available
to rangers, half-elves, and expert riders who have a greater rapport with
animals, since such maneuvers require expert control over the animal.

That is an extremely useful skill. I have seen it kill several times. We do not need to have cavalry fighting overpowered, lest we suddenly have everyone and their brother fighting atop scuttling bugs and lizards as if they are extremely nimble stallions bred for combat.

I will add one last point to this thread before running for my life:

You don't have to have all the skills your class/guild shows.  The
choices for character creation, while they can fit everything you
have in mind for this concept, might not be always fit.  Ie, not
everyone who chooses the assassin class does so for backstab.
Some people simply wanted a couple of skills from the list.

If the charge skill appears on your list and you are an elf, will
you ever be using it?  Doubtful.  You can safely ignore any
skill you would never use and treat it as if it does not even show
up on your skill list.  Our pcs are much more than our score,
skill and stat commands, after all.

Quote from: "Armaddict"The reason I say that is that in the major conflicts I've seen, there has been -no-...none, zero...representation of mounted soldiers.  Not even in an npc 'unit of mounted soldiers'.

You are wrong about that also.  I have seen NPC units of mounted warriors.

SRB, it is a usefull skill, but is it better then using kick/bash/disarm when you arent mounted?
I never tried using a high level of those skills, so I dont really know, but I dont think it is as close.

It is neither better or worse.  It is different.

Quote from: "Kill4Free"
Thats because there is no reason to be mounted, as if you are mounted due to the penalties almost any master rider will get (with the exception of a ranger and half-elf) you will more likely die, and do less damage on your way down.

I was say specifically in terms of HRPTs.  City wide invasions, as far as I have ever seen, never included mounted warriors that fought mounted.  That is not to say that there are not mounted NPC warriors.  I actually have seen those, but they are more the exception and not the rule.

Quote
That is true to an extent, there are ways for mounts to avoid long weapons, but how many pc's, or even npc's do you see in the game with polearms, or longspears, or pikes?  I played this game for nearly 8 months, and I saw one NPC with a polearm.  The next closest is a short stabbing spear, which isnt much better then a mid sized sword.

You wouldnt have to recode all the weapons, to do this, just take into account the reach check of a weapon.  And a change like that to compensate for better calvary, will make it so armies will actually have to have polearm groups to defend against charges.

There is no 'reach check' currently built into weapons.  This means you have to go back to each weapon and manually recode it.  Think of the five trillion weapons in Armageddon, then the joy of deciding if they are useful or not against a mounted warrior and recoding them such.  Further, you then need to add in more code so that during combat there is some checking to determine if the weapon with the long reach is fighting against someone that is mounted.  You are no longer talking about tweaking bonuses and penalties.  You are talking about getting into the guts of the combat code.

As to the point that there are few people with pole arms... that is exactly my point.  The game is not built with mounted warriors in mind.  There are very few weapons that currently out there that make sense for a mounted warrior to use, and very few weapons that make sense to defend against a mounted warrior.  If suddenly a mounted warrior becomes a danger, people are going to start snatching up longer weapons, especially when traveling the wastes.  The fact that the game has a very limited quantity of such weapons is something that would have to be fixed.

Quote
Right now you are basically saying
"Mounted combat shouldnt be good, because there are weapons which have an advantage over it"

There are weapons which have an advantage in almost any type of combat, but it is unlikely everyone would have those weapons, or carry those weapons around with them.

No, I am saying that if you are suddenly going to give a noticeable bonus to a specific weapon or combat style, you also need to give a notable bonus to the specific weapon or combat style that counters it.  Imagine if Armageddon didn't have archery and shields.  One day they decide to put in archery.  You can't just put in archery.  You also need to put in shields.  Well, mounted combat is the same.  You can't just throw it in.  If you are going to throw in mounted combat, you also need to put in the appropriate counter to it.

My point is that you are either going to have to just give mounted combat a big old fat combat bonus and ignore the potential counters to it, or you are talking about a major code change.  Hey, I would love it if they went through and recoded combat from the ground up, but guess what?  It isn't going to happen unless half a dozen imms developed a sudden strong distaste for their own real lives and a sudden infatuation with going through the 15+ year old tangled mess of Armageddon code.

Good assessment, Rindan. How about we just put this on the list of things we want for the new revamped combat code that might show up in 5-10 years along with everything else we want from our poor but effective combat code?

QuoteNo, I am saying that if you are suddenly going to give a noticeable bonus to a specific weapon or combat style, you also need to give a notable bonus to the specific weapon or combat style that counters it. Imagine if Armageddon didn't have archery and shields. One day they decide to put in archery. You can't just put in archery. You also need to put in shields. Well, mounted combat is the same. You can't just throw it in. If you are going to throw in mounted combat, you also need to put in the appropriate counter to it.

I never wanted to make mounted combat godly, I just wanted to give it an advantage, sort of like the advantage axes have, or piercing weapons, they have their disadvantages as well, and neither really has a counter.
I do believe that the length of the weapon is involved in the fights, but then again bigger weapons weigh more, and it might have been due to that.
And it isnt like mounted combat is comming outta nowhere, there is a history of it in Zalanthas, but it just isnt very popular, because there is almost only disadvantages in almost every aspect of combat while mounted.  I think that there should be a change, like what AC's first post said, and it makes sense realistically, and it wouldnt be too hard to put in.

Quote from: "Kill4Free"
I never wanted to make mounted combat godly, I just wanted to give it an advantage, sort of like the advantage axes have, or piercing weapons, they have their disadvantages as well, and neither really has a counter.
I do believe that the length of the weapon is involved in the fights, but then again bigger weapons weigh more, and it might have been due to that.

Length and weight of weapon have no effect in a fight.  You can code a weapon that weighs as much as a kank and hits like a feather duster.  It might seem like there is an effect in place, but it is really the people who coded the weapons doing a good job at making sure that weapons shit hit slow but hard actually hit slow but hard.

As far as axes and piercing weapons, they do have advantages and disadvantages.  Some armor protects against chopping, some protects against piercing.  If I were to fight against an army of axe wielders, you better believe my armor would change to void the power of their weapon as much as possible.  Armageddon does in fact take into consideration your armor type and the weapon it is facing.

QuoteAs far as axes and piercing weapons, they do have advantages and disadvantages. Some armor protects against chopping, some protects against piercing. If I were to fight against an army of axe wielders, you better believe my armor would change to void the power of their weapon as much as possible. Armageddon does in fact take into consideration your armor type and the weapon it is facing.

You say you would change your armor to void the power of the weapon?
There is nothing you can really do about it, as it has its own disadvantage and advantage relative to other weapons, I cant really post the details, but you couldnt really change void the damage it might inflict.  There are certain types of classes that the axe is technically less effective against, but you couldnt just change your armor and make a big difference.
It wouldnt be hard to do that, since almost all big weapons weigh a lot, and hit hard, but slow, they could just change it so weapons that hit hard are more effective against someone who is mounted.

And there might be hundreds of different weapon types in the game, but there are only a couple dozen different types of pikes/polearms/bardiche's, and it would be too hard to make it so if one of those is used, that user gets a bonus against someone who is mounted.

I grow weary of this thread . . .best of luck with it, everyone.

QuoteThats because there is no reason to be mounted, as if you are mounted due to the penalties almost any master rider will get (with the exception of a ranger and half-elf) you will more likely die, and do less damage on your way down.

No, you didn't read the post close enough.  It is under-represented in every major conflict I've seen.  (Apparently, ERS has seen it in conflicts, but I've had front row seats in most recently and seen nothing.)  Not because of coded disadvantages, either.  There were very -simple- ways to get around the coded disadvantages for these major conflicts, but it wasn't done.

It insinuates that mounted combat is -not- as common as the documents state, which is the only defense, thusfar, that I feel has any real relavance to whether or not it should be in.  Still for my previously stated reasons, which I haven't heard anything really to sway me away from.

*rears back, charges forward, and butts his head into K4Free's. * :P

So maybe I'm getting into this thread a little late, but still. I don't need to see mounted combat being advantageous, or getting bonuses in combat or anything. I'd just like fewer penalties when you're good at it, so it actually becomes plausible.

Define "When you're good at it."

You realize that being able to ride without your kank refusing to move is not 'being good', right?

Getting a mount to move is simple.  Getting it to obey each and every command you want it to is harder.  Being able to keep control of yourself while it does maneuvers is yet even harder.  And fighting from it's back it even harder.  So on and so forth.

Sunbacks are adequate for mounted combat. Plus, if you desire to become proficient at mounted combat, select ranger as your class - you'll receive numerous perks in terms of mounted combat. In addition, I believe being mounted is not a requirement for the skill 'charge.' Albeit, this could have changed.

QuoteSunbacks are adequate for mounted combat. Plus, if you desire to become proficient at mounted combat, select ranger as your class - you'll receive numerous perks in terms of mounted combat. In addition, I believe being mounted is not a requirement for the skill 'charge.' Albeit, this could have changed.

There actually sunbacks are worse then kanks for mounted combat, ideally the inix is the best (read the charge skill help file).
There is no perk in terms of mounted combat, other then eventually you can hold weapons (and of course get charge).

There -are- perks beyond those of which you speak for mounted combat; and sunbacks -are- 'hypothetically' better suited for mounted combat than any other mount (with the exception of horses and flying mounts). Do you know why? Because they are more agile, they possess finesse, and thus compare to horses in their maneuvering ability. What you refer to as 'being worse' does not qualify as an asset of mounted combat.

I mean codely worse, as the only perk that affects combat that mounts alone can offer, is charge, and the larger the animal the more effective charge is, hence making a kank again, one of the best animals in yet another catagory :/

Kanks really need to be toned down :/

Kill4free, please don't post about which mount being worst (or best) codely.
Icly, charge works better with the bigger mount. Obviously.
Just like the stronger type of humanoid is better suited to bashing and what not.
Mounted combat usually works with the smarter type of mount that can help (Or atleast not give their rider the disadvantage) more.
Sunbacks, from the helpfiles, seem to me to be the smartest of the everday mounts. Though maybe not codely, icly, is a different matter.
Worrying about code in a RPI game is not what you should be doing.
Given, Most of us do for playability.

Quote from: "Armaddict"Define "When you're good at it."

You realize that being able to ride without your kank refusing to move is not 'being good', right?

Getting a mount to move is simple.  Getting it to obey each and every command you want it to is harder.  Being able to keep control of yourself while it does maneuvers is yet even harder.  And fighting from it's back it even harder.  So on and so forth.

You can do more than fight/charge/make it move??


*smacks his forehead*

I didn't know this..

As previously noted, charge is NOT the only perk of mounted combat. The previous poster was correct: you should not rely solely on the code when choosing a mount for combat (or any other reason for that matter). As for intelligence, the sunback is not the most intelligent mount on Zalanthas. Nonetheless, I find it best suited for mounted combat. In fact, read ldesc of a sunback - it states just that.

QuoteYou can do more than fight/charge/make it move??

Those may or may not be the code limitation; nonetheless, 'emote' allows the player to achieve a greater level of reality and interaction with a mount and the surrounding environment. However, considerations must be taken when utilizing 'emote' to display proficiency.

Eh, knew about emote, but wasn't sure if the code allowed other mounting commands, if so, why aren't they in a help file?

Quote from: "Armaddict"Define "When you're good at it."

You realize that being able to ride without your kank refusing to move is not 'being good', right?

Personally, when I can get through a combat without having my mount bucking me off is when I consider myself good at it.  Getting to the end of the fight and I'm still up on my kank rather than sitting in the dust rubbing my ass, that is sweet.

AC

Quote from: "Angela Christine"rubbing my ass, that is sweet.
AC

Yeah, you know it!

Quote from: "Kill4Free"I mean codely worse, as the only perk that affects combat that mounts alone can offer, is charge, and the larger the animal the more effective charge is, hence making a kank again, one of the best animals in yet another catagory :/

Kanks really need to be toned down :/

I would strongly advise you to stop making assumptions you know little to nothing about when referring to code, because the staff will come down hard on you.

Quote from: "Tamarin"

Quote from: "Kill4Free"I mean codely worse, as the only perk that affects combat that mounts alone can offer, is charge, and the larger the animal the more effective charge is, hence making a kank again, one of the best animals in yet another catagory :/

Kanks really need to be toned down :/

I would strongly advise you to stop making assumptions you know little to nothing about when referring to code, because the staff will come down hard on you.

Not to mention that there are mounts readily available that are larger than kanks.

QuoteNot to mention that there are mounts readily available that are larger than kanks.

Obviously, do you think I am blind, I said the best all round, there are very few mounts larger then a kank, most are smaller, but the larger mounts have fairly large disadvantages compared to the overall advantages of a kank.

Kill4free, I'm bored of your assumptions...

1. All ceatures have main descs... Read them to decide if they look like mounts suited for war. Kank isn't the cleverest, the most agile, the largest etc. I don't want to reviece unwanted information like this...

Quote...but the larger mounts have fairly large disadvantages compared to the overall advantages of a kank.

Quote...ideally the inix is the best (read the charge skill help file).

Which one you said's right?

2. You are blind.

3. Yes I'm flaming because I'm really bored of you.