Armageddon General Discussion Board

On the heels of the Combat Styles thread, I present yet another idea.

> battledesc
You have 6 defined combat messages:
-@ snaps his foot out, catching ~ in the *LOC = (successful kick)
-Kicking out at ~ but missing, @ falls back = (failed kick)
-Taking a hop, @ lunges at ~ = (successful bash)
-Spinning *PW and *SW, @ does *DAMAGE to ~ = (Primary and Secondary hit - Message 1)
-Feinting with *SW, @ does *DAMAGE to ~ with *PW = (Primary hit - Message 1)
-@ whips *PW at % weapon hand = (successful disarm)

> battledesc new
Choose from the following choices:
1. Primary and Seconday hit
2. Primary hit
3. Secondary hit
4. Seconday miss
5. Primary miss
6. Successful Bash
7. Unsuccessful Bash
8. Etc etc etc

> battledesc new 4
Enter your message for 'Secondary miss'.

>
No battledesc for 'Secondary miss' entered.

> help battledesc
BATTLEDESC
This command allows you to modify the echoes that you see when you are fighting. You can opt to not see these echoes by inputing 'Battledesc on/battledesc off' in your client. You must use the following symbols in your custom message.
*PW = whatever you are currently wielding
*SW = whatever you are currently holding
@ = your PC's short desc
~ = your target's short desc
% = your target's short desc (possessive)
etc = etc etc etc

> battledesc new 4
Enter your message for 'Secondary miss'.

> @'s *SW slides past ~
Your new message for 'Secondary miss' is:
@'s *SW slides past ~.

> battledesc
You have 7 defined combat messages:
-@ snaps his foot out, catching ~ in the *LOC = (successful kick)
-Kicking out at ~ but missing, @ falls back = (failed kick)
-Taking a hop, @ lunges at ~ = (successful bash)
-Spinning *PW and *SW, @ does *DAMAGE to ~ = (Primary and Secondary hit - Message 1)
-Feinting with *SW, @ does *DAMAGE to ~ with *PW = (Primary hit - Message 1)
-@ whips *PW at % weapon hand = (successful disarm)
-@'s *SW slides past ~ = (secondary miss)


Complex. Daunting, even. But it'd be so mega-sexy if it could be done.

Uh...

Hell yes?

Very complex, but basically pre-defined emotes that the game throws in instead of you, right?

Yes. For those like, say, Maybe and others like him who do not like canned emotes and who might feel like this is a canned emote, the option to turn off the ability to see them is available via battledesc off, and the inverse via battledesc on, useful for those times when the emotes might be done poorly or stupidly.

Basically, I'm trying to come up with a way to kill the boring battle spam and to incorporate fighting styles, whatever they might be, into fights without interjecting emotes alone. The current method is bulky and somewhat unpredictable.

i'd be fine with that, though it will lead some portion of the players to be lax, but I think the pros outweigh the cons.

Pros:
Some who don't emote much in battle will spice up their combat.
Encourages thought on combat styles.
Allows for interesting player written emotes in the heat of combat.

Neutral:
Some who don't emote right now won't use this new code, either.

Cons:
Some who -do- emote right now will switch to this code exclusively.

Dig it.

I dig this interpretation as well.

I like it.

I definitely prefer this idea.

Would other players see your own descriptions, or just you?

Anything that allows a player to input whatever field they want and have it instantly make a change in a coded ability like fighting might place too much faith in the spelling, grammar and common sense of new players.

> battledesc new 3
Enter your message for "Primary hit"

>You DESTROY your opponent with a hard slash.
Battledesc saved.

> battledesck new 6
Enter your message for "Successful Bash"

>You nock him over with you're sholder.
Battledesc saved.

-LoD

What about putting faith in the spelling, grammar, and common sense of people's emotes, LoD?

I think this battledesc is a great idea, like a much buffer version of our emote system.

If you are facing a person that has written his battledesc oddly, ie: your examples, you can battledesc off for the duration of that fight in order to avoid having to see them. Turning it off will allow you to see the battle as you do now, with the simple descriptions of fighting.

So you're suggesting that battledescs can be toggled not only for yourself, but also for the person you're fighting?

So if I'm fighting you Venomz and I don't like how badass you seem, I can flick off the switch and return to seeing the coded messages?

Agent digs it, so I dig it. And I dug it anyways, so I'll just keep on digging.

Quote from: "Tamarin"So you're suggesting that battledescs can be toggled not only for yourself, but also for the person you're fighting?

So if I'm fighting you Venomz and I don't like how badass you seem, I can flick off the switch and return to seeing the coded messages?

Yes.

You'll see:
The venomous mul slashs your head, doing unspeakable damage.
The venomous mul slashs you on the leg very hard.
...instead of...
Edging in, then whipping his longsword and shortsword up and down in a criss-cross, the venomous mul does unspeakable damage to your head.

You may note that battledesc adds damage together for those who hit twice in a round and gives a single message. I should also note that the most vital place that was struck is indicated in those sorts of messages, not both. It cleans up combat scroll.

That's open to negotiation, however, I suppose.

The instead of message left out the fact that you cut the leg off also.

Well, that's true ... I suppose that you could dispose of that message and just customize them for each hit. I was alluding more to the fact that you prolly wouldn't know you got hit in the leg if you got hit in a more vital part.

Putting both locations might work, IE:
As he circles you, then darts in, hitting with both his hammer and his maul, the venomous mul does horrendous damage to your head and leg.

It would have to be worded right, or it would sound odd.

I'd like to hear from the 7 people who don't think this is a good idea. It can't be the folks against the code, because two of their chiefs both just said they dig it...:)

So spit it out. What about it do you not like?

The mul spins like a dancer and whacks you very hard on the leg and FUCKEDyouUP on your head.

I like it, and I don't like it.

It will certainly free you up during combat to spend more of your effort on staying alive, but I do worry that people will depend entirely on these emotes and preform none of their own.

Overall though, great idea.  Might be a biotch to code as others have said, but would be pretty fecking sweet.

I put down I didn't like it, since Deadly7 wanted to hear, here is why.  

I think this idea is a generally great idea.

But it requires a great deal of turst on the part of the player.  The problem lies in people putting in misleading, poor or just plain bad emotes for combat actions that in general need to deliver information to another person.  This could be a pretty serious problem, this is important information.  

There are ways this could work and still be good, but in general I would recommend a pause and careful consideration.

By defining the actual success and failure messages, you steal a little freedom from yourself.  The vague "hit the person very hard in the leg" message now tells you what happened, but it doesn't tell you how, and I appreciate the fact that I can make up "how" on the spot using any manner of variables in the fight.

My movement is going to be different if I'm using a spear, hammer, sword, dagger, flail, mace, two-handed, sword and board, etc...and a success message such as: <player> spins in a tight circle, striking you with a quick blow isn't going to make sense for every weapon style and situation.

What if I'm in tight quarters?  Dim light?  Fighting next to someone?  Surrounded?  Uphill fighting downward?  Crouched down?  Using cover?  Working against a humanoid rather than an animal?  It seems that to make this work you would either need a very complicated system that covers all the possible scenarios or a very vague one that doesn't cover any of them.  

And I don't think either solution is a good one.  The current system, while requiring you to actually type something, does allow you the freedom to describe your movements exactly as they would be in that given moment and I can't imagine a hard coded alternative that would ever be considered an improvement.

-LoD

The current messages are vague enough to leave the actual IC move open for specification through emotes.

If you added custom emote tags that happen automatically, then ICly your character is going to be doing the same exact thing over and over again.

Not even fighting styles, LOD?

I thought we'd discussed this personally, in the past, and that you supported it. Still, I get the point. I also know that I can't emote the way I fight without falling behind. The emote about how I struck your leg with my special move ends up coming four rounds later.

The systems I proposed recently, both the CStyle and this, allow you to additionally emote...

Fuck it. I have a new idea.

:evil:

Quote from: "The7DeadlyVenomz"

Fuck it. I have a new idea.

:evil:

well git on wit your bad self!