Just a heads up that due to some abuse we've seen with charge and how we as staff envision it should be used, we're altering the code to enforce this idea. Charge isn't just turning your mount around and trampling the person again and again, instead you have to break free, get some momentum and come back at the person. Once this change goes live, you will have to not be fighting the person you want to charge, nor can they be fighting you in order to get the charge off.
Edited to add the remainder of the changes that will be coming with this:
Not to add fuel to the fire, but more to calm them, we do have more to this change than originally advertised. Charge is getting an increase in damage to compensate for the loss of being able to do this repeatedly, and to better bring it into our idea of what charge is.
We are altering the penalties with mounted combat to make them be not as harsh, as well as adding increased chances to hit dependent on relative heights.
In addition, we are adding a new skill called trample that will be open to all highly skilled riders (yes, I said all, not just Rangers) that is more intended for trampling someone who is already down, but can be used on someone who is still standing to attempt to knock them down. The defender will have a stronger chance of defending against this knockdown, and will be able to mitigate the damage somewhat through quick reflexes.
We agree that mounted combat isn't fleshed out enough in Arm1 to really be a viable style, but we hope that these changes will provide some meat and viability to it. The ideas of weapon reach, and targetted locations changing would require a major change to Arm's combat and balancing to make sure it isn't overpowering. They are great ideas, but better focused to Arm Reborn.
I like this change.
So, how will anyone ever trample another player if this change works as it's supposed to?
Not saying that it will.
Quote from: Dalmeth on June 27, 2009, 03:23:46 PM
So, how will anyone ever trample another player if this change works as it's supposed to?
Not saying that it will.
You will have to use charge as a combat initiator.
Quote from: Morgenes on June 27, 2009, 03:27:34 PM
You will have to use charge as a combat initiator.
Ah, right. I remember now. Still, I don't really understand how this works all that much differently from someone using bash again and again.
I voice my disapproval.
If you're on foot, fighting someone riding a big lizard and he knows how to make it trample you, you should be pretty fucked. Trampling ground-pounders has historically always been the main advantage of riding a big heavy warhorse, and inixes are even bigger and heavier!
If it's a balance issue I get it, I guess. Reluctantly. What's the mounted combat system going to be like in 2.Arm?
Agreed with jstorrie on this one.
I'd rather see you lose your attacks for X amount of seconds while you do this breaking free, turning around, and charging. I don't like the idea of it only being the initiator now.
Using example numbers: After you entered 'charge', you would be subjected to a 5 second delay, during which you would not get your normal automated attacks, and then the charge goes off, imposing the same delays as it does now after the act.
The delay before charge would only apply during combat, not out of it.
That's what I'd rather see. I think it would address what you are trying to prevent, as well as keeping part of a ranger's basket-of-skills intact.
Too bad. Mounted combat (unless I've missed some changes) was unrealistically unattractive as it was.
Will there be a boost to charge's power to go along with this, or will that stay as-is?
Quote from: Cutthroat on June 27, 2009, 04:31:12 PM
Will there be a boost to charge's power to go along with this, or will that stay as-is?
No change to the chance to hit or damage of the attack, it's already sick enough as it is.
Dangit, Morgenes, I...want to like this. :'(
I...was excited, when I saw the thread title, that someone cared enough to work on mounted combat. :-*
Quote from: Thunkkin on June 27, 2009, 04:26:23 PM
Mounted combat ... was unrealistically unattractive as it was.
It would make even more sense to me, given the change, that charge could be initiated in a nearby room. Charge tregil west.
Quote from: Twilight on June 27, 2009, 05:11:26 PM
It would make even more sense to me, given the change, that charge could be initiated in a nearby room. Charge tregil west.
This Idea is TEH AWESOME!
My problem is that, as it stood, it made little sense to fight mounted unless you were charging successfully. There's one other benefit that I'm aware of, but your average ranger just dursn't take the defensive penalty.
Here's the new Ranger Melee Technique, post-change:
> e
> charge figure
> flee; flee; flee; flee; flee; flee; flee
> n
> charge figure
> flee; flee; flee; flee; flee; flee; flee
Which, hey, I don't altogether dislike. But I did think rangers were already suffering enough in combat. ;D
Basically, this just means you have to disengage, and flee, and attempt to turn around for another go...
So, 1v1 you won't have someone spamming charge which, unlike bash, seems to hit more often, and work against MUCH bigger targets. If you are fighting in a group, this is still viable, you just have to dedicate yourself to constant run and gun tactics.
I've been in fights where someone constantly charges, against things like Meks or Bahamets, and it almost never failed. Sure, it made it easier, but it was pretty overpowered.
Quote from: brytta.leofa on June 27, 2009, 05:27:53 PM
Here's the new Ranger Melee Technique, post-change:
> e
> charge figure
> flee; flee; flee; flee; flee; flee; flee
> n
> charge figure
> flee; flee; flee; flee; flee; flee; flee
Quote
I think this technique makes a lot of sense IC. I've uses it in the past (with the current code, of course) with rangers against certain large besties.
Ranger nerf?
Hehe, just kidding. This is definitely a change that was warranted.
Quote from: Thunkkin on June 27, 2009, 04:26:23 PM
Too bad. Mounted combat (unless I've missed some changes) was unrealistically unattractive as it was.
Mounted combat isn't nearly as bad as you folks think it is...I think you all might just not be as good at fighting as you think you are.
That's beside the point. Besides, fighting mounted is just a good way to get buff. You take more hits and miss more.
This change was simply not needed.
If charge is so abusable, why not nerf bash as well?
The best solution would have been:
Increase the delay upon inputing the command so that your opponent will be granted the opportunity to stand and flee before you receive another change to charge them. Problem solved.
So, rangers finally get backstab.
The problem I have with this.... -carru- can charge(bash) you and tumble you into the next room. They're smaller than an inix, unless I miss my guess.... Will -they- also get this nerf? Or rangers we be able to -bash- while riding? Or will rangers -get- the bash skill?
If you're comparing bash to charge, you've obviously never been any good at either of them.
Charge was so much more effective and dangerous than bash (except maybe a bash coming from a half-giant), that there is no comparison whatsoever. I've seen people charge mekillots, inix, carru, bahamets...ever tried bashing one? Not to mention, once you're -good- at charge, you seem to almost never miss, except against targets with absurdly high agility. With bash, you continue to fail regularly even against other humanoids.
Not to mention that while mounted and charging, you're immune to several combat techniques that can be very dangerous.
So, yeah. Charge needed to be nerfed.
Quote from: Synthesis on June 27, 2009, 07:33:08 PM
Charge was so much more effective and dangerous than bash (except maybe a bash coming from a half-giant), that there is no comparison whatsoever.
Quote from: Synthesis on June 27, 2009, 07:33:08 PM
If you're comparing bash to charge, you've obviously never been any good at either of them.
I've been good at both. I know how much damage either one can do.
The simple fix would have been to lengthen the lag delay.
That's all that was needed.
Quote from: Synthesis on June 27, 2009, 07:33:08 PM
So, yeah. Charge needed to be nerfed.
Change was needed, but not in this way.
It's not really a big deal, anyway.
> charge <target>
> flee n
> s
> charge <target>
> repeat
The only time this doesn't work is against a PC...i.e. a humanoid with intelligence who you reasonably couldn't pull off numerous successful charges against, anyway.
So..... It doesn't change anything except make it more annoying for the player and take longer? Why not just create a lag then?
Quote from: tortall on June 27, 2009, 07:57:07 PM
So..... It doesn't change anything except make it more annoying for the player and take longer? Why not just create a lag then?
1) Correct
2) I've got no clue
Quote from: tortall on June 27, 2009, 07:57:07 PM
So..... It doesn't change anything except make it more annoying for the player and take longer? Why not just create a lag then?
No, it makes it MUCH harder for you to WTFPWN another PC with charge.
Personally, I think anyone who has ever played a d-elf should be rejoicing with this change, because charge was probably -the- most dangerous mundane ability vs. a d-elf.
Quote from: Synthesis on June 27, 2009, 07:55:41 PM
It's not really a big deal, anyway.
> charge <target>
> flee n
> s
> charge <target>
> repeat
The only time this doesn't work is against a PC...i.e. a humanoid with intelligence who you reasonably couldn't pull off numerous successful charges against, anyway.
Npc beasts would flee in terror upon your reentry before your movement lag wears off and you can charge them. So that technique works against no one. (I haven't fled from an aggressive npc and went back for more in forever so I dunno if they've been changed to not run or whatever)
Quote from: Xio on June 27, 2009, 08:00:19 PM
Quote from: Synthesis on June 27, 2009, 07:55:41 PM
It's not really a big deal, anyway.
> charge <target>
> flee n
> s
> charge <target>
> repeat
The only time this doesn't work is against a PC...i.e. a humanoid with intelligence who you reasonably couldn't pull off numerous successful charges against, anyway.
Npc beasts would flee in terror upon your reentry before your movement lag wears off and you can charge them. So that technique works against no one. (I haven't fled from an aggressive npc and went back for more in forever so I dunno if they've been changed to not run or whatever)
So re-do whatever it was that got you into the room with the NPC beast in the first place.
Desert elves don't generally have to worry about someone spam charging. If you have any agility at all and are unencumbered, you stand a fair chance of dodging.
I've never had a problem out of it in my experience with desert elves, not once.
This is going no where, so I'll just bow out.
All right. I'm as convinced as I can be without knowing how combat works. ;)
I will only point out, as a final feeble protest, that most folks don't attempt to fight mounted.
QuoteThe problem I have with this.... -carru- can charge(bash) you and tumble you into the next room. They're smaller than an inix, unless I miss my guess.... Will -they- also get this nerf? Or rangers we be able to -bash- while riding? Or will rangers -get- the bash skill?
My question as well...will this apply to NPCs?
If I'm reading the proposed change correctly, this means that you can't use charge once something has attacked you, correct?
That's the part that bothers me. There are a lot of animals in the game that run into your room and instantly attack you--are we going to be incapable of using charge against raptors and gortoks at all?
Theoretically you could disengage and charge if you were to land a 'reel' blow.
If you're reelin' you don't really need to be chargin', though.
I don't know why people are so afraid to use the 'flee' command.
I just hope they find a few interesting ways to beef up mounted combat if they are gonna put this in. And I don't mean make it better.
Things like unique combat echoes would go a long way. Maybe along the same lines as certain wearable items.
Quote from: Synthesis on June 27, 2009, 07:59:47 PM
Personally, I think anyone who has ever played a d-elf should be rejoicing with this change, because charge was probably -the- most dangerous mundane ability vs. a d-elf.
I never experience charge abuse, so no comment. I do remember having rangers and liking the skill. That said - aren't long life d-elf rangers over powered enough?
Quote from: Jingo on June 27, 2009, 11:56:20 PM
I just hope they find a few interesting ways to beef up mounted combat if they are gonna put this in. And I don't mean make it better.
Things like unique combat echoes would go a long way. Maybe along the same lines as certain wearable items.
Along this line, inputting lists of variables for messages in each section of the fighting code would be easy, and freaking awesome as far as making the combat less stagnant, and more interesting.
I don't mean circle kicks, but rather:
You hit a man on his head, wounding him.
or
Battering past his shield, you wound a man on his head.
or
Your slash would have wounded a man on his head, but [mount] carries him too high.
or
You knock the man's defending weapon aside, wounding him on the head. (oh, he missed a parry!)
These variable messages are easy to randomize and insert using nothing more than a random choice algorithm and a few checks.
It'd be nice if charge was modified in what effects/damage type it did depending on what mount you are riding at the time.
Some examples could be charging with an inix could do the current charge effect. An erdlu, on the other hand would inflict a piercing hit with a bleed effect due to its spurs. A sunback could slap with its tail (like a kick) or a beetle could do a single slashing bite.
These would be effected by the mount's speed too - a beetle's bite is easy to dodge compared to the quicker erdlu's slash.
*Morgenes applies a white cloth bandage*
You can't flee in all situations.
Fleeing near holes/shield walls would be very dangerous. Even with skills chance plays a role.
Charge now means your 16 ton lizard stops dead cold when it hits a tregil, like a car hitting a cement post. Helmets should be double important now with how far most pcs should fly. Anyone wear a seatbelt?
Decrease victim delay. Create a chance for people to fail and fail critically more often on ludicrously big mounts (ie inix). Make monstrous things unchargable. Charging meks and mets should not work.
Make it more risky, make it usable only on humanoids (non HG imho) that are unmounted. Give the victim a chance to stand and flee by decreasing their delay compared to the chargers (2 times, take note!). Charge is suddenly a calvary charge and not a mobile earthquake/huntin device.
Edited to add:
Currently the mounted rider controls the field of battle. After this change it will be the the player on foot that controls the field. This seems at odds with the idea of mounted vs unmounted combat. If one player is mounted, how is the other really going to get away? (except elves but they are excluded since their agility gives them a built in defense to flee) There is no reason to believe a player on a mount could not ride off twenty or thirty yards, turn around and charge again because the unmounted player will not have the speed to outrun the mount, even with a big head start.
If I get charge again I'll be wanting my victims to flee :P
Quote from: Marc on June 28, 2009, 04:13:11 AM
*Morgenes applies a white cloth bandage*
You can't flee in all situations.
Fleeing near holes/shield walls would be very dangerous. Even with skills chance plays a role.
If you're any -good- at flee, you'll flee the direction you want to 100% of the time, unless there's some environmental effect in play.
It's too bad you can't just cut a few of the legs off a beetle as it charges by you, or impale an inix through the leg as it charges you. Then folks might think twice about using their escape pod as a battering ram.
I mean, as it stands, you basically have to mortally wound or knock out a mount in order to incapacitate it. Man, if you could prevent a mount from moving around by placing a few well-aimed shots to the legs, talk about the epic shitstorm that would cause.
Perhaps this is the time for a rear/mount kicking command.
Quote from: Marc on June 28, 2009, 04:13:11 AM
*Morgenes applies a white cloth bandage*
You can't flee in all situations.
Fleeing near holes/shield walls would be very dangerous. Even with skills chance plays a role.
Frankly, I wouldn't mind if using the charge command in difficult terrain with cliffs and sudden drops automatically placed you off the cliff in question. You shouldn't be charging in that sort of terrain in the first place.
The charge skill as it was was ridiculously unrealistic. If you're mounted and beating the crap out of someone or something with weapons, you need to be very close to them to account for reach, as well as the size of your mount. If you've ever been to the Renaissance festival and watched jousting, that's kind of how I pictured it to be. You need to back off and gain some momentum to be able to properly charge at somebody while you're riding a creature that large. If you've ever ridden a horse IRL, you know that maneuvering a horse, even for a skilled rider, is difficult to do in such a small amount of space.
Quote from: Niamh on June 28, 2009, 08:37:01 AM
If you've ever ridden a horse IRL, you know that maneuvering a horse, even for a skilled rider, is difficult to do in such a small amount of space.
Truth.
As a lover of rangers, I've had a badass rider with ridiculous charge skill and it left quite a few pc's/npc's pretty fucking helpless if I wanted them to be, ridiculously helpless. Couple that with the fact that I'm on a mount and they're not it's already little chance for them to escape. The idea of chasing a fleeing victim only to charge them down again makes more sense.
I would love to see charge be an opener to combat as explained yet have its potential injury be buffed somewhat, though not much more than it stands currently as it's already more painful than warrior bash.
Quote from: Niamh on June 28, 2009, 08:37:01 AM
The charge skill as it was was ridiculously unrealistic. If you're mounted and beating the crap out of someone or something with weapons, you need to be very close to them to account for reach, as well as the size of your mount. If you've ever been to the Renaissance festival and watched jousting, that's kind of how I pictured it to be. You need to back off and gain some momentum to be able to properly charge at somebody while you're riding a creature that large. If you've ever ridden a horse IRL, you know that maneuvering a horse, even for a skilled rider, is difficult to do in such a small amount of space.
I disagree completely. My aunt has a Horse farm, which I have grown up near. If you want a horse to trample someone you dont need to get any kind of momemtum, all you need to do is yank on the reins and I garuntee you can get that horse to knock someone down that is a few feet away from you. Maneuvering, in a small area, is not as hard as you think. But since you brought it up, if we assume, like most of us do, going from ONE room to Another is a league, that means EACH room is at least a league in length. So you, imms, dont think a LEAGUE is enough room to maneuver a mount around and charge an enemy? Why not just increase the delay?
I agree with the change. I do like the idea of making charge something that can be initiated from a nearby room. That seems realistic enough.
Quote from: Krath on June 28, 2009, 08:59:01 AM
Quote from: Niamh on June 28, 2009, 08:37:01 AM
The charge skill as it was was ridiculously unrealistic. If you're mounted and beating the crap out of someone or something with weapons, you need to be very close to them to account for reach, as well as the size of your mount. If you've ever been to the Renaissance festival and watched jousting, that's kind of how I pictured it to be. You need to back off and gain some momentum to be able to properly charge at somebody while you're riding a creature that large. If you've ever ridden a horse IRL, you know that maneuvering a horse, even for a skilled rider, is difficult to do in such a small amount of space.
I disagree completely. My aunt has a Horse farm, which I have grown up near. If you want a horse to trample someone you dont need to get any kind of momemtum, all you need to do is yank on the reins and I garuntee you can get that horse to knock someone down that is a few feet away from you. Maneuvering, in a small area, is not as hard as you think. But since you brought it up, if we assume, like most of us do, going from ONE room to Another is a league, that means EACH room is at least a league in length. So you, imms, dont think a LEAGUE is enough room to maneuver a mount around and charge an enemy? Why not just increase the delay?
Maybe make Disengage a mount-associated skill, i.e. when you use it while mounted, if you're skilled you can force the enemy to stop attacking you (as though they were reeled)? So skilled riders (and only skilled riders) would be able to repeatedly charge down a single target.
Of course, the would allow the balance issues that they're trying to get rid of, so it's probably a non-starter.
Part of the problem is semantics.
The skill is "charge" but the result is "trample."
The word "charge" conjures the mental image of a knight mounted on horseback. The result would be one, very strong hit (with a spear, lance, etc.).
The word "trample" conjures the mental image of a big ass animal bumping/leaning into you and knocking you over and then stepping on you.
When elephants trample some poor sod, do they need to get hundreds of feet of charging distance first?
The idea that charging like a knight results not in a weapon strike but in running someone over is ... well, it's fine. But it's not what the language leads me to expect.
Then we can has trample skill?
Quote from: Niamh on June 28, 2009, 08:37:01 AM
The charge skill as it was was ridiculously unrealistic. If you're mounted and beating the crap out of someone or something with weapons, you need to be very close to them to account for reach, as well as the size of your mount. If you've ever been to the Renaissance festival and watched jousting, that's kind of how I pictured it to be. You need to back off and gain some momentum to be able to properly charge at somebody while you're riding a creature that large. If you've ever ridden a horse IRL, you know that maneuvering a horse, even for a skilled rider, is difficult to do in such a small amount of space.
I just couldn't keep away after reading this.
The above is completely untrue. I'm not going to pull an X-D and say I'm a horse whisperer with twenty three years of experience, but I do like to think I know what I'm talking about - wheeling a horse around in a tight space is not that difficult. If it is, I must be a better rider than I thought.
You do not need a lot of momentum to charge someone either. Horses build up speed extremely fast, and their mass will be enough to knock aside most people.
I just wish someone would comment on why a bigger lag wasn't put in place, as opposed to negating charge altogether. Now it's a one-shot skill, though we still have carru that can bash you normally, then use their charge to knock you into the next room
while you're still down. If abuse is such an important issue, these bastards should be looked at first.
I said it once...And I will only say it once more...Eloran is correct.
You can still charge repeatedly, just like an assassin can backstab repeatedly. I'm still not completely satisfied, but yes, you can still do it. And perhaps that's the goal, to make it less of a wtf-pwn on the part of mounted fighters, since the staff seems to share the opinion that mounted fighters should have disadvantages for each plus they have.
So, I'm not as against this as I was in the beginning.
Wait, so fleeing then charging again is considered good play? It's doing the same thing as before, only adding an extra step. Wouldn't adding a delay achieve this affect and be simpler?
I thought backstabbing, fleeing, hiding and backstabbing again was considered twinking.
I'm gigling, and it is closer to 35 years. Course I'm nothing mounted compared to my sisters, they are barrel racing trick riding fools.
But Yes, manuvering a horse and even other RL mounts is rather easy, and most of them will try and trample on their own if hemmed in by living things smaller then them. Get in a stall with a pissed off horse sometime.
As to the carru and certain other beasties. Yes, if it is over powered for a PC to be able to trample time after time (and I agree it has been) Then it is doubly over powered for a NPC to not only be able to do that but to even bash you first.
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on June 28, 2009, 12:28:12 PM
Wait, so fleeing then charging again is considered good play? It's doing the same thing as before, only adding an extra step. Wouldn't adding a delay achieve this affect and be simpler?
I thought backstabbing, fleeing, hiding and backstabbing again was considered twinking.
I, too, would find clarification on this to be educational.
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on June 28, 2009, 12:28:12 PM
Wait, so fleeing then charging again is considered good play? It's doing the same thing as before, only adding an extra step. Wouldn't adding a delay achieve this affect and be simpler?
Fleeing isn't the only way to get out of combat, especially in group situations, but yes, this is considered acceptable. A delay would add the same affect, but it would allow the combat to go on (swings and the like) while the delay was going on. We want it to be that you have to maneuver away from the person, disengaging from the combat before you can charge again.
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on June 28, 2009, 12:28:12 PM
I thought backstabbing, fleeing, hiding and backstabbing again was considered twinking.
Any use of code without regards to the intention of it and with regards to your environment and the situation at hand is twinking. If you are good enough to flee away and hide and sneak back in without alert people noticing, then by all means, you can do so. If for whatever reason you might thing this might not be realistic, then likely it isn't and should be avoided.
Er, never mind. Morg said it.
A horse also isn't a huge lizard with stumpy legs. Or a big stout insect with lots of scrawny little ones.
And yet that huge lizard moves faster then then that beetle and with a halfgiant on its back and that beetle can carry a mul, some barrels of water and whatever else on them scrawny legs across sand without sinking in and for a very long range...Huh...go figure.
That's because...
dundundun
(wait for it)
(here comes)
This is not reality. It is fantasy. (Playability + Believability) trump reality, in a fantasy world.
The gravitational pull is not the same. Squat things won't tip over like horses will. Except for Zalanthan horses, which will probably be much sturdier than earth horses, because zalanthan horses are made by people who didn't bother studying genetics in science class, mostly because it doesn't matter, because they weren't trying to replicate reality anyway.
Inixes and beetles and erdlus and ratlons and horses and whatever else, do what they do, the way that they do it, because the creative talent that went into their existence has chosen that they do what they do, the way that they do it. Realism has -nothing- to do with it. Nothing.
Quote from: Niamh on June 28, 2009, 01:30:05 PM
A horse also isn't a huge lizard with stumpy legs. Or a big stout insect with lots of scrawny little ones.
Then why were you using a horse as a comparison?
***
What about erdlu?
Sunback?
Sunlon?
Ratlon?
Horses?
Each of these creatures are far more agile than inix, war beetles and oxen - shouldn't they move faster in combat as well?
Don't forget gwoshi, a bearlike animal...you can find plenty of footage of bears, they don't need any space to trample a fool.
Quote from: Morgenes on June 27, 2009, 03:01:23 PM
Just a heads up that due to some abuse we've seen with charge and how we as staff envision it should be used, we're altering the code to enforce this idea. Charge isn't just turning your mount around and trampling the person again and again, instead you have to break free, get some momentum and come back at the person. Once this change goes live, you will have to not be fighting the person you want to charge, nor can they be fighting you in order to get the charge off.
lol, k. how does this help playability or realism, again?
i hate agreeing with eloran, but, gosh. I do.
Quote from: Agent_137 on June 28, 2009, 03:25:17 PM
Quote from: Morgenes on June 27, 2009, 03:01:23 PM
Just a heads up that due to some abuse we've seen with charge and how we as staff envision it should be used, we're altering the code to enforce this idea. Charge isn't just turning your mount around and trampling the person again and again, instead you have to break free, get some momentum and come back at the person. Once this change goes live, you will have to not be fighting the person you want to charge, nor can they be fighting you in order to get the charge off.
lol, k. how does this help playability or realism, again?
i hate agreeing with eloran, but, gosh. I do.
It helps with the playability of being at the other end of the charge and the realism we see in the effects you get from the charge.
Yeah, folks, this is a game balance issue first and foremost.
Same reason the ability to subdue;draw;backstab was removed, even though it was totally plausible, from a realism perspective. (Do you -really- want to give every 5-day dwarf assassin/guard the ability to OHK?)
I've seen many a (good) ranger totally WTFPWN things with charge in such a hardcore fashion that it made my 30-day warrior blush in embarrassment.
The skill was totally off the charts, over the top, crazy overpowered.
What about bringing back a recalibrated "pull reins" as the charge-without-momentum-while-fighting?
My concern is that people for the most part don't try to fight mounted, and I guess I'd like to see a lot of mounted fighting. That probably means that either (a) mounted fighting isn't codedly worth it or (b) most players mistakenly think that mounted fighting isn't codedly worth it. [Okay, or, possibly, (c): warriors can't do it effectively without a subguild boost. I hope this isn't the case.]
Quote from: brytta.leofa on June 28, 2009, 04:27:18 PM
What about bringing back a recalibrated "pull reins" as the charge-without-momentum-while-fighting?
My concern is that people for the most part don't try to fight mounted, and I guess I'd like to see a lot of mounted fighting. That probably means that either (a) mounted fighting isn't codedly worth it or (b) most players mistakenly think that mounted fighting isn't codedly worth it. [Okay, or, possibly, (c): warriors can't do it effectively without a subguild boost. I hope this isn't the case.]
Warriors can most definitely fight mounted and hand out ultimate beatdowns.
I'll play around with the code change and see if I have any feedback to give. At this point I think that some of the npc's I used to hunt would be impossible without a quiver full of arrows. I guess I'll have to develop other strategies or rely more on archery... shrug.
Quote from: Ammut on June 28, 2009, 05:01:52 PM
I'll play around with the code change and see if I have any feedback to give. At this point I think that some of the npc's I used to hunt would be impossible without a quiver full of arrows. I guess I'll have to develop other strategies or rely more on archery... shrug.
>flee
A raptor has arrived from the east.
>charge raptor
>flee
A raptor has arrived from the east.
>charge raptor
>flee
A raptor has arrived from the north.
A raptor has arrived from the east.
>think Fuck.
>fleeIt'll work.
I support this change 100%.
I support this change. With a mounted combatant, I would want to charge a creature multiple times. But I won't, because that's abusing the code just the way that spam kicking would. With this change, I can charge a creature multiple times without guilt and it handles the stamina cost as well. More believability. I like it.
Quote from: The7DeadlyVenomz on June 28, 2009, 05:22:16 PM
Quote from: Ammut on June 28, 2009, 05:01:52 PM
I'll play around with the code change and see if I have any feedback to give. At this point I think that some of the npc's I used to hunt would be impossible without a quiver full of arrows. I guess I'll have to develop other strategies or rely more on archery... shrug.
>flee
A raptor has arrived from the east.
>charge raptor
>flee
A raptor has arrived from the east.
>charge raptor
>flee
A raptor has arrived from the north.
A raptor has arrived from the east.
>think Fuck.
>flee
It'll work.
Find myself wondering if disengage allows another charge.
Quote from: jmordetsky on June 29, 2009, 01:54:29 AM
Find myself wondering if disengage allows another charge.
Sounds like it does,
if you're not--excuse the term--tanking. If Mr. and Mrs. Raptor are busy clawing your companion rather than you.
So.... After this change-- other than having that -one- charge that you initiate combat with, and have to leave combat to use again, will there be any bonuses to mounted combat?
It seems to be negatives all across the line so far, except for charge.
Quote from: Qzzrbl on June 29, 2009, 09:43:58 AM
So.... After this change-- other than having that -one- charge that you initiate combat with, and have to leave combat to use again, will there be any bonuses to mounted combat?
It seems to be negatives all across the line so far, except for charge.
With this change, no, with other pending changes that haven't been announced because we're still discussing them, perhaps.
maybe i've been out of the combat based character too long. i forgot what was so wrong about spamming coded attack, especially against NPCs.
there is already a hefty delay on charge. has that been tweaked or removed? Because now it'll be:
charge
target hopefully is knocked down.
wait.
target stands up.
flee east
west
charge
it just seems the delay was already added to represent the whole 'turning your mount around' thing.
dunno, maybe the delay works with the pending implementation, but i hope it's compared to movement lag and attack lag so that the potential target can't nullify charge by attacking first.
I guess I'm upset because apparently I am one of the few people who DIDN'T use charge in this way and DIDN'T see it as teh best skill EVAR. But then I did see a carru knocked on his ass BY my charge, then horrifically gore me for mor than half my hit points. I only charged once, MAYBE twice a combat. Twice being more likely if it was a bigger thing (read: more HP) and there was another hunter there and we were fighting in tandem. Now I find out I had a backstab this whole time? Crap. Oh well. Still would have done what seemed to make sense.
I REALLY like the charging from another room idea. ALOT.
The fact that I just watched this be used in a kill while it's been quoted by staff as being abusive is very, very upsetting. Watched a victim be unable to stand or even draw a weapon while they were charged to death small bits of hp at a time. I'm happy for this change 100%.
For some reason I think that being trampled intentionally by a several thousand pound lizard would be quite more devistating than the few hp worth of damage it usually does. What ever happend to mounted riders being brutal? Ever heard of the Mongols? What about that Hannibal guy?
People in the MMO community would call what is being done "carebear". I don't dislike the change to charge so much as I feel it makes the skill practically useless now. What happened if 15% of the time when you failed a backstab you fell on your face? It seems a little stupid that a master at riding is going to fall off during a pre-planned charge that only does a few hp of damage. Furthermore, I don't like how you can be bashed while mounted and even knocked into the next room (at least by NPC's). Totally lame. The charge skill could use some overhaul.
In my mind, charge would be even more brutal than it already is, but to counter, if you are riding a mount you can not be bashed or charged. Don't want to get pounded by armed fighters on mounts? Get your own mount.
Quote from: Majikal on June 29, 2009, 06:06:26 PM
charged to death small bits of hp at a time.
I'm coming to be fairly happy with the change-- but small bits of hp at a time? That's nuts.
I hope it was a newbie rider on a baby erdlu.
The issue as it stands is pretty blatant, the charge 'lock' is so harsh that the skill itself renews before the victim snaps to and is able to move. Therefor you end up with the unlucky victim on the ground without even the ability to draw weapons, stand up, flee as was the case I witnessed. Despite the victim being far more skilled in combat than the assaulting rider.
Quote from: brytta.leofa on June 29, 2009, 09:29:24 PM
Quote from: Majikal on June 29, 2009, 06:06:26 PM
charged to death small bits of hp at a time.
I'm coming to be fairly happy with the change-- but small bits of hp at a time? That's nuts.
I hope it was a newbie rider on a baby erdlu.
No, a mul on a war beetle. Many times the targets were still relatively fit after I charged them. The mul punched harder than most charges, honestly, and he had low strength. I know a mul can punch pretty hard, but uh...."trampled by a war beetle" seems to suggest some form of heavy damage. War beetles aren't that huge in comparison with the largest mounts, but they're no joke. A Mini-Cooper might not kill you instantly if it hits you at 15-20mph, but it can still fuck you up, right?
I think charge should do massive damage. You're not simply knocking them over, you're literally knocking them down and stomping the shit out of them with the intent of incapacitation. Anyway, the damage I've seen this do hasn't reflected what the message suggests.
And I don't care how athletic someone is, how big their sword is, or if they're carrying a shotgun, Majikal, if you get tackled point blank by some 800-1500 pound beast your ass is grass.
Quote from: MajikalTherefor you end up with the unlucky victim on the ground without even the ability to draw weapons, stand up, flee as was the case I witnessed
Quote from: Sephiroto on June 29, 2009, 09:43:49 PM
And I don't care how athletic someone is, how big their sword is, or if they're carrying a shotgun, Majikal, if you get tackled point blank by some 800-1500 pound beast your ass is grass.
No weapon and on the ground seems a bad situation. If it took multiple charges it probably was a lame erdlu.
An 800 pound yearling isn't that hard to push around. 1500 pounds is more like a big cow, which, trust me because I've been there, isn't -that- bad to be knocked over by.
A 40 pound wolverine is probably far more dangerous (although I don't have personal experiene with wolverines). Which is analagous. Maybe you are using a 1500 pound cow to try to trample a 40 pound wolverine. I think the cow would probably loose.
*adjusts his cowboy hat*
Quote from: Sephiroto on June 29, 2009, 09:43:49 PM
Quote from: brytta.leofa on June 29, 2009, 09:29:24 PM
Quote from: Majikal on June 29, 2009, 06:06:26 PM
charged to death small bits of hp at a time.
I'm coming to be fairly happy with the change-- but small bits of hp at a time? That's nuts.
I hope it was a newbie rider on a baby erdlu.
No, a mul on a war beetle. Many times the targets were still relatively fit after I charged them. The mul punched harder than most charges, honestly, and he had low strength. I know a mul can punch pretty hard, but uh...."trampled by a war beetle" seems to suggest some form of heavy damage. War beetles aren't that huge in comparison with the largest mounts, but they're no joke. A Mini-Cooper might not kill you instantly if it hits you at 15-20mph, but it can still fuck you up, right?
I think charge should do massive damage. You're not simply knocking them over, you're literally knocking them down and stomping the shit out of them with the intent of incapacitation. Anyway, the damage I've seen this do hasn't reflected what the message suggests.
And I don't care how athletic someone is, how big their sword is, or if they're carrying a shotgun, Majikal, if you get tackled point blank by some 800-1500 pound beast your ass is grass.
I think it's probably a good deal easier to avoid a charging 800-1500 pound beast than the game's code really gives credit for. It's probably a good deal easier to incapacitate someone's 800-1500 pound beast than the code really gives credit for. This is why there's a delicate balancing act that goes in with respect to skills and abilities. It would be nigh unplayable if you could hamstring someone's inix, or cut a foot off of someone's sunback, or impale a war beetle in the face with a voulge...so take what you have, and leave the rest.
In my experience, a properly skilled up charge allows you to kill someone with charge 'only'. Even if your weapons are bouncing off due to your extremely low strength or whatever. It just tends to take awhile and lots and lots and lots of charges.
Also, who said delves can evade charge consistantly? They have a greater chance of it, sure. But we're talking like ... 1 in 5 charges?
Not trying to contribute to the conversation or discussion, so I apologize, but I had to say it.
Some of you are hilarious. XD
I suspect that some of you would be singing a different tune if you had to watch a character that you put days and days of playtime into die while someone was spam-charging you.
QuoteI suspect that some of you would be singing a different tune if you had to watch a character that you put days and days of playtime into die while someone was spam-charging you.
If this is the literal line of logic, nerf magick plz.
Quote from: Armaddict on June 30, 2009, 06:18:45 AM
QuoteI suspect that some of you would be singing a different tune if you had to watch a character that you put days and days of playtime into die while someone was spam-charging you.
If this is the literal line of logic, nerf magick plz.
Rangers are zero karma.
Quote from: Niamh on June 30, 2009, 05:21:07 AM
I suspect that some of you would be singing a different tune if you had to watch a character that you put days and days of playtime into die while someone was spam-charging you.
Versus spam-disarming? If it's problematic to use a skill repeatedly, let's get it reflected in the code, rather than casting aspersions on folks. Or if you consider this a bug, I'm sure the poor bugger would love a resurrection.
Before this announcement, it
never occured to me that charge was something that "should" only be done to initiate combat; in fact, because of mounted combat's disadvantages, I thought that charge was something you should be doing as often as possible: keep your mount moving and use it to your advantage, rather than letting your opponent use it to his.
The staff's new, authoritative interpretation of charge is very reasonable. So was everybody else' interpretation (in line with what the code encouraged), pre-announcement.
Quote from: Armaddict on June 30, 2009, 06:18:45 AM
QuoteI suspect that some of you would be singing a different tune if you had to watch a character that you put days and days of playtime into die while someone was spam-charging you.
If this is the literal line of logic, nerf magick plz.
Different situation. Entirely.
- Magick is interruptible. That means that if you survive/resist the first spell, you've at least got a shot at escaping or even winning.
- Magick is extremely powerful in-universe--and by that, I mean that the documentation casts it as extremely powerful.
- Magickers require karma. Rangers don't.
- It's the abusive nature of spam-charging that is an issue here, not the power of charge. Casting a spell on someone, a single spell, isn't abusive behavior, no matter how powerful it is. Spam-charging, or spam-disarming, or, hell, spam-anything is pretty abusive. I'm this close to advocating a short "cooldown" (sorry to use MMORPG terminology) on non-magick combat skills, only as long as can be justified realistically while still helping to avoid a spam-whatever situation.
That being said, aside from implementing cooldowns (which I realize would piss, oh,
everyone but me off), I think being killed through obvious code abuse is grounds for a resurrection for the victim and harsh punishment for the perpetrator. I know resurrections are delicate situations, but this is one time when I think it's justified.
Quote from: Niamh on June 30, 2009, 05:21:07 AM
I suspect that some of you would be singing a different tune if you had to watch a character that you put days and days of playtime into die while someone was spam-charging you.
It's always good to see staff putting effort into trying to stem code abuse and whatnots. Here's my two sids however:
At the end of the day, why nerf a certain skill to prevent code abuse? As long as there are codes, there will always be players who will be abusing them. No matter what sort of implementation or restrictions you put out on a certain coded skill, there will
always be players or as we like to call "twinkers" trying to find loop holes and ways to go around it. My thought is this, simply just dish out harsher punishments when code abuse or any other un-Arm-like-ethical behavior is involved on players.
There are a lot of responsible players that do nothing but try to get everyone involved with whatever he/she/it is doing, so why nerf a skill that would affect the entire player base when only certain players (hopefully a small handful only) are not abiding to the rules? IMHO, simply just take away certain guild options - let say Ranger Amos spam charges a hapless PC with no emotes, no rp scenes involved, no other forms of interactions. Then simply just take ranger guild away from player A, throw in a few neg notes along the way. Then watch player A very carefully.
It is very irritating and upsetting especially if a PC - as mentioned by Niamh - have invested days after days of developing the persona, working up a skill in a realistically RP-like manner, building up a social network or whatever then only to die to a PC death that involved nothing but spam charge/spam backstab/spam anything else. However, is it the fault of the code? Or is it the fault of the player that did all the spamming?
QuoteAnyway, the damage I've seen this do hasn't reflected what the message suggests.
Rather than change the skill, why not just change the messaging?
If the trample is a critical success, then the message will reflect critical damage.
If the trample only caused 5 hps damage, the message will reflect that the beetle's right leg bumped into the guy's elbow and made his funny bone tingle.
If the trample was significant but not critical, the message will reflect that the guy probably broke his leg but is otherwise intact.
And so on and so forth.
To "Me":
It is the fault of both the code, and the player. If the code isn't intended to be used a certain way, then it shouldn't be *efficient* at being used in that way. Yes, people will always find ways around the code.
When "finding ways around the code" turns into "common practice" then there is something wrong with the code.
You cannot, and should not, expect the staff to babysit every single PC who has the charge skill, JUST in case they might use it irresponsibly. It is a *common* tactic. It is common, because the code has been "worked around" for a very long time, to the point where it was just assumed the code was intended to do that. This - is a fault of the code. The code was built during the time when hack-n-slash was more attractive than RPI. H&S is still more attractive than RPI, but the Armageddon community and code has evolved from that mentality. The code is -still- evolving. The charge code is part of that continual evolution.
I'm going to reiterate my suggestion:
Cooldowns.
Okay, I know, it smacks of World of Warcraft, but it's a fantastic way to prevent spamming. If you can make it so you have to wait x number of seconds between disarms or charges, you won't see spamming anymore, because it'll be codedly impossible. If you need a hand-wave to make it "realistic," pretend that it takes your character that long to find another opening to disarm someone, or something along those lines. You can still do other skills while one of your skills is on cooldown, of course--while you're waiting to be able to disarm again (and I'm not saying we need appreciably long cooldowns, by the way, just long enough to prevent spamming), you can kick, or bash, or whatever. Each skill has its own cooldown, the length of which is dependent on the skill and perhaps on the skill level, too.
Yes. It reeks of MMORPG and some people won't like that. But it's a sure-fire way to prevent skill-spamming and related abusive behavior in combat situations, and isn't that difficult to rationalize realistically from the player's perspective. Yes, I know, in real life you could attempt to disarm someone over and over again, and isn't Armageddon big on realism? And yes, it is, but these sorts of topics have come up often enough that limitations that may just barely cross over into the unrealistic sound pretty reasonable to me. Wouldn't you prefer to have to wait a few seconds between disarms or charges than to have situations where a character is spam-charged to death? I know I would.
I didn't know that the game lacked roundtimes (cooldowns, old-style).
I thought it was built into the code, no? I know it's built into kick. The combat continues, but you can't use that command again for a couple of seconds.
The more agile you are, the quicker you can do it a second time. With charge, the agility would depend on the mount rather than the person typing the command. So a clunky slow-as-marilla-sap sunlon would sit back and toke a tube of tho before he gets around to charging again. But an erdlu would be all over it. The erdlu wouldn't do as much damage as a sunlon, but that big ugly bird hopping you to death's gonna hurt, if he's so fast you can't get up between hops.
Quote from: Lizzie on June 30, 2009, 08:27:50 AM
I didn't know that the game lacked roundtimes (cooldowns, old-style).
I thought it was built into the code, no? I know it's built into kick. The combat continues, but you can't use that command again for a couple of seconds.
The more agile you are, the quicker you can do it a second time. With charge, the agility would depend on the mount rather than the person typing the command. So a clunky slow-as-marilla-sap sunlon would sit back and toke a tube of tho before he gets around to charging again. But an erdlu would be all over it. The erdlu wouldn't do as much damage as a sunlon, but that big ugly bird hopping you to death's gonna hurt, if he's so fast you can't get up between hops.
If they're built in, maybe they should be longer, then. I haven't noticed them, but then again, I've never tried to spam-kick someone. But then
again, I've never had a character with a high enough kick skill for that to matter.
Quote from: Me on June 30, 2009, 08:05:28 AM
It's always good to see staff putting effort into trying to stem code abuse and whatnots. Here's my two sids however:
At the end of the day, why nerf a certain skill to prevent code abuse? As long as there are codes, there will always be players who will be abusing them. No matter what sort of implementation or restrictions you put out on a certain coded skill, there will always be players or as we like to call "twinkers" trying to find loop holes and ways to go around it. My thought is this, simply just dish out harsher punishments when code abuse or any other un-Arm-like-ethical behavior is involved on players.
We're not particularly in this line of volunteer work to police "bad" players. If the code allows something to happen that we decide should not occur, we'd generally rather change the code to prevent it.
Quote from: NoteworthyFellow on June 30, 2009, 08:19:26 AM
I'm going to reiterate my suggestion:
Cooldowns.
Okay, I know, it smacks of World of Warcraft, but it's a fantastic way to prevent spamming.
We call them "delays" on Arm. Help on most skills shows a delay either before or after the use of a skill, depending on its type.
Quote from: Sephiroto on June 29, 2009, 06:55:40 PM
People in the MMO community would call what is being done "carebear". I don't dislike the change to charge so much as I feel it makes the skill practically useless now. What happened if 15% of the time when you failed a backstab you fell on your face? It seems a little stupid that a master at riding is going to fall off during a pre-planned charge that only does a few hp of damage. Furthermore, I don't like how you can be bashed while mounted and even knocked into the next room (at least by NPC's). Totally lame. The charge skill could use some overhaul.
If you want to use that type of logic the skill in its present form would also be considered an 'I win' button. Charge made it impossible for anyone to get out of lag and actually flee, let alone anything else. All of you rangers out there think that this is some great injustice but where is the realisim with this skill? Sure, if you're on a 'warhorse' you might be able to trample me, but even then I've got a decent chance of moving one direction or another and a chance to draw a weapon or two. You're telling me that you could repeatedly ride someone down and give them no chance in fleeing? Bull. This is a decent fix to something that was being abused and I for one am glad to see it go live.
I don't know why folks are crying "spam" and "abuse." That's how charge works. The staff decided to change it. It's probably a good change.
The courtly, bejeweled ranger says, reining in a massive, silver-shelled inix, in sirihish,
"Stand up, sirrah, and pick up thy sword. This is no proper duel!"Quote from: Me on June 30, 2009, 08:05:28 AM
IMHO, simply just take away certain guild options - let say Ranger Amos spam charges a hapless PC with no emotes, no rp scenes involved, no other forms of interactions. Then simply just take ranger guild away from player A, throw in a few neg notes along the way.
I'm not sure what kind of emoting and "rp scenes" you think you should expect in wilderness combat with real weapons. Until combat is slowed way down, or the staff start handing out resurrections for "being killed without enough emoting," that's where it sets.
Though it's enriching to emote such things when you can do so without substantial risk.
Quote from: mattrious on June 30, 2009, 08:48:29 AM
This is decent fix to something that was being abused and I for one am glad to see it go live.
This is a decent fix to something that, apparently, had a design flaw. (Though we could argue the same thing about reel; it's just that, since there's no
reel command, we can't complain that someone who benefits from the design is a spamming spammy twink.)
Quote from: Nyr on June 30, 2009, 08:47:02 AMQuote from: NoteworthyFellow on June 30, 2009, 08:19:26 AM
I'm going to reiterate my suggestion:
Cooldowns.
Okay, I know, it smacks of World of Warcraft, but it's a fantastic way to prevent spamming.
We call them "delays" on Arm. Help on most skills shows a delay either before or after the use of a skill, depending on its type.
Hm. Y'know, I knew that, but I didn't really make much of a connection. Either way, they don't seem to do much to stop spamming--so either they should be longer, or my suggestion was profoundly off the mark.
Quote from: brytta.leofa on June 30, 2009, 09:17:16 AMI'm not sure what kind of emoting and "rp scenes" you think you should expect in wilderness combat with real weapons. Until combat is slowed way down, or the staff start handing out resurrections for "being killed without enough emoting," that's where it sets.
Though it's enriching to emote such things when you can do so without substantial risk.
I like the idea of slowing combat down somewhat. I'm of the belief that it should be about fewer hits with bigger damage per hit. More time to emote, for one thing.
I wouldn't mind the delays to charge being much longer, like 30 seconds or so.
Or if this bug fix is going through, it would be nice if we could charge from the next room. Or even two rooms away (with a penalty, of course).
Delay here is what is generally called a wait state.
Which is different than a cooldown.
A cooldown of 30 seconds wouldn't be bad (can't use the skill, can use other commands)
A delay/wait state of 30 seconds would be insane (can't use any skill, and a number of commands)
Quote from: Twilight on June 30, 2009, 11:38:38 AM
Delay here is what is generally called a wait state.
Which is different than a cooldown.
A cooldown of 30 seconds wouldn't be bad (can't use the skill, can use other commands)
A delay/wait state of 30 seconds would be insane (can't use any skill, and a number of commands)
good post, twilight. exactly what I was going to say.
cooldowns would be awesome and far better for playability than having to freaking flee and run back into the room to trample again, in addition to the wait state.
krath! This 'you have to not be in combat to charge' is just another error message saying 'you suck at this game.' kinda like the 'you can't flee while on the ground!' message. If i'm on the ground and I type FLEE, why doesn't my character automatically attempt to stand and then flee, with appropriate delays?
I'd like it much better if the delay from one combat special didn't prevent you from doing a different one under the delay. I think the delay should be attached specifically to the skill that triggered it.
That way, you still wouldn't be able to spam kick over and over again. But you could attempt a kick and follow with a bash attempt during the kick delay.
Oh, and I'm still against slowing combat down any further.
Quote from: Agent_137 on June 30, 2009, 11:47:50 AM
Quote from: Twilight on June 30, 2009, 11:38:38 AM
Delay here is what is generally called a wait state.
Which is different than a cooldown.
A cooldown of 30 seconds wouldn't be bad (can't use the skill, can use other commands)
A delay/wait state of 30 seconds would be insane (can't use any skill, and a number of commands)
good post, twilight. exactly what I was going to say.
cooldowns would be awesome and far better for playability than having to freaking flee and run back into the room to trample again, in addition to the wait state.
krath! This 'you have to not be in combat to charge' is just another error message saying 'you suck at this game.' kinda like the 'you can't flee while on the ground!' message. If i'm on the ground and I type FLEE, why doesn't my character automatically attempt to stand and then flee, with appropriate delays?
This stuff. +1
This code change was great, and needed. Which is why I started another thread for the discussions of Mounted Combat. The staff fixed a problem with the command, but I think there is much more to be done about charge to make it more realistic, and fun to play with.
I don't think anyone's really saying that this change was a bad one. I think they're saying this change could be better.
QuoteDifferent situation. Entirely.
* Magick is interruptible. That means that if you survive/resist the first spell, you've at least got a shot at escaping or even winning.
* Magick is extremely powerful in-universe--and by that, I mean that the documentation casts it as extremely powerful.
* Magickers require karma. Rangers don't.
* It's the abusive nature of spam-charging that is an issue here, not the power of charge. Casting a spell on someone, a single spell, isn't abusive behavior, no matter how powerful it is. Spam-charging, or spam-disarming, or, hell, spam-anything is pretty abusive. I'm this close to advocating a short "cooldown" (sorry to use MMORPG terminology) on non-magick combat skills, only as long as can be justified realistically while still helping to avoid a spam-whatever situation.
That being said, aside from implementing cooldowns (which I realize would piss, oh, everyone but me off), I think being killed through obvious code abuse is grounds for a resurrection for the victim and harsh punishment for the perpetrator. I know resurrections are delicate situations, but this is one time when I think it's justified.
-Charge is interruptible. If you avoid it, you have a shot at escaping or even winning, and it has a large enough delay that it also gives you quite the chance at turning things around if you are another 0 karma class. Just like every other skill of this nature, i.e. bash, disarm, backstab...it only becomes truly dangerous once it is a higher skill level.
-Good thing that 'nerf magick plz' is written as an obvious joke as a mere demonstration that there are -plenty- of things in this game that make you helpless, not just this skill. It's really the only skill in a ranger's arsenal that makes you so, while as a multitude of 0-karma classes get things that are 1-use helplessness or get multiples of it. So balance? Nah.
-Honestly? There are things discussed in a multitude of threads recently that have been called 'code abuse' in the past, then were dropped to 'twinkish behavior', then to 'frowned upon', and are now called completely acceptable. Seeing a rather disconcerting trend.
Edited to add: Not saying this change is bad, I'm saying that calling this one skill so much more horrible than the others is a little ridiculous, particularly when I see numerous lines of logic 'justifying' one change and then calling all the others completely acceptable. Face it. Being made completely helpless always sucks. But if 'balance' is what you're going for, look across the board.
Being completely helpless to a sorceror throwing fireballs vs being helpless to a less than 2 weeks old ranger who has 0 talent aside from a constant use of the charge skill in combat, the differences should be obvious. Not only is magick a karma required class but it's always watched much more closely then your non karma roles, putting magick on the same playing field as mondanes is silly. The charge skill takes little to no time to reach a 'deadly' level of skill with this abusive tactic.
This is right up there on the list with the open/close curtain battles I've seen go down where the lag of opening the curtain was used by the attacker to close the curtain back, therefore turning a curtain that could be walked through into a steel deathtrap.
QuoteBeing completely helpless to a sorceror throwing fireballs vs being helpless to a less than 2 weeks old ranger who has 0 talent aside from a constant use of the charge skill in combat, the differences should be obvious.
The main difference being that the two week old ranger will miss charges, and will still be getting thwacked by you even while you're stunned when it does succeed.
Charge = bash, but in an easily spam trainable way for a a 0 karma guild that allows you to lock someone into being unable to do ANYTHING. You spam it, you're a twink and I've seen people do it. Twinky bastards. This is the BEST change that could come at this point, if you ask me.
Still not as bad as other skills I see both spammed and depended on by other classes that are also generally much more hostile and in a much better position to kill you more of the time.
Quote from: Armaddict on June 30, 2009, 05:23:27 PM
QuoteBeing completely helpless to a sorceror throwing fireballs vs being helpless to a less than 2 weeks old ranger who has 0 talent aside from a constant use of the charge skill in combat, the differences should be obvious.
The main difference being that the two week old ranger will miss charges, and will still be getting thwacked by you even while you're stunned when it does succeed.
This. And....
Quote from: Armaddict on June 30, 2009, 06:04:29 PM
Still not as bad as other skills I see both spammed and depended on by other classes that are also generally much more hostile and in a much better position to kill you more of the time.
Ever get kicked by a dwarf? I have. Not even spam kicked. Twice. Knocked me out. Ever get SPAM KICKED by a 10 day warrior? Yah. 10 day ranger will NOT come out of that fight well.
With this change, it means rangers have 0 advantage in PC vs PC combat. No bash, no kick, no disarm. So.... The usefulness of rangers is what? Oh, yeah, good forage.
Quote from: tortall on June 30, 2009, 06:14:23 PM
Quote from: Armaddict on June 30, 2009, 05:23:27 PM
QuoteBeing completely helpless to a sorceror throwing fireballs vs being helpless to a less than 2 weeks old ranger who has 0 talent aside from a constant use of the charge skill in combat, the differences should be obvious.
The main difference being that the two week old ranger will miss charges, and will still be getting thwacked by you even while you're stunned when it does succeed.
This. And....
Quote from: Armaddict on June 30, 2009, 06:04:29 PM
Still not as bad as other skills I see both spammed and depended on by other classes that are also generally much more hostile and in a much better position to kill you more of the time.
Ever get kicked by a dwarf? I have. Not even spam kicked. Twice. Knocked me out. Ever get SPAM KICKED by a 10 day warrior? Yah. 10 day ranger will NOT come out of that fight well.
With this change, it means rangers have 0 advantage in PC vs PC combat. No bash, no kick, no disarm. So.... The usefulness of rangers is what? Oh, yeah, good forage.
Tortall, you obviously don't know what you're talking about.
If a warrior even -uses- the kick command in a PvP situation, the target can easily flee out and be 10 leagues away by the time the command delay wears off. Not only that, you have to have teh UBERZ strength now for kick to even do any damage vs. armor. (Even with the skill maxed or nearly maxed, my last warrior with 'good' human strength had 90% of his kicks stopped cold by armor.)
Bash and subdue are the only two skills that warriors have that can "lock" another PC in the same room like charge does. From what I've seen, neither bash nor subdue has anywhere -near- the likelihood of succeeding as compared to charge, unless you are a half-giant.
So please...don't compare apples to oranges.
Quote from: tortall on June 30, 2009, 06:14:23 PM
With this change, it means rangers have 0 advantage in PC vs PC combat. No bash, no kick, no disarm. So.... The usefulness of rangers is what? Oh, yeah, good forage.
Someone must have never played a ranger to their full potential, more deadly than any other class once you step into their playground. Maybe I've just had a knack for rangers.
Comparing the strength of kick/bash against the silly strength of a young pc's charge is ridiculous. A warrior has to be on foot, suffers more lag then the victim and you can't bash the already bashed victim which leaves them with a chance to escape, synthesis is dead on in his post. I wish I could paste a log of the charge abuse I witnessed it would sway the minds of many I have no doubt. Unless of course you were the inconsiderate player doing the charge spam, in which case I figure you might try to justify it.
Stop with the insinuations.
Stop with the holier then thou.
Stop with the extreme arguments.
Stop with the strawmen.
Presenting opinion, examples, experience, and theory are all possible in a healthy discussion. Starting closer to middle ground and a concious willingness to work to stay on it make for a productive one.
Trolling, entrapment, demeaning, dismissing are part of human behavior, sadly; they are however not welcome here, and most of you are fully capable of resisting the urge to partake. Reread your posts before hitting the "post/submit", and if you can't manage to find a way to say it without the negatives, don't say it.
Here's a situation.
Character A = Victim
Character B = warrior
Character C = Ranger.
If B were to fight A alone, B would be owned very easilly. If B would've fought C alone, C would've been owned within 3-5 rounds tops. C catches A unarmed, with shield alone and tramples him down. C charge locks A, so A cannot draw weps, cant stand, cant flee, cant do 'anything' but speak and emote. Both of B and C's blows get mostly blocked, while A is losing health to charge. A dies.
You can spam kick, you can spam disarm, you can spam many things. But all those things (amongst 0 karma skills) allow a chance for escape, either immediate or after the fact. Even if those skills dont fail, even if you get kicked or disarmed, you can still flee. Charge can reach a point of 100% or 'near' 100% success 'very' easilly and quickly, where flee simply 'stops' working, because the delay on "charge" is shorter then the delay the victim suffers due to being charged.
You left out bash. Oops.
Quote from: Eloran on June 30, 2009, 09:45:40 PM
You left out bash. Oops.
I don't know about bash being near 100% (I've never seen it as such a level, but I also have never seen charge at such a level) - but I would say that with Bash if you do fail, you are on the ground and a bit f@cked. I think if you fail charge, you're just chillin, charge again.
Quote from: jmordetsky on June 30, 2009, 10:17:07 PM
I don't know about bash being near 100% (I've never seen it as such a level, but I also have never seen charge at such a level) - but I would say that with Bash if you do fail, you are on the ground and a bit f@cked. I think if you fail charge, you're just chillin, charge again.
Wrong.
The one who charges, dependent upon their ride vs. charge skills, can be very effectively thrown from the back of their own mounts, putting them in the same position they had just previously attempted to put their victim in. Also - Mounted Combatants have the chance of being thrown from the back of their mount, regardless of weither they are using Charge or not.
Even Rangers who have mastered Charge and Ride get thrown from their mounts, very much how a Warrior who has mastered Bash can still fall.
In my opinion, Charge is one of the few skills that helps seperate Rangers from the rest of the classes and this change just makes this skill practically useless unless someone has another character "tanking" for them. NPC's do not get any lag, as far as wild creatures go, and the moment they move into the same room as you - They are spam bash/slashing your face in so there goes your ability to charge and atleast level the playing field.
I realize Zalanthas is a harsh worlds but I didn't think the mounts who have spent centuries evolving in this harsh terrain would suddenly and abruptly require more room just to knock something over. I sure as hell don't see carru's ceasing their endless bash/charge combos so why not just work on that while your dumbing the Charge skill down.
I've SEEN a 2-day ranger kill a 20-day character by spam charging and locking that person out of being able to enter a command.
Quote from: Eloran on June 30, 2009, 09:45:40 PM
You left out bash. Oops.
What about it ? Bash has 'siginificantly' greater risks and considerably greater failure rate. Unless you're an HG, I suppose. After some point, you no longer fall off the mount if you've failed charge. After some point, you practically dont fail charge at 'all'.
Quote from: Dar on July 01, 2009, 11:11:04 AM
hat about it ?
What about it? You merely forgot to mention a skill that effectively destroys your argument.
Bash is just as much the ultimate mage killer as charge is. I've seen bash used far more effectively than charge, but again, most of these arguments are based off of anecdotal arguments as opposed to empirical evidence.
The risks are the same with bash and charge. If you fail a bash, you fall. If you critically fail a charge, you fall off your mount.
Quote from: Dar on July 01, 2009, 11:11:04 AM
After some point, you practically dont fail charge at 'all'.
This is misleading.
You reach a point with bash where you hardly fail as well.
Charge is not a skill that is 100%. I've dodged a max ranger's charge - chalk it up to me being a wee bit faster than my opponent.
Quote from: Dar on July 01, 2009, 11:11:04 AM
Quote from: Eloran on June 30, 2009, 09:45:40 PM
You left out bash. Oops.
What about it ? Bash has 'siginificantly' greater risks and considerably greater failure rate. Unless you're an HG, I suppose. After some point, you no longer fall off the mount if you've failed charge. After some point, you practically dont fail charge at 'all'.
Does Bash cause HP and massive stun damage if you fail? I'm just asking, because charge does. I'm not in disagreement to a needed change for charge, but perhaps in what form that change takes. If we are going to compare bash and charge, shouldn't they operate the same way with the same bonuses and drawbacks? Perhaps a minor bonus to charge, as it requires a mount which has other well known penalties associated with it.
All of this hurts me on a personal level, as the first skill I branched ever was charge, and I never abused it. So to me if feels like the only present I ever got was just taken away.
Quote from: Dar on July 01, 2009, 11:11:04 AM
Quote from: Eloran on June 30, 2009, 09:45:40 PM
You left out bash. Oops.
What about it ? Bash has 'siginificantly' greater risks and considerably greater failure rate. Unless you're an HG, I suppose. After some point, you no longer fall off the mount if you've failed charge. After some point, you practically dont fail charge at 'all'.
This is true, and with bash you can't bash a downed opponent which means you have to wait until they stand to target them again, giving them a chance to stand, flee, or most importantly draw weapons why down etc. Bash also puts the assaulter sitting down with every fail where charge, once skilled (which for a ranger is often done quickly), rarely on a fail will put the ranger sitting down. The ability to charge a downed opponent before the lag allows them to input any command is the issue.
Quote from: 5 day lifespan on July 01, 2009, 11:39:57 AM
Stuff.
You do realize we're on the same side, right? That being said, don't let things get to you on a personal level. It's just a game mang.
Quote from: Majikal on July 01, 2009, 11:44:13 AM
The ability to charge a downed opponent before the lag allows them to input any command is the issue.
The idea to simply create a longer delay or develop a script to pull away from your opponent before charging them once more has obviously fallen on deaf ears. Either would have been the best solution to retain the fluidity of combat.
I know of someone whose fairly long-lived pc died due to some jackass and a charge lock. They quit the game and won't be returning.
:rereads what he wrote: Wasn't aware that anything i said implied i was attacking your stance. And no, I am certain the staff didn't go, "Hey, what did 5dls just branch? Parry? Let's nerf it!" Still sucks though. Luckily ride also branches "forage crap..." so I still have toys to play with... :-\
Wouldn't this have been better if the combat capability of animals were taken into account when using charge?
Leave the large pack animals with a generally greater chance of success, but also a much greater chance of throwing the rider. The generally smaller war mounts and can then a much less reduced chance of throwing the rider in exchange for the penalties that come from reduced size.
I have to say, I really don't care about changing charge for pvp. If PCs were using it to do lame abusive things to other PCs, then a change somewhere was needed. No big whoop.
Mainly, I'm just sad about the side effect ... it seems to me that this removes a skill from the ranger's hunting toolkit, since as already mentioned, most NPCs seem to spam-attack long before you can type "charge beastie" when they enter the room or the ranger enters the creature's room. Charge then becomes a trigger-happy, carefully-planned OOC tactic rather than something that just comes naturally while playing a ranger.
Am I wrong in this? I haven't played a ranger in a while now.
Quote from: Eloran on July 01, 2009, 11:18:34 AM
Bash is just as much the ultimate mage killer as charge is. I've seen bash used far more effectively than charge, but again, most of these arguments are based off of anecdotal arguments as opposed to empirical evidence.
And yet bash can be completely avoided. Bash's timer does not lock out the bashee longer than it does the basher. There are more points to be made that reveal that bash is a lot weaker than charge but they do not need to be made since these two are enough to prove that an attempt to make it a one to one comparison fails.
In its current form charge is significantly more powerful and potent than bash is. If charge were reduced to an equivalency of bash then we would not be seeing this discussion nor would we be seeing changes being made.
Quote from: lingering on July 01, 2009, 04:20:41 PM
And yet bash can be completely avoided.
So can charge.
Quote from: lingering on July 01, 2009, 04:20:41 PM
If charge were reduced to an equivalency of bash then we would not be seeing this discussion nor would we be seeing changes being made.
If charge were simply given a longer cooldown so that the victim had a chance to flee we wouldn't be having this discussion. Only a handful of people seem to have grasped this concept.
QuoteIf charge were simply given a longer cooldown so that the victim had a chance to flee we wouldn't be having this discussion. Only a handful of people seem to have grasped this concept.
Not true. As it was stated, the staff just don't like how the mechanic works right now. The stun on it? Fine. But not while they're still getting attacks. So now there is just one stun that you have to flee and repursue for.
It's not a bad change at all. I just have my gripe about how one class it's deemed excessive because after they get the skill up, along with fighting skill, it gives a ranger the ability to make someone nigh helpless. There are a multitude of other 0-karma skills that do the same thing via other mechanics, often without requiring multiple successes in a row to pull it off, too.
Rangers are still powerful. Just still dependent on a lot more 'activity', and on hoping the other guy isn't mounted. Which sucks.
Quote from: Morgenes on June 27, 2009, 03:01:23 PM
Just a heads up that due to some abuse we've seen with charge and how we as staff envision it should be used, we're altering the code to enforce this idea. Charge isn't just turning your mount around and trampling the person again and again, instead you have to break free, get some momentum and come back at the person. Once this change goes live, you will have to not be fighting the person you want to charge, nor can they be fighting you in order to get the charge off.
What? No, wait.
This does seem a little drastic. Though, so is keeping an opponent in a constant state of knockdown - and we're all against that, especially in the case of PC victims. But surely there is a middle ground. Isn't there a simpler/alternate solution than implementing this decisive of a change. eg.
- reduce (or even remove) the knockdown chance if already in combat with opponent
- reduced damage if already in combat with opponent
- reduce damage and/or knockdown chance dependant on time period since last charge attempt
- reduce knockdown chance against larger (or more intelligent) foes
- a bunch of other options more creative folks would think of
So, if you're not already in combat, or you took your time to gain some momentum or similar, charge is (much) more effective. But if you are in close, and just using your mount to try and outflank, bustle, bump, or otherwise off-put your opponent, you still gain some benefit from doing so.
Maybe mounted combat techniques can all be RP'd, without any coded command, but it is nice to have some coded effect to your tactics. Having to emote all/most combat manuevers without
any coded support at all (for non-warriors) is just less.... fun.
Quote from: Armaddict on July 01, 2009, 06:16:02 PM
As it was stated, the staff just don't like how the mechanic works right now.
Perhaps it's not just a balance issue, as Morgenes did also state it's not how the staff
envision it should be used. But then you end up with one less (of few/none) coded skills to help add flavour (and noticable effect) during a rumble. Also, does it completely unbalance things the other way, and ruin/cripple mounted combat? Which seems damned rare to begin with?
Both those concerns could be addressed by adding in new combat manuevers (with minor combat effects) later on. Something like this was also mentioned - or at least some form of mounted benefit. But maybe it would be simpler to just tweak the existing skill (and perhaps broaden it's usage/echos/intended meaning), than drastically reduce it's usage altogether, and leave us hoping for new features to add flavour and balance.
Anyhow, it's seems unlikely the decision will be altered any. Or perhaps, I'm just mental anyway.
Under all theories, can't you just come into a room, charge someone and knock them down... wait the like THREE seconds it takes for charge to reset, flee, keep running, and come back into the room and charge again to keep a lockdown? It would just take -longer- for everything to happen.
*mockingly* I wish combat would take longer.
Quote from: lingering on July 01, 2009, 04:20:41 PM
Bash's timer does not lock out the bashee longer than it does the basher.
Yes it does. Especially if it was a VERY successful bash (e.g. pulled off by something much larger than yourself).
The difference is: you can't bash someone when they're already on the ground, so if they have stand;flee command stacked (which is likely, since they're probably spamming the 'flee' command while they're locked), you won't have a chance to pull off the second bash once they stand up...unless they fail ALL the flee commands they have stacked up, or you have such an awesome connection to ginka that you can get your next bash command in before the next "heartbeat."
the traveler, it has nothing to do with knockdown. You get lagged as the target of a charge and could be charged again before running that lag out. I had a character die because someone opened up combat with a charge... I typed 'stand;flee' and had NO response from the game until my character was at negative HP, the game telling me that I couldn't do anything while in that condition. Not only that, you could charge a prone opponent meaning that people using it could spam the command with no fear. THAT was how people were abusing charge.
The only way to change it that is a middle-ground would leave noone happy because it would completely nerf charge. This allows people to still use it and have a way to use it repeatedly, so long as they aren't solitary twinks like the guy that killed my character.
Quote from: Synthesis on July 08, 2009, 02:55:48 PM
Quote from: lingering on July 01, 2009, 04:20:41 PM
Bash's timer does not lock out the bashee longer than it does the basher.
Yes it does. Especially if it was a VERY successful bash (e.g. pulled off by something much larger than yourself).
The difference is: h98u9834298STUFF893842838oajdad
This is a world of difference, that difference alone is what makes bash impossible to abuse.
Quote from: spawnloser on July 08, 2009, 08:17:28 PM
the traveler, it has nothing to do with knockdown. You get lagged as the target of a charge and could be charged again before running that lag out.
Umm, isn't that the game effect of knockdown? The lag is in place to prevent a player from immediately standing back up. So when I use the term knockdown, I'm referring to the time until you are functional/back on your feet.
Quote
I had a character die because someone opened up combat with a charge... I typed 'stand;flee' and had NO response from the game until my character was at negative HP, the game telling me that I couldn't do anything while in that condition. Not only that, you could charge a prone opponent meaning that people using it could spam the command with no fear. THAT was how people were abusing charge.
Yes, and we're all for changing this - I'd hate losing a char that way too. But there are lots of way to accomplish it that don't basically remove the skill from most/many situtations (or forcing anyone that wants to use it more often, to perform the cheesy flee; charge; flee; charge;).
Why remove the only in-combat skill the character might have, one that adds both flavour and some coded effect, and an ability that helps makes mounted combat somewhat more usable? This seems rather harsh. Note, my concerns are for primarily keeping a coded combat tehnique when battling creatures/NPCs.
Quote
The only way to change it that is a middle-ground would leave noone happy because it would completely nerf charge.
This doesn't seem logical to me.
Surely a reduced/removed knockdown (target delay) chance and or duration seems a nicer alternative. If you make time/space and give your mount more of a run-up, it has a stronger effect. If you just try it in close, it's more likely to just bump your target, or knock him off balance for only a brief period.
Again, maybe it's not the true intent of the word
charge, but being able to use your mount to your advantage feels appropriate (at least against creatures). Maybe you shouldn't be able to perform multiple bumps/charges against an intelligent (humanoid?) opponent. After a while, they'll figure out how to use the terrain to avoid it.
Make a successful charge stop the victim's attacks (like reel) and allow the rider to totally disengage. Obviously this requires delay-tweaking to make sure we're not right back in the same situation as before.
Anyway, the whole discussion's moot at this point.
Quote from: brytta.leofa on July 08, 2009, 09:41:02 PM
Anyway, the whole discussion's moot at this point.
Probably so, but then, Morgenes did initaite this thread, so I guess we get to comment as we like for now, even if it is likely for nought.
Hmm, perhaps just:
- an additional (soft) delay before the charge (like, maybe 5-10 seconds?)
Either, only when already in combat, or all the time even. So you take a few moments (and have time for emotes as you like) to try and manuever your mount, make some space, turn to front your target, then you get to try the charge.
I'm only going to ask this once:
What, exactly, is the problem with having to disengage? In multiple-combatant situations, if you are not taking the damage, you can simply type 'disengage;charge man' and do what this has suggested anyways.
I ask, because I can't help but think that the people vehemently against this nerf, have been either abusing it in the way staff has suggested, or just want something to complain about.
Quote from: Riev on July 08, 2009, 10:07:35 PM
I ask, because I can't help but think that the people vehemently against this nerf, have been either abusing it in the way staff has suggested, or just want something to complain about.
Sometimes rangers solo-hunt?
But, honestly ... I'm not sure that stating your suspicion that everyone who disagrees with you is either abusing the code or trolling is going to lead to fruitful discussion.
Quote from: Riev on July 08, 2009, 10:07:35 PM
What, exactly, is the problem with having to disengage? In multiple-combatant situations, if you are not taking the damage, you can simply type 'disengage;charge man' and do what this has suggested anyways.
The problem is that charge used to be usable even if you were taking the damage: for instance, if a tarantula attacked you. Now hunters who ride can't use charge as their, shall we say, offensive defense.
Is this more realistic? (Hush, Lizzie.) Game-wise, is it bad to make life harder for hunters? Heck if I know. It's a reasonable change, but it's also one more strike against trying to play a ranger as a warrior.
Quote from: Riev on July 08, 2009, 10:07:35 PM
I ask, because I can't help but think that the people vehemently against this nerf, have been either abusing it in the way staff has suggested, or just want something to complain about.
I totally would disengage if I reeled somebody, too-- ahem. No, I've never fretted that using the basic combat commands in normal situations could be "abuse."
I'm not playing a ranger right now, but I'm hanging around with a few. They have no trouble getting off opening charges against aggressive wildlife, eg. raptors and carru.
Okay, I at least get it from reading Brytta's post.
However, paying close attention, you can still at least charge the tarantula once. At least bash can be used multiple times in combat, though it comes with drastic consequences for failure.
I just wonder how a singe post from a Staffer has caused so many pages of argument back and forth. I usually take what Staff says as gospel. Its going to happen, its in line with what they want it to be, and the relatively small percentage of players that is represented by the GDB just seems to disagree every time.
Not to add fuel to the fire, but more to calm them, we do have more to this change than originally advertised. Charge is getting an increase in damage to compensate for the loss of being able to do this repeatedly, and to better bring it into our idea of what charge is.
We are altering the penalties with mounted combat to make them be not as harsh, as well as adding increased chances to hit dependent on relative heights.
In addition, we are adding a new skill called trample that will be open to all highly skilled riders (yes, I said all, not just Rangers) that is more intended for trampling someone who is already down, but can be used on someone who is still standing to attempt to knock them down. The defender will have a stronger chance of defending against this knockdown, and will be able to mitigate the damage somewhat through quick reflexes.
We agree that mounted combat isn't fleshed out enough in Arm1 to really be a viable style, but we hope that these changes will provide some meat and viability to it. The ideas of weapon reach, and targetted locations changing would require a major change to Arm's combat and balancing to make sure it isn't overpowering. They are great ideas, but better focused to Arm Reborn.
Quote from: Morgenes on July 09, 2009, 12:48:50 AM
new skill called trample that will be open to all highly skilled riders
I believe I speak for everyone when I say I can't wait to hear more.
Quote from: Riev on July 09, 2009, 12:46:37 AM
However, paying close attention, you can still at least charge the tarantula once.
If you're opening combat...and yeah, if Joe Gith arrives from the west, you do have a good second or few to react before he can attack you. Some wildlife will hide and attack before you see 'em, though (though rangers have skills to foil that, as well).
Quote from: Riev on July 09, 2009, 12:46:37 AM
I just wonder how a singe post from a Staffer has caused so many pages of argument back and forth. I usually take what Staff says as gospel. Its going to happen, its in line with what they want it to be, and the relatively small percentage of players that is represented by the GDB just seems to disagree every time.
Take any five players and you'll get six opinions on everything, right? ;) Part of it is that we don't see everything that's on the staff's agenda. Sounds like this change was rolled out ahead of others in order to respond quickly to a particular problem.
Quote from: Morgenes on July 09, 2009, 12:48:50 AM
Awesomez stuffs
Morgenes I take back all the mean things I said. :-*
Quote from: Grey Area on July 09, 2009, 12:44:33 AM
I'm not playing a ranger right now, but I'm hanging around with a few. They have no trouble getting off opening charges against aggressive wildlife, eg. raptors and carru.
This is good to hear.
Quote from: Morgenes
AWESOME STUFF
That stuff ... it's awesome. : )
Sounds exciting. This makes me want to play a mounted warrior.
Quote from: Morgenes on July 09, 2009, 12:48:50 AM
Not to add fuel to the fire, but more to calm them, we do have more to this change than originally advertised. Charge is getting an increase in damage to compensate for the loss of being able to do this repeatedly, and to better bring it into our idea of what charge is.
We are altering the penalties with mounted combat to make them be not as harsh, as well as adding increased chances to hit dependent on relative heights.
In addition, we are adding a new skill called trample that will be open to all highly skilled riders (yes, I said all, not just Rangers) that is more intended for trampling someone who is already down, but can be used on someone who is still standing to attempt to knock them down. The defender will have a stronger chance of defending against this knockdown, and will be able to mitigate the damage somewhat through quick reflexes.
We agree that mounted combat isn't fleshed out enough in Arm1 to really be a viable style, but we hope that these changes will provide some meat and viability to it. The ideas of weapon reach, and targetted locations changing would require a major change to Arm's combat and balancing to make sure it isn't overpowering. They are great ideas, but better focused to Arm Reborn.
Ahh, Ok. Thank you.
I'll shut up now.
I like the changes. Thank you guys for taking the time to go over this code!
So, are there DISADVANTAGES to using mounted combat? Because now it seems like crit shots to the head and neck are more common, and -every- class has a chance to use a "bash".
Just wondering, as this makes footed combat pretty much null.
Quote from: Riev on July 09, 2009, 04:16:24 AM
So, are there DISADVANTAGES to using mounted combat? Because now it seems like crit shots to the head and neck are more common, and -every- class has a chance to use a "bash".
Just wondering, as this makes footed combat pretty much null.
the way I see it
New:
foot solider v. foot soldier = same
rider v. rider = same
foot solder v. rider (+critical hits -defense -offense) = same
Old:
foot solider v. foot soldier = same
rider v. rider = same
foot solder v. rider (-defense -offense) = rider at a disadvantage
Quote from: Morgenes on July 09, 2009, 12:48:50 AM
awesome things
Awesome.
So current characters will automatically get the 'trample' skill if the skill it branches from was already high enough prior to the change?
Quote from: Riev on July 09, 2009, 04:16:24 AM
So, are there DISADVANTAGES to using mounted combat? Because now it seems like crit shots to the head and neck are more common, and -every- class has a chance to use a "bash".
Just wondering, as this makes footed combat pretty much null.
there are disadvantages to mounted combat. To really see sucess while mounted, you need to be a competant rider and fighter. Nowhere in my post did I say that mounted combat affects hit location, as a matter of fact my last paragraph says that it would be interesting, but potentially unbalancing and something better timed to Arm 2. Any current apparent propensity towards head and neck shots is chance.
Also as I said, the new trample skill is not really affective as a bash, so don't expect it to be knocking people down all the time as that wasn't the intention.
Cutthroat, yes existing chars that should have branched trample will get it the next time log in.
Quote from: Morgenes on July 09, 2009, 12:48:50 AM
adding increased chances to hit dependent on relative heights.
So this means, more or less, that a halfling on the ground and a half-giant on an inix will have a hard time reaching each other? Or...that a mounted human and unmounted half-giant
won't have a a hard time reaching? Things.
Quote from: brytta.leofa on July 09, 2009, 09:33:12 AM
Quote from: Morgenes on July 09, 2009, 12:48:50 AM
adding increased chances to hit dependent on relative heights.
So this means, more or less, that a halfling on the ground and a half-giant on an inix will have a hard time reaching each other? Or...that a mounted human and unmounted half-giant won't have a a hard time reaching? Things.
this means that if you are mounted and relatively taller than your opponent (while mounted), you can get a bonus to hit them. The mounted half giant can also get a similar bonus to defense. So to your specific question, the halfling could have a harder time hitting the mounted rider, but the mounted rider can have a better chance of hitting the halfling. Again, this is not to cover reach, but to allow skilled riders an advantage when fighting relatively smaller opponents from 'higher ground'
Thank you, Morg.
I am now very pleased with this change.
Quote from: the traveller on July 08, 2009, 09:31:53 PM
Quote from: spawnloser on July 08, 2009, 08:17:28 PM
the traveler, it has nothing to do with knockdown. You get lagged as the target of a charge and could be charged again before running that lag out.
Umm, isn't that the game effect of knockdown? The lag is in place to prevent a player from immediately standing back up. So when I use the term knockdown, I'm referring to the time until you are functional/back on your feet.
No. Command lag and knockdown are two different things. Use clearer terminology. Be precise.
Getting knocked down is being put on your ass. Getting command lagged is not being able to do ANYTHING. Bash accomplishes both things, but while your opponent is knocked down, you can't bash them again. You can charge them again.
Charge is a maneuver where you don't just bump into them, you fucking run them over stampede style. You need distance and you can not get that while you and the person you are trying to charge are engaged in combat. If you want to charge someone, they have to be a distance away from you. This change as described by Morgenes is realistic. Explain to me how it is not. Don't tell me about anything else. Explain to me how a mount can get up to charging speed when you are within 2 meters of someone.
Quote from: spawnloser on July 09, 2009, 12:16:24 PM
Charge is a maneuver where you don't just bump into them, you fucking run them over stampede style. You need distance and you can not get that while you and the person you are trying to charge are engaged in combat. If you want to charge someone, they have to be a distance away from you. This change as described by Morgenes is realistic. Explain to me how it is not. Don't tell me about anything else. Explain to me how a mount can get up to charging speed when you are within 2 meters of someone.
That is the definition as it stands now. Previously, the command and its echo were not clear.
Per the helpfile: "This skill causes a highly skilled rider to attempt to trample an opponent while mounted on an animal."
We're now getting a skill called trample. It tramples your opponent. You don't need to get distance. The old charge resulted in a trample echo. Thus, it was perfectly reasonable to assume, until the change, that charge wasn't a big distance maneuver - since it resulted in trampling and, hey look, you don't need long distances to trample, do you?
Finally, exactly where did The Traveller say that Morgenes' solution wasn't realistic? "Be precise," please. ::)
It strikes me as bizarre to be jumping down peoples' throats in this thread when the imms have brought out a great solution that seems to address the concerns of everyone involved and also to reflect the opinions of both sides, not just yours. Oh wait, this is the GDB. I guess it isn't bizarre, unfortunately.
I haven't been looking forward to a reboot this much in a long time.
Well, I will be very much looking forward to seeing this in action. Now I wonder what this change to sling bullets is all about...
I'm a goober that cant read.
Is this live yet?
Thunkkin, I never said the traveler said Morgenes' projected change was unrealistic. He wants something other than Moregenes' projected change, however, and I don't because I think Morgenes' projected change is perfect. I was precise. You misunderstood.
I disagree, though, about stuff being confusing. The echo may've been confusing, but a charge is a charge. You've seen charges in movies. You don't do it from 3 feet away. You need distance. Just because the mud didn't acknowledge that before and people were abusing something because it was uber and the echo didn't support what a charge was... doesn't mean that people can't use some common sense.
Quote from: spawnloser on July 11, 2009, 01:24:19 PM
I think Morgenes' projected change is perfect. I was precise. You misunderstood.
Fair enough and we're in agreement on the first point I quoted. : )
Quote from: spawnloser on July 11, 2009, 01:24:19 PM
Thunkkin, I never said the traveler said Morgenes' projected change was unrealistic. He wants something other than Moregenes' projected change, however, ..
I do? Didn't ever (intend to) suggest that.
All I was advocating was to let rangers keep one in-combat skill (for both flavour and some (reduced) benefit), and to not make mounted combat more of a handicap than it already was (in general).
After Morgenes then clarified the staff/coders intent, I also added:
Quote from: the traveller on July 09, 2009, 01:46:57 AM
Quote from: Morgenes on July 09, 2009, 12:48:50 AM
Not to add fuel to the fire, but more to calm them, we do have more to this change than originally advertised.....
Ahh, Ok. Thank you.
I'll shut up now.
They seem to have it in hand. I just suggested it might be easier for staff to tweak the existing skill differently, rather than to also add a new one, but all the better this way.
Quote from: Morgenes on July 10, 2009, 10:26:26 PM
Quote from: Synthesis on July 10, 2009, 07:23:41 PM
Is this live yet?
no
I've played a character that just about lived on mounted combat, and charge was just about the /only/ possible equalizer to dealing with stuff like bashing, disarming and kicking, etc. And as others have said, mounted combat is unrealistically unattractive already.
Honestly, this is one of those changes that strike me as people having a round table discussion about how much they hate charge and having it just go too far. There are better ways to handle it. And it's impossible to have a real charge mechanic anyways given the nature of the combat system...where anyone can instantly attack anyone in the same room. If you could attack them from an adjacent room, it'd make more sense to be a one-shot only deal.
Though, I know that desert elves everywhere will be creaming themselves at this change. Given that a lucky bash (against their height and agility) or a charge, was about the only way to keep them still long enough. I still have nightmares about fighting an NPC-animated desert elf who constantly regenned HPs and stamina to boot. I think the staffer finally turned around and deigned to fight me out of pity.
/couldnt' be buggered to read 7 more pages of Synthesis loving on this, so if the change proposed in the OP got modified by Morgenes on like page 5, I missed it
Charge will be changing to a fight starter like backstab or sap.
Trample will be introduced and it will be like bash, the old charge, kick, disarm.
Clearsighted: I have updated the original post with the further elaboration on the changes that will be coming with it.
To save you the trouble (assuming you come back soon), here is what I posted on page 7:
Quote from: MorgenesNot to add fuel to the fire, but more to calm them, we do have more to this change than originally advertised. Charge is getting an increase in damage to compensate for the loss of being able to do this repeatedly, and to better bring it into our idea of what charge is.
We are altering the penalties with mounted combat to make them be not as harsh, as well as adding increased chances to hit dependent on relative heights.
In addition, we are adding a new skill called trample that will be open to all highly skilled riders (yes, I said all, not just Rangers) that is more intended for trampling someone who is already down, but can be used on someone who is still standing to attempt to knock them down. The defender will have a stronger chance of defending against this knockdown, and will be able to mitigate the damage somewhat through quick reflexes.
We agree that mounted combat isn't fleshed out enough in Arm1 to really be a viable style, but we hope that these changes will provide some meat and viability to it. The ideas of weapon reach, and targetted locations changing would require a major change to Arm's combat and balancing to make sure it isn't overpowering. They are great ideas, but better focused to Arm Reborn.
Quote from: Morgenes on July 20, 2009, 09:31:57 PM
Clearsighted: I have updated the original post with the further elaboration on the changes that will be coming with it.
To save you the trouble (assuming you come back soon), here is what I posted on page 7:
Quote from: MorgenesNot to add fuel to the fire, but more to calm them, we do have more to this change than originally advertised. Charge is getting an increase in damage to compensate for the loss of being able to do this repeatedly, and to better bring it into our idea of what charge is.
We are altering the penalties with mounted combat to make them be not as harsh, as well as adding increased chances to hit dependent on relative heights.
In addition, we are adding a new skill called trample that will be open to all highly skilled riders (yes, I said all, not just Rangers) that is more intended for trampling someone who is already down, but can be used on someone who is still standing to attempt to knock them down. The defender will have a stronger chance of defending against this knockdown, and will be able to mitigate the damage somewhat through quick reflexes.
We agree that mounted combat isn't fleshed out enough in Arm1 to really be a viable style, but we hope that these changes will provide some meat and viability to it. The ideas of weapon reach, and targetted locations changing would require a major change to Arm's combat and balancing to make sure it isn't overpowering. They are great ideas, but better focused to Arm Reborn.
That looks incredibly cool, Morgenes!
I'm so glad I didn't read this post from the beginning, and just came in at the end when everything was settled and happy :)
Trample: Wow.
http://www.armageddon.org/cgi-bin/help_index/show_help?skill_trample
Skill Trample (Combat)
This skill causes a highly skilled rider to attempt to trample an opponent while mounted on an animal. It works best on an opponent who is already prone, however it can cause your victim to fall over. 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 expert riders, since such maneuvers require expert control over the animal.
Syntax:
trample <target>
Example:
> trample gith
Notes:
It is impossible to trample while your character is not mounted.
The size of the mount can make a big difference in the success of a
trample attempt.
You can't trample something that is too large.
See also:
charge, combat, ride
Delay:
after (if success: opponent after)
http://www.armageddon.org/cgi-bin/help_index/show_help?skill_charge
Skill Charge (Combat)
This skill causes a highly skilled rider to attempt to knock down 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.
Due to the amount of space required to do this maneuver, you cannot be fighting your target when you execute it. Disengage, or otherwise get away from them first in order to do this again.
Syntax:
charge <target>
Example:
> charge gith
Notes:
If your character misses a charge, he/she may lose their balance and
fall over and thus be in the same unenviable position as the opponent,
had your character been successful.
It is impossible to charge while your character is not mounted.
The size of the mount can make a big difference in the success of a
charging attempt.
See also:
combat, ride, guild_ranger, race_half_elf
Delay:
after (if success: opponent after)
What's the deal with the new ride messages?
p.s. Mounted combat should now satisfy everyone :o
Quote from: Synthesis on July 27, 2009, 05:28:46 PM
What's the deal with the new ride messages?
p.s. Mounted combat should now satisfy everyone :o
that is part of the tiered success/failure for riding. Instead of your mount balking with every fail, there are multiple possible outcomes, including the original balking, and the new outcomes which are additional delays caused by trying to get your mount to go the way you want.
Do the different delays stack?
Sometimes I'm getting like three different "partial failure" messages.
Quote from: Synthesis on July 27, 2009, 05:41:48 PM
Do the different delays stack?
Sometimes I'm getting like three different "partial failure" messages.
that is likely a bug in the random choice of echoes. You should only receive one echo, but I will look and see what is up.
Pure win.
Ya, the bug is that it's sending multiple echos instead of choosing one. It'll be fixed next reboot. There is only one penalty being applied.
I am somewhat perplexed as to why it is implemented the way it seems to be. What I have experienced is a simple pain in the ass, and seems to be, at first glance, implemented on a simple level.
The most pain in the ass part is the falling off. It isn't realistic and I can't see what it really adds to the game, other than a pain in the ass factor.
As far as I can tell, it seems to be doing the skill + terrain + weather calc before it figures out what the failure is. I would have expected tiering here. So, falling off based on skill, which really a moderately skilled rider should be able to avoid. So...one set of failures based on the skill level. If you pass, but fail due to incremental terrain modifier, a different set of echos and impacts (like your mount falls down). If you pass, but fail due to weather, a different set of echos (like your mount loosing move mv due to a less than straight path). Etc.
You should only be falling off your mount if the penalties amount to more than your skill, or if you fail two ride checks in a row. Please mail me your character, account name, the name of the room you were moving from, how many hands you had free and what the speed of your mount was and I'll investigate if you are falling off and are a good rider.
Edited to note another possibility for a critical failure.
Please include logs where possible.
I just wanna say anyone who has ever charged anything like a Mek or Bahamet, you deserve to play nothing but an elven merchant.
Quote from: The Archbishop on July 28, 2009, 05:15:35 AM
I just wanna say anyone who has ever charged anything like a Mek or Bahamet, you deserve to play nothing but an elven merchant.
Some folks RP'ed it as having their smaller animal maneuver around the larger one, close enough to say, hamstring the bigger animal and drop it that way. Or any other variety of ways a person might wish to emote.
Staff had not been clear on the skill's usage until now (indeed, as was pointed out in this thread ... staff was thinking it should be like a knight in armor's "charge" where as the code reflected more of a "trample") so I think saying anyone who ever charged a Mek or Bahamet is a twink who deserves to not be allowed a combat character is a bit ... judgemental.
... ... I never charged a Mek or Bahamet (never had a PC badass enough to consider hunting one as anything other than suicide), I'm just saying that blanket statments like that could do with some perspective.
Yah, before the change I hadn't been falling off at all, and almost never failing. Now I never succeed, and always fall off. Granted, I've only used it maybe 4 times since the change, but....
Next few times it happens I'll log it and email it to you Morg. Maybe I just wasn't as good as I thought. :D
If you slam a 2 ton lizard (an inix) into a 20 ton lizard's (a mek) leg... the thing is still probably going to go down.
But if staff chooses to make said 20 ton lizard fall down on top of the smaller lizard and smaller lizard's rider, then that's all good, too.
Judgemental? The skill was pretty blatant. You ram your mount into something, you weren't using a weapon. You were using an animal, now say if animals could be trained to attack, or bite, or whatever the case may be I kind of see your point. You don't hamstring a Mek by ramming an inix into it's leg. And you know even if you did full speed ride an inix into it's leg, picture a car accident. Picture a 2 ton truck hitting a 20 ton truck. Safe to say your not staying mounted and ride around like you weren't just riding an animal that just plowed into something that would barely budge for your pea sized (in comparison) mount. Sorry for such a late response.
I think there are plenty of echos the code generates that we as players use our own judgement to decide if they fit with the current situation or need to be tailored for the case in point.
Did the carru really just smirk at you as it side-stepped your slash? The code says it did ... but maybe you'd rather RP it differently since it would be jarring to take the coded echo literally.
Did someone who rested really just lay back completely prone on the ground? Hard to say, the echo says they sit down to rest their tired bones ... but that they stop resting and sit up, when they're finished ... so which one is it? The coded echoes give conflicting viewpoints ... so we tend to go off whatever the other person was RP'ing it as because that's better for our immersion.
Prior to staff changing the code and laying out a clear explanation of how they viewed the charge skill, it would also be jarring to imagine your erdlu trampling over an inix ... so rather than go by the coded echo, folks once again just RP'ed it as a slightly different means to the same end (the inix falling over).
I'm just saying that I don't see anything wrong with that (before staff changed their ruling I mean), and I wouldn't accuse folks who did it of being knowing twinks who should be punished. That's all.
But what I'm talking about is not the same as the "charge lock" abuse staff was describing earlier on in this post. A mek, bahamet, oxen, inix, whatever other large critter ... will still happily kick your ass from a prone position in a fight so charging them wasn't really making them leaps and bounds easier to kill.
I think the main problem was that you could charge lock a PC (who had no weapons drawn yet and hence was pathetic in a fight) and keep them on the ground, unable to codedly get their blades out.
And I have no dispute with code echo sometimes being off. Obviously some things have to be played around. There's no playing around ramming your mount into something it shouldn't be ramming. IE an erdlu charging an inix. Now the the rare case your playing an insane character and you have no judgemental sense and for some unknown reason you think it's a good idea to ride your mount into a 2 story creature I can see that. At no point in time can I imagine there's some way to go about rping around the charge skill to somehow use it to knock over a mek or bahamet. Your a man riding a inix, your not gonna knock over a bahamet. It's not gonna happen. All I can ask is you, is would you ever say you know I'm a char with the charge skill, purely oocly would you ever charge your mount into a mek or bahamet? Would it make sense as something that can be played out in the game? Maybe I'm biased, and am used to the old harsh ways of being punished. But that scenario is dumb, and I personally just don't agree with anyone having done it.
Quote from: The Archbishop on August 26, 2009, 10:37:22 PM
At no point in time can I imagine there's some way to go about rping around the charge skill to somehow use it to knock over a mek or bahamet.
I can. For reasons I explained above. I just wouldn't jump the gun and assume that anyone doing it was knowingly trying to abuse the code for gain, and should therefore be punished. I guess I'm not used to the old harsh ways of being punished first, questioned later.
If you manage to charge a mek successfully on your erdlu, there are a number of ways to RP why it was successful.
None of them are twinky. Hamstrings are valid points. Surprise is a valid point. Not to mention, charge, like bash and kick, is open to interpretation.
Let people play, and don't hunt for reasons to call them twinks.
None of them are twinky..alright.
Go bash a half giant. There's good reason that unless your another half-giant you fail.
Quote from: The Archbishop on August 27, 2009, 02:03:15 AM
None of them are twinky..alright.
Go bash a half giant. There's good reason that unless your another half-giant you fail.
Sure, there is a good reason. But still, a very very skilled halfling warrior just might, I'm assuming I admit ... actually bash a half-giant. The code presumably lets them do it (though it by no means makes it easy, and many might not even try for fear of the massive penalty of failing), this is apparently by design ... so if a halfling bashes a half-giant and pulls it off, and they want to RP the halfling as having landed a good bite to the nuts to make it happen ... I'd be inclined to roll with it and not think anthing poorly of them. I certainly wouldn't high handedly call them a twink and say they should never again be allowed to play a combat class.
I doubt the charge skill worked much differently when it came to bashing bahamets and mek's. It likely let you try, but unless you really really knew your stuff, you probably failed badly. So if someone managed to do it and wanted to emote it out as something other than a literal trample, I'd be ok with that.
I believe that even now, the code might still let you attempt to charge a bahamet ... just now your chances of doing it have gone down some more.
So even now with the new code in place, it might still be possible, however unlikely, to bash a mek with an erdlu, and if a PC pulls it off, I would think them suicidal ... but not a twink.
Quote from: The Archbishop on August 27, 2009, 02:03:15 AM
None of them are twinky..alright.
Go bash a half giant. There's good reason that unless your another half-giant you fail.
If you bash a half-giant successfully, you have succeeded. It's not twinky.
Having not used the charge skill yet, I am still going to assume that the size of the charger against that of the charged is taken into account. So. If this is so, then if you successfully use an erdlu to charge a mek, then your success is not twinky. You have gotten lucky.
I'll also point out that an inix is about one-tenth the size of a mekillot, per this. (http://www.pathguy.com/athasian_carriers.jpg) Certainly not pea sized. Your analogy of a 2-ton truck hitting a 20 ton truck is nearly perfect, however.
I believe staff will adjust it if they feel it is out of hand. I think they will comment on it, if it is out of hand. Until then, I think all is well.
I had been looking for that picture! Thanks.
Heh have you ever bashed a half giant successfully venomz? And a human is certainly more than 1/10 the size of a half giant.
All I'm saying is you could hamstring a half giant, but you don't go about doing it by bashing them.
Quote from: The Archbishop on August 27, 2009, 08:34:14 PM
Heh have you ever bashed a half giant successfully venomz? And a human is certainly more than 1/10 the size of a half giant.
All I'm saying is you could hamstring a half giant, but you don't go about doing it by bashing them.
No.
Quote from: The Archbishop on August 27, 2009, 08:34:14 PM
Heh have you ever bashed a half giant successfully venomz? And a human is certainly more than 1/10 the size of a half giant.
All I'm saying is you could hamstring a half giant, but you don't go about doing it by bashing them.
I'm not even sure what it is you're trying to point out anymore. Near as I can tell your arguement seems to be: If your PC or their mount is small, and you type in the command to bash or charge something large ... you're a twink. Regardless of the result, regardless of how you RP, you're a twink for trying.
Is there something else I'm missing? Or is this basically it? Because if that's it then we can just have a difference of opinion and get on with things.
Quote from: musashi on August 27, 2009, 08:46:08 PM
Regardless of the result, regardless of how you RP, you're a twink for trying.
Yeh, this is what I'm reading too. And basically, I just disagree. I don't guess it really matters. If staff cared, they would have posted something by now. Obviously, they don't.
I'm guessing that's because of how the code works currently in this instant, and how it arbitrates for us already.
After nine pages of this, I'm sick of raging to myself.
Staff put a LOT of fucking work into making charge a different type of skill. Its not as though the coders went in, changed a method, and said "Ok we're done."
So far, its been said that it is WELL within what they wanted the code to be. If they see fit, they'll change it, but what WE perceive as "twinky" clearly doesn't matter unless its imbalanced the game so much that people are charging at Tek's tower to knock it down.
How many pages has there been, now, about charging an inix at a mek and how people that do it shouldn't play this game? Fuck. Way to alienate the people that just want to play the game and not worry about their every little action being judged by some partial jury.
Yeah this is just an old topic we're going back and forth about. Well I'm just kind of saying the same thing in thirty different ways, and we're obviously not agreeing.
Which is fine by me. But if reading this is annoying you or making you feel alienated. STOP READING THIS THREAD, go play the game and have fun. Go bash a a half giant while your at it.
I would like to see who would win in a deathmatch battle: Archbaron or The Archbishop.
Definitely the Archbishop.
Archbaron. His forum icon looks like an orange if you look at it funny.
Quote from: Xagon on September 08, 2009, 04:55:51 PM
Archbaron. His forum icon looks like an orange if you look at it funny.
Wait ... it's NOT an orange?
*goes to go double-check*
Thats why it's so awesome, it's an orange made out of a desert setting and a githclit.
Alright, after several weeks of evaluating the charge skill.
I have found one major flaw that makes me truly hate the skill.
And that is that there is no warning.
I mean, it is bad enough that you can enter a room and be instantly close enough to attack them.
But being able to turn an animal that weighs several thousand pounds, get it up to speed and trample over somebody with NO warning what so ever is just silly.
Combined with the added height advantage, and the fact that being mounted makes you immune to many other combat skills this makes charge THE MOST powerful combat skill in the game. Beyond even backstab, sap and any magick.
Changes I think need to be made.
(in order of importance)
Charge needs delay before as well as delay after. Same as backstab, archery, throw, sap etc.
Like Archery and throw it also needs an echo before.
In the last two months I've not seen a single instance of a PC emoting before the charge, they are using it as a surprise attack...So I don't want to be hearing anything about emoting, it does not happen.
Next,
You should not be able to charge something that the mount cannot see.
Since every other skill in the game uses stam, Charge should use up a large amount of mount stam as well. As should trample.
As the mount gets more tired the odds of landing a charge or trample should be reduced.
This would deal with another bit of twinkness I have been watching. I have seen, multiple times, a PC use both charge and trample while riding an animal that cannot even walk a single room due to being too tired.
And lastly, the mount should be injured with any successful charge or trample. Maybe not a huge amount, but again, if your ramming your animal into something that is armored and carrying sharp items, weather that is teeth, spines or weapons, they will take some damage.
Quote from: X-D on September 15, 2009, 03:58:34 PM
And that is that there is no warning.
Do any other combat skills give a warning before taking effect?
QuoteLike Archery and throw it also needs an echo before.
Yes.
And the ones that do not, well, they also do not involve a 2000lbs+ animal.
Not to mention, all of them leave you open to things rather then making you immune.
Using a 20 foot long, 4,000 lizard in a surprise attack is Da Twinkness*lameness.
Shit, even magick has echo before.
X-D has some good points to make about charge. Though, some of its worst excesses have been curbed lately, such as no longer being able to charge mekillots.
But I will say, from having played a PC that /lived/ off Charge, for months, that all of my closest brushes with death came from charging, and then falling while doing so. And without getting too specific, let's just say I played that particular ranger for more than 40 days, and used charge VERY often, and was still falling off one in ten times towards the end.
Also. Charging desert elves was a pain. :P It was much easier to charge a bahamet or a half-giant.
Quote from: X-D on September 15, 2009, 03:58:34 PM
Alright, after several weeks of evaluating the charge skill.
I have found one major flaw that makes me truly hate the skill.
And that is that there is no warning.
I mean, it is bad enough that you can enter a room and be instantly close enough to attack them.
But being able to turn an animal that weighs several thousand pounds, get it up to speed and trample over somebody with NO warning what so ever is just silly.
I guess I would be cool with giving charge a small delay before use as well as the one after it, but I'm just not entirely sure about having it give off a room echo. My main concern with doing that is the reverse twinking that would no doubt follow suit.
What I mean is ... sure it's unrealistic for me to be able to instantly charge you with my big lizard from across a plain of grass ... but it seems equally unrealistic for you to be able rush over and attack me first to interupt it because you saw it coming. Or for you to be able to get a room away from me while -walking- even though I was -charging- a galloping lizard in your direction.
Seems like "fixing" one side of the problem would just unbalance the other side, until some kind of approach code or the like is in place.
Quote from: X-D on September 15, 2009, 03:58:34 PM
Combined with the added height advantage, and the fact that being mounted makes you immune to many other combat skills this makes charge THE MOST powerful combat skill in the game. Beyond even backstab, sap and any magick.
I think you might just be being a cranky old man again here with this part, like when you were suggesting in the Casual Play discussion that being able to earn 50 'sids while off line would someone lead to lead to things like no skill grind and the removal of perma death. I've never seen anything get 1-shot ganked by a charge unless it was already pretty close to being dead, not even a tregil.
Quote from: X-D on September 15, 2009, 03:58:34 PM
Changes I think need to be made.
(in order of importance)
Charge needs delay before as well as delay after. Same as backstab, archery, throw, sap etc.
Like Archery and throw it also needs an echo before.
I would be ok with the beforehand delay like I said above, but I think you're missing one important difference between charge, and archery/throw.
Archery and throw take place in a DIFFERENT room. The reverse twinkery problem I mentioned above is not an issue for ranged abilities because the target isn't in the room to see them happen.
If you really want a charge echo displayed to everyone, then can we please also change charge so that I can "charge NPC e" from 1 room over? That seems fair enough to me. Otherwise it seems like you're just asking that I give you fair warning before I attack, that I'm about to attack you ... so that you can do something twinky to get out of it.
Quote from: X-D on September 15, 2009, 03:58:34 PM
In the last two months I've not seen a single instance of a PC emoting before the charge, they are using it as a surprise attack...So I don't want to be hearing anything about emoting, it does not happen.
People very rarely take the time to emote that they're running over to you to swing a club at your head either so ... I'm not entirely sure where you were going with that. Struck me as a bit of a double standard.
Quote from: X-D on September 15, 2009, 03:58:34 PM
Next,
You should not be able to charge something that the mount cannot see.
Why not? You're guiding the mount, not arguing with it over where it needs to go. Small Edit to Add: Again this seems like a twinking/reverse twinking problem to me. Sure, it might be unrealistic for me to be able to charge my beetle around the rock you're hiding behind somehow, but ... it's also unrealistic for you to be able to instantly get out from around that rock and close the distance to me without me being about to see it coming and take some kind of action. Again, I think that until there is some kind of approach code, this one is just better left alone.
Quote from: X-D on September 15, 2009, 03:58:34 PM
Since every other skill in the game uses stam, Charge should use up a large amount of mount stam as well. As should trample.
As the mount gets more tired the odds of landing a charge or trample should be reduced.
This would deal with another bit of twinkness I have been watching. I have seen, multiple times, a PC use both charge and trample while riding an animal that cannot even walk a single room due to being too tired.
This I completely agree with. I wouldn't mind at all if charge and trample used up a mount's stamina. Fair is fair after all.
Quote from: X-D on September 15, 2009, 03:58:34 PM
And lastly, the mount should be injured with any successful charge or trample. Maybe not a huge amount, but again, if your ramming your animal into something that is armored and carrying sharp items, weather that is teeth, spines or weapons, they will take some damage.
Again, I feel like a double standard is being used. Does bash injure the PC who did the bashing even if it was successful? Does kick? Seems like the same thing to me. You're throwing parts of your body out to strike someone else who might be armored and carrying sharp items so ... if you really want this in game, then I guess I can go along with it, but lets keep it fair, and apply it to the warrior skill sets as well.
A system of delays balanced between skills and commands, such as moving the delay for actions when walking to before rather than after, would simulate the approach idea without actually adding more code or commands. Any combat skill needs a per-echo and delay to simulate approaching IF used to start a fight with something you have not already attacked in the same room, or, that is not already attacking you.
Examples:
The massive mul has arrived from the north.
The massive mul advances upon you, intent on attack.
>draw sword
You draw your bone sword.
The massive mul attacks you!
The massive mul slashes you very hard on the head.
You parry the massive mul's attack.
--
The massive mul arrives from the north.
>put herb pack
You put your weed in your pack.
The massive mul advances on you, bringing a foot up.
>say What the f ...
You say, in sirihish:
"What the f..."
>run
You speed up to a run.
>w
The massive mul doubles you over with a kick to the groin.
--
The massive mul has arrived from the south.
The massive mul rushes at you, trying to knock you over.
>bash mul
You rush at the massive mul, trying to knock her over.
The massive mul slams into you, knocking you on your back.
Perhaps you should stand up first.
By assigning delays in certain senarios, and not in other scenarios, the same skill can be used in multiple ways. A strong system of delays take away the need to code anything as complex as an approach system, and keep combat streamlined, while introducing new variables.
Where to start, Alright, first, I agree completly with venomz.
QuoteCombined with the added height advantage, and the fact that being mounted makes you immune to many other combat skills this makes charge THE MOST powerful combat skill in the game. Beyond even backstab, sap and any magick.
I think you might just be being a cranky old man again here with this part, like when you were suggesting in the Casual Play discussion that being able to earn 50 'sids while off line would someone lead to lead to things like no skill grind and the removal of perma death. I've never seen anything get 1-shot ganked by a charge unless it was already pretty close to being dead, not even a tregil.
Who said anything about one shot ganked? Not I. And bringing up something completely unrelated from another thread weeks ago...come on, at least have a valid arguement that actually has something to do with what is posted or quoted.
I'm not going to say what the average damage from a charge seems to be, but it is much higher then any other skill like it. And that damage is to both stun AND HP.
After which you get to add in a rather hefty advantage from height given to offense and damage.
And almost no drawback to the skill. Ooh, at low skill if you miss there is a chance you could fall off. Big deal, falling off does like 5 damage and 6 stun and you can stand instantly.
At least if a warrior bashes he is on his back, 100% of the time that he misses. And for a reasonable amount of time.
Oh, and if he wants to bash, or kick, or subdue, guess what, he cannot be mounted and cannot do those to a mounted opponent.
So lets see here.
Bonus to offense and damage because riding, immune to at least 3 skills, maybe more, able to do a surprise attack that does damage, stun and knocks down nullifying the enemies ability to do anything but lay there and reduces offense and defense of the prone apponent effectively raising that of the mounted opponent.
And the risk is maybe falling off the mount 1 in 10 times?
HAHAHAHAHAHA...fuck, I'll take them odds.
QuoteArchery and throw take place in a DIFFERENT room. The reverse twinkery problem I mentioned above is not an issue for ranged abilities because the target isn't in the room to see them happen.
Lets see now, first, you can see somebody getting ready to shoot by either using watch or look. Or if they happen to be in the same room.
As to reverse twinking, nobody ever said anything about being able to nullify a charge by attacking while the before delay is on, if I was to code it, attacking while the before delay was on would actually assure the charge landed.
As to walking/running away during before delay...deal with it, it is realistic for me to be able to get out of the way of a 4k lbs animal moving top speed in a straight line...Its not a fucking porshe.
QuoteWhy not? You're guiding the mount, not arguing with it over where it needs to go.
You don't ride much do you?
Try blindfolding a horse and riding it, see what that gets you.
And if, for some odd reason you manage to get the animal to do something other then buck you off for being an idiot, see if you can guide it out the barn door.
You do not control foot placement, balance or any of the other thousands of things needed for that animal to move. If it cannot see the target, the odds of it hitting in any way are pretty fucking small.
As to mount taking damage, I did say that I listed according to importance...that was like the last item, but I put it in because the rider is taking no risk.
That and you cannot compare bash/kick from a trained warrior to a dumb beast that somebody is forcing to run into stuff, not like it really knows how to avoid damaging itself.
I also like 7DV's idea. Sounds like a really good sulution with a minimum of work involved.
Quote from: X-D on September 15, 2009, 08:18:51 PM
Who said anything about one shot ganked? Not I. And bringing up something completely unrelated from another thread weeks ago...come on, at least have a valid arguement that actually has something to do with what is posted or quoted.
Just pointing out you have a tendency to go over the top with the "slippery slope" logic, and that I think that's what you were doing when you said that charge was a more powerful skill than skills that are capable of one shot killing another PC.
Quote
I'm not going to say what the average damage from a charge seems to be, but it is much higher then any other skill like it. And that damage is to both stun AND HP.
After which you get to add in a rather hefty advantage from height given to offense and damage.
And almost no drawback to the skill. Ooh, at low skill if you miss there is a chance you could fall off. Big deal, falling off does like 5 damage and 6 stun and you can stand instantly.
At least if a warrior bashes he is on his back, 100% of the time that he misses. And for a reasonable amount of time.
Oh, and if he wants to bash, or kick, or subdue, guess what, he cannot be mounted and cannot do those to a mounted opponent.
I'm cool with the penalty for falling off a mount while charging being increased so that you end up just as bad as the person you were trying to charge would have been. I think that would be a pretty reasonable risk to associate with the skill and I'd support that change.
But as for the rest, if a warrior is riding as well, he's likewise immune to all the skills you just listed, along with being immune to being trampled and getting the bonuses to offense and defense also so it seems fair to me. If someone is riding a war beetle and you're on foot ... you're in for a tougher fight than you would have been if they had been on foot as well. What's the problem with that? That seems realistic.
Quote
QuoteArchery and throw take place in a DIFFERENT room. The reverse twinkery problem I mentioned above is not an issue for ranged abilities because the target isn't in the room to see them happen.
Lets see now, first, you can see somebody getting ready to shoot by either using watch or look. Or if they happen to be in the same room.
As to reverse twinking, nobody ever said anything about being able to nullify a charge by attacking while the before delay is on, if I was to code it, attacking while the before delay was on would actually assure the charge landed.
As to walking/running away during before delay...deal with it, it is realistic for me to be able to get out of the way of a 4k lbs animal moving top speed in a straight line...Its not a fucking porshe.
If attacking the person who was charging you did not affect their ability to still land the charge, then I'd be cool with what you're saying on that end.
But I still don't buy into the "deal with it" approach to the idea that someone can walk away from a charging animal. There are tons of funny youtube videos with bulls to illustraite my point.
Perhaps ... a good middle ground might be letting the person type "flee self" or something like when they see a charge comming, and then having a chance based on their flee skill to get out of the room before it hits? How would you feel about that as a middle ground?
Quote
QuoteWhy not? You're guiding the mount, not arguing with it over where it needs to go.
You don't ride much do you?
Try blindfolding a horse and riding it, see what that gets you.
And if, for some odd reason you manage to get the animal to do something other then buck you off for being an idiot, see if you can guide it out the barn door.
You do not control foot placement, balance or any of the other thousands of things needed for that animal to move. If it cannot see the target, the odds of it hitting in any way are pretty fucking small.
No I don't ride much, but you're strawman'ing what I said and missing the point, or just intentionally trying to avoid it.
Firstly I know horses in cities pulling wagons are blind folded on purpose so they don't get spoked and they seemed to get around fine, so history has proven its possible to ride a pony that isn't looking where it's going.
Secondly, the animals we're talking about in game are not blindfolded. They can see the whole area around them and they can move just fine they just might be missing the fact that the goudra is in the bushes ... so make them charge the bushes.
Perhaps as a middle ground to this idea ... something like having the mount take damage when charging a hidden opponent because they're hitting it akwardly since they didn't realize until the last moment what it was you were charging them into. I would be cool with that.
Quote
As to mount taking damage, I did say that I listed according to importance...that was like the last item, but I put it in because the rider is taking no risk.
That and you cannot compare bash/kick from a trained warrior to a dumb beast that somebody is forcing to run into stuff, not like it really knows how to avoid damaging itself.
I agree that more risk should be applied to the rider, but I mentioned that above at the start of the post. But ... the idea that you can't train an animal for war is also a bit of a strawman I think. Horses can be trained to trample things, tigers can be trained to pounce on command, bears can be trained to balance on little balls and roll them forward with their feet ... animals are not scientists, but they aren't stupid either.
I'm not sure what a good way to code how well the animal is trained would be though ... hmm ... if there were a good way though, I'd be all for the animal's training being factored into how well it could handle a charge.
I distinctly recall there being significant lag-time after a charge, whether successful or not. Cause all my near-death experiences had to do with failing it.
Quote from: Clearsighted on September 15, 2009, 10:01:26 PM
I distinctly recall there being significant lag-time after a charge, whether successful or not. Cause all my near-death experiences had to do with failing it.
There is a lag afterwards, but I agree with X-D that compared to the risk involved with other combat related skills, charge is pretty safe and could stand to be a bit more dangerous in terms of what happens when you critically fail it.
Giggles...They are not blindfolded.
They wear an item called blinders that block side and rear vision only. This helps stop the animal from getting spooked from things coming from the side and rear. Because that is were predators come from, something hard wired in horses.
They can see quite well where they are going.
As to a middle ground on that point...Meh, I have a real hard time with it. I suppose I could handle something like 75% reduction of skill verses something the animal cannot see.
Slippery slope arguments are quite valid, I could list hundreds of failed muds that failed just for that reason...though I've not used any such argument in this thread so, your point was moot at best.
QuoteBut as for the rest, if a warrior is riding as well, he's likewise immune to all the skills you just listed, along with being immune to being trampled and getting the bonuses to offense and defense also so it seems fair to me. If someone is riding a war beetle and you're on foot ... you're in for a tougher fight than you would have been if they had been on foot as well. What's the problem with that? That seems realistic.
At this point the warrior is still at a disadvantage...but sadly at this point I cannot say more do to GDB restrictions on talking code. But it is sizeable.
QuotePerhaps ... a good middle ground might be letting the person type "flee self" or something like when they see a charge comming, and then having a chance based on their flee skill to get out of the room before it hits? How would you feel about that as a middle ground?
That would suit me fine, I hate when people do the "walk away from threat" Anyway.
Quote from: X-D on September 15, 2009, 10:34:48 PM
Giggles...They are not blindfolded.
They wear an item called blinders that block side and rear vision only. This helps stop the animal from getting spooked from things coming from the side and rear. Because that is were predators come from, something hard wired in horses.
They can see quite well where they are going.
I learned something new then! Still ... my point is that the animal I'm riding in game isn't blind either so I don't see how your examples about blind folding a horse and trying to walk it anywhere have anything to do with charging a hidden enemy.
Quote
As to a middle ground on that point...Meh, I have a real hard time with it. I suppose I could handle something like 75% reduction of skill verses something the animal cannot see.
We might disagree on to what extent the mounted person might have a disadvantage but we're in agreement that they should have one when trying to direct an animal towards a hidden person/prey. Hopefully staff can find a good middle ground that isn't biased one way or the other, but I do agree that charging someone who's hiding should be harder than charging someone who isn't, but I don't think it should be impossible, for reasons I already stated.
Quote
Slippery slope arguments are quite valid, I could list hundreds of failed muds that failed just for that reason...though I've not used any such argument in this thread so, your point was moot at best.
You haven't, you just made a statement that I thought was a bit over the top. I just don't think anyone could reasonably believe that charge is more powerful than backstab ... poisoning ... or any number of scary spells. We know those can kill someone with a single hit, and we know that charge doesn't. Seems cut and dry to me.
Quote
QuoteBut as for the rest, if a warrior is riding as well, he's likewise immune to all the skills you just listed, along with being immune to being trampled and getting the bonuses to offense and defense also so it seems fair to me. If someone is riding a war beetle and you're on foot ... you're in for a tougher fight than you would have been if they had been on foot as well. What's the problem with that? That seems realistic.
At this point the warrior is still at a disadvantage...but sadly at this point I cannot say more do to GDB restrictions on talking code. But it is sizeable.
I take it you mean the warrior is still at a sizeable disadvantage to a ranger? Perhaps so ... but then we're just at a disagreement on whether a ranger should be a better mounted fighter than a warrior. And that doesn't really relate to the charge skill I don't think, just to how we feel about how classes balance out against one another.
I think my point stands that, assuming both folk are warriors ... they'll be about even if they're both riding, or if they're both on foot.
Quote
QuotePerhaps ... a good middle ground might be letting the person type "flee self" or something like when they see a charge comming, and then having a chance based on their flee skill to get out of the room before it hits? How would you feel about that as a middle ground?
That would suit me fine, I hate when people do the "walk away from threat" Anyway.
It would suit me fine as well. I think we could even extend that idea to 7DV's post. So that if someone is comming to attack you and you see it comming, you can use your delay time to try and flee self to get away.
That would work perfectly. Since I'd want to put a delay before moving east, when you saw that charge message, you could try walking, running, or fleeing, delays relative to the idea of the skills. If delays took into account stats and skills (which they should but usually don't), it would be an obvious match of talent in regards as to whether you could take off fast enough not to get charged.
Ugh, really...the last thing the game needs is something else to make it even easier for folks to run away.
The way charge used to be was a little too much. Adding a pre-delay on top of the nerf would render it pretty much useless for PvP.
If the delay to movement comes before, not after, I don't think this is accurate, Syn.
What is this "delay to movement" of which you speak?
When you move, room to room, you have a delay after you enter the new room, during which certain commands can't be instantly executed.
I'd like to see a delay before you leave a room, instead.
Or are you being sarcastic, to make a point about how the delay is very short?
In which case, I'd agree, but would also suggest that the delay be longer, according to the type of room, be it city, forest, desert, water, etc, and modified by numbers derived from your skills and stats.
Oh.
I thought we were talking about a pre-delay on the 'charge' skill, not a pre-delay on leaving the room.
Right now, it's pretty much impossible to kill someone intent on running away.
The lagtime for attacking is much higher than it is for fleeing and movement. Swinging a sword once might as well give them a ten league headstart.
Quote from: X-D on September 15, 2009, 03:58:34 PM
In the last two months I've not seen a single instance of a PC emoting before the charge, they are using it as a surprise attack...So I don't want to be hearing anything about emoting, it does not happen.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I think the main reason why this doesn't happen is because most of the things that get charged are aggro animals. If you move into a room, you don't have time to type out an emote. You have to type 'charge raptor' pretty much instantaneously or you won't be able to charge it at all.
QuoteSince every other skill in the game uses stam, Charge should use up a large amount of mount stam as well. As should trample.
I'm not staff so I can't say this for 100% sure, but I was under the impression charge has always had a stamina cost to the mount already. I've always assumed it had. If that's not true, then I think it should definitely be changed.
Well, the thing about using it as a surprise attack is: you -have- to use it as a surprise attack or you pretty much forfeit using it at all, unless you flee out, run back in, and charge after your target pre-emptively attacks you. Which is equally lame, to be honest.
I kind of like that cavalry rules out in the open.
Quote from: The7DeadlyVenomz on September 16, 2009, 12:08:09 AM
I'd like to see a delay before you leave a room, instead.
At one point, I think I suggested splitting the movement delay: part before, part after.
Echo in this room: The tall, muscular man runs east.
(very short delay--Amos is still in this room)
(Amos is actually transferred to the east room)
Echo in east room: The tall, muscular man runs in from the west.
(remainder of movement delay for Amos)
Why do rangers even need the super buff charge of doom anyhow? The bonuses added to fighting while mounted are already pretty damn nice.
I'm finding the skill is mostly being abused anyhow and as a lover of rangers, charge was never my win button because Rangers have a bunch of sexy, amazing perks that I found more entertaining, none of which left a bad taste in my mouth after the use. Even the day of this change I noticed people already trying to find a new way to capitalize off the skill. Charge, flee n, s, charge etc. (I got to be on the receiving end once myself :-\)
Charge getting scrapped down to be as useful as bash would be a nice compromise.
Eh. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater guys.
If one were to make a list of overpowered or abused skills, charge would not even crack the top ten. With the changes made to it so far, (I.E, no longer possible to charge many types of large critters), it's probably not even in the top 20.
Though, I'm aware that delves will forever hate this skill, since given their height makes them all but immune to bash, it's one of the only way to keep those dirty neckers from running away =(.
Quote from: Majikal on September 16, 2009, 06:26:56 PM
Why do rangers even need the super buff charge of doom anyhow? The bonuses added to fighting while mounted are already pretty damn nice.
I'm finding the skill is mostly being abused anyhow and as a lover of rangers, charge was never my win button because Rangers have a bunch of sexy, amazing perks that I found more entertaining, none of which left a bad taste in my mouth after the use. Even the day of this change I noticed people already trying to find a new way to capitalize off the skill. Charge, flee n, s, charge etc. (I got to be on the receiving end once myself :-\)
I um, I believe that staff went ahead and said in a post somewhere before this, that running away/disengaging and charging again was a perfectly acceptable way to use the skill; so I wouldn't call it abuse. I've used the skill in a similiar fashion and not felt at all like I was twinking out.
The gith attacks ... the gith falls down ... the gith gets up and runs away ... the gith comes back for more ...
Alright fucker ...
The gith falls down ... and so on, and so on ...
Quote from: musashi on September 16, 2009, 07:37:41 PM
I um, I believe that staff went ahead and said in a post somewhere before this, that running away/disengaging and charging again was a perfectly acceptable way to use the skill; so I wouldn't call it abuse. I've used the skill in a similiar fashion and not felt at all like I was twinking out.
I think during that quote, they didn't mean stunlocking someone/something with it. Currently, you can stunlock with charge pretty easily.
Quote from: Riev on September 17, 2009, 12:04:50 AM
Quote from: musashi on September 16, 2009, 07:37:41 PM
I um, I believe that staff went ahead and said in a post somewhere before this, that running away/disengaging and charging again was a perfectly acceptable way to use the skill; so I wouldn't call it abuse. I've used the skill in a similiar fashion and not felt at all like I was twinking out.
I think during that quote, they didn't mean stunlocking someone/something with it. Currently, you can stunlock with charge pretty easily.
As I understood it, pre-change you could keep someone in perpepual stun-lock so they could never stand, draw weapons, flee, ect. Staff thought that was too powerful and abusable so it was changed to only work as an opening combat move ... and ... it was given a bigger post delay so that by the time you're able to say ... disengage and charge again ... the other person will have already had the chance to get up and do something.
So, I thought the issue of someone being trapped unfairly in stun-lock was already fixed by design. Even if I flee and come back and try to charge again, by fleeing I've just given the other PC the ability to flee themselves, right?
If thats true, I don't find it twinky, except when you exploit the fact that aggro creatures will always come back to you.
Quote from: Riev on September 17, 2009, 01:00:46 AM
If thats true, I don't find it twinky, except when you exploit the fact that aggro creatures will always come back to you.
I've seen some aggro creatures who flee and don't come back although I admit ... only recently, so I wonder if it's exploting the creatures, or just taking advantage of the way they are supposed to behave in game. Let me ask the staff in the other forum!
Charging, fleeing and charging again is probably the most ancient form of mounted tactics ever devised.
Chariots. We need chariots.
Quote from: Clearsighted on September 17, 2009, 03:29:25 AM
Charging, fleeing and charging again is probably the most ancient form of mounted tactics ever devised.
I was thinking that myself though Niamh in Ask the Staff that she felt like was abuse, and that using trample was a better way to go about things.
So ... I won't do it to animals that are normally non-aggressive like charging a gizhat then running because now that it's been attacked it'll follow me ... but to be honest, I'm still going to double charge a gith or something if they decide to flee and then sneak back over to attack me again.
Gith NPCs are twinks... carrying around all that heavy shit just to boost their skills.
Quote from: FantasyWriter on September 21, 2009, 10:33:35 PM
Gith NPCs are twinks... carrying around all that heavy shit just to boost their skills.
Gith, raptor, those spotted gortok.... Oh, and carru. I've yet to see trample work ever. ONCE on a creature already on the ground, stuned.
Personally, I think charge should get an inherent bonus when used against bipedal creatures, (such as desert elves) and a slight penalty against four-legged or more creatures. Since naturally, it should be much easier to bowl over something skinny and weak like an elf, than, I don't know, something the size and with the weight distribution of a cow.
Cow = slow.
Elf = fast.
Try it on a dwarf.
Quote from: Versu on September 23, 2009, 06:31:40 PM
Cow = slow.
Elf = fast.
And by all means, their agility should play some /small/ role in avoiding being charged. But keep in mind that if an inix or a war beetle actually impacted with something like an elf, it would almost certainly kill them. Or do a grievous wound at minimum. The fact that being run down by a two ton lizard is currently an inconvenience at most...Well. It cuts both ways.
And this wouldn't apply to just elves. I imagine it would apply to all bipedal creatures, such as gith, or even, an unmounted human. But mostly, it would probably be used to charge elves.
EDIT: And it goes without saying that dwarves are right fucked.
Quote from: Clearsighted on September 23, 2009, 06:36:13 PM
EDIT: And it goes without saying that dwarves are right fucked.
You charge a dwarf on your erdlu but an erdlu is sent sprawling!
A dwarf is here looking pleased with himself.
Quote from: Clearsighted on September 23, 2009, 06:36:13 PM
Quote from: Versu on September 23, 2009, 06:31:40 PM
Cow = slow.
Elf = fast.
And by all means, their agility should play some /small/ role in avoiding being charged. But keep in mind that if an inix or a war beetle actually impacted with something like an elf, it would almost certainly kill them. Or do a grievous wound at minimum. The fact that being run down by a two ton lizard is currently an inconvenience at most...Well. It cuts both ways.
And this wouldn't apply to just elves. I imagine it would apply to all bipedal creatures, such as gith, or even, an unmounted human. But mostly, it would probably be used to charge elves.
EDIT: And it goes without saying that dwarves are right fucked.
Shrug. A singular blade wound will probably leave you if not dead, then forever crippled. That doesnt happen as much, because it's a Mud. I wouldnt give too much of a power to a 0 karma guild, simply because they happen to have a common critter. They've already got enough other strengths.
Quote from: Dar on September 23, 2009, 06:51:24 PM
Quote from: Clearsighted on September 23, 2009, 06:36:13 PM
Quote from: Versu on September 23, 2009, 06:31:40 PM
Cow = slow.
Elf = fast.
And by all means, their agility should play some /small/ role in avoiding being charged. But keep in mind that if an inix or a war beetle actually impacted with something like an elf, it would almost certainly kill them. Or do a grievous wound at minimum. The fact that being run down by a two ton lizard is currently an inconvenience at most...Well. It cuts both ways.
And this wouldn't apply to just elves. I imagine it would apply to all bipedal creatures, such as gith, or even, an unmounted human. But mostly, it would probably be used to charge elves.
EDIT: And it goes without saying that dwarves are right fucked.
Shrug. A singular blade wound will probably leave you if not dead, then forever crippled. That doesnt happen as much, because it's a Mud. I wouldnt give too much of a power to a 0 karma guild, simply because they happen to have a common critter. They've already got enough other strengths.
Well, now. Are we going to start categorizing karma as how effectively they can kill others? If so, I can think of one or two 0 karma guilds that should be karma 5 or 6 in comparison. I know some people can do more with karma 0 assassins than another can imagine with a 3 karma HG or 7 karma Mul warrior...
Quote from: Clearsighted on September 23, 2009, 07:16:04 PM
Well, now. Are we going to start categorizing karma as how effectively they can kill others?
No?
The point is ... it's a mud. By use of your logic, any wound to the neck should be a lethal one.
A dude on and erdlu charge at you.
>plant spear ground
You plant the butt of your spear into the ground.
An erdlu impales itself on your spear inflicting a grievous wound and sending its riders flying off to the north.
Quote from: FantasyWriter on September 23, 2009, 09:13:13 PM
An erdlu impales itself on your spear inflicting a grievous wound and sending its riders flying off to the north.
Chuck a spear at them ... you get the same result.
If only spears and pikes had that ability IG.
Quote from: musashi on September 23, 2009, 09:34:20 PM
Quote from: FantasyWriter on September 23, 2009, 09:13:13 PM
An erdlu impales itself on your spear inflicting a grievous wound and sending its riders flying off to the north.
Chuck a spear at them ... you get the same result.
No, then you get an erdllu helping its rider to kick your ass. :D
Quote from: FantasyWriter on September 23, 2009, 09:35:45 PM
Quote from: musashi on September 23, 2009, 09:34:20 PM
Quote from: FantasyWriter on September 23, 2009, 09:13:13 PM
An erdlu impales itself on your spear inflicting a grievous wound and sending its riders flying off to the north.
Chuck a spear at them ... you get the same result.
No, then you get an erdllu helping its rider to kick your ass. :D
I meant chuck a spear at the rider :D
From another room!!! ;D
Quote from: musashi on September 23, 2009, 09:36:44 PM
Quote from: FantasyWriter on September 23, 2009, 09:35:45 PM
Quote from: musashi on September 23, 2009, 09:34:20 PM
Quote from: FantasyWriter on September 23, 2009, 09:13:13 PM
An erdlu impales itself on your spear inflicting a grievous wound and sending its riders flying off to the north.
Chuck a spear at them ... you get the same result.
No, then you get an erdllu helping its rider to kick your ass. :D
I meant chuck a spear at the rider :D
From another room!!! ;D
Chuck Norris is now a verb?
o:
My most beautiful combat experience in-game involved charging someone who was in the act of throwing a spear.
Ah, timing.