Armageddon General Discussion Board

I think they should be teachable just like any other skill.

I was talking about this with someone just a few days ago. I can't even count the times my characters have RPed fighting lessons to newbie pcs that start from the ground up with the basics of combat: stuff like where to put your feet, how to decide when to get closer or further away, how to take advantage of situational advantages like reach or your opponent's different style from yours. Then at the end of a good, long, satisfying scene, there's nothing to show because the pc might not have the right weapon skill, or hasn't branched parry.

If this doesn't get implemented I would recommend logging any such lessons, making sure they're long enough to justify the unorthodox boost, and submitting a request to have your offense and/or defense increased. It's not as good as noticing a slight immediate improvement, but it's better than nothing.

If it does, I think the increase should be minimal. For most people, who don't understand the way this whole thing works like Synthesis does, offense and defense go up a whole lot slower than anything else, and I believe there's a reason for that. It's just so universally helpful that every little boost makes a difference in a fight, and the teachings have to be so broad and conceptual that I can imagine learning through teaching taking a very long time.

There should be an "I don't care" option in the poll :P

I think it makes sense. Sometimes you have a good fighter who's only good with say piercing weapons, but doesn't know what to teach to a swordsman. Yeah, there's always things like how to step, how to grip the weapon, anticipating attacks, looseness. Similarly, I think the stats should be trainable too.

On the other hand, I've always considered offense and defense to be more of a reflex thing. It's sort of like walking or running or bowel control, you do it long enough and it becomes natural.

No. NATURAL Offense and Natural Defense, should never
be trainable. If you want a raise log your sessions and
send in a request.

I say no.

They are not skills, they are aptitude and body training and shit....A mixture of all the little things that improve over a long time of doing something. And by little things I mean, greater joint flexibility, better balance etc. Not skills. Skills are teachable.

Quote from: X-D on July 01, 2009, 10:31:19 AM
I say no.

They are not skills, they are aptitude and body training and shit....A mixture of all the little things that improve over a long time of doing something. And by little things I mean, greater joint flexibility, better balance etc. Not skills. Skills are teachable.

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that you're saying Offense and Defense are, in some way, "Combat Experience?"  Knowing how a fight flows, how to stand, position yourself, blah, blah.

I can dig that.

I'd rather not have this for a myriad of reasons that I can't really illustrate for fear of this thread Iran'ing away.

Quote from: Eloran on July 01, 2009, 11:13:17 AM
I'd rather not have this for a myriad of reasons that I can't really illustrate for fear of this thread Iran'ing away.

Same here.

I feel that the correct answer is no, as well.

Offense and defense are experience - it's not a skill in the narrow sense of the word. Therefore, no teaching it. That's hard knocks.

You can teach offense and defense skills -- blah weapons and shield use, parry, kick, etc.

I think those are enough, but it would be cool to see how things would work out the other way too.

The power of teaching offense and defense would be mitigated by the way the 'teach' command works, and by the difficulty of raising offense and defense in general.  Since the skills improve so slowly, few people would be able to pull off a successful teach in the first place, making those who could do so much more valuable to their clan.

I brought the idea up because the 'teach' command is typically underutilized.  From my own experience, this seems to be because those who are good at fighting don't share the same skillset as those who aren't.

That is:  warriors don't need to teach other warriors, because they'll be good enough in a few days' playing time, anyway.  The experienced warrior Sergeants of clans need to teach the assassins/burglars/etc. in the clan, but the only widely-used skills they have that overlap are piercing weapons and dual wield.  If you didn't specialize in piercing weapons (and not many warriors beyond d-elves do), then the only thing you can teach (that they'll actually use) is dual wield.

As far as combat mentorship goes, this turns experienced warriors into little more than glorified sparring dummies, because after a few sparring sessions and a 'teach', they typically can't teach anything else, other than a secondary weapon skill that their recruits probably aren't going to use anyway.  Meanwhile, these recruits who are no longer teachable are still pretty pathetic in a fight.

Furthermore, some guilds (merchants, magickers) don't even -have- weapon skills, making them completely unteachable.  The only way for them to improve in a fight is to spar religiously and slowly grind up base offense and defense.  Personally, I think having an experienced warrior (or other combat specialist) would make this process go much more quickly, and this would be reflected by the ability to 'teach' these skills.

I see where you are coming from.

Hrm.

If the point is realism, I think they certainly should be teachable.  Balance skills, footwork, range perception and control, timing perception and control, position as an offensive and defensive tool, and several other skills can be studied independently of weapon specific skills, like manipulation of weapon balance point, specific lines and arcs of attack more fitting to a weapon, matching weapon to specific armor, adjustment to different weight, length and weapon speed, etc.

If the point is avoiding some game mechanic problem, thats a different story.

I voted yes. I've seen many RP'd out training sessions that could benefit from this. You can teach someone to be a better fighter.

And you already can....slashing/blunt/dual/piercing/kick/bash/disarm/archery etc etc etc etc etc.

But what you cannot teach is flexibility, balance, knowing when exactly to move one way or the other from what the other person is going to do, body learning, programmed reflex etc etc etc. This is what base off/def is.

Quote from: X-D on July 02, 2009, 04:57:27 PM
And you already can....slashing/blunt/dual/piercing/kick/bash/disarm/archery etc etc etc etc etc.

But what you cannot teach is flexibility, balance, knowing when exactly to move one way or the other from what the other person is going to do, body learning, programmed reflex etc etc etc. This is what base off/def is.

If you can't teach all that, wow...every martial arts studio in the world is completely bogus.

Exactly. All of those things can be taught. Through repetition and training, showing stances, foot placement, what to do if someone does"This" to you.

I think it presents more coded problems than is "unreasonable".

Also: Experience in applying martial arts/fighting is much different than knowing the skills. Thus! Off/def. You can go through a million drills and not be able to apply it as well as someone that's actually "done" it when their life depended on it.

I voted yes, but I also want the added caveat of a rather low upper limit to how much these skills can be taught.  In these skills, yes, the basics can be taught.  However, if you really want to excel, you should need to work at it like everyone else.

QuoteIf you can't teach all that, wow...every martial arts studio in the world is completely bogus

For the most part, they are, but that would be different thread.

You can teach somebody how to learn such things but the fact is, they will only learn through practice and lots of it.

I can teach/tell/instruct/demonstrate a backflip to a gymnest 1000 times, but until they work on it on their own they will never learn it. I can tell you how to ride a bike and even show you, but you Will still fail without practice.

On the other hand, I can instruct the proper way to hold a shield, the best ways to block, how to hold a sword, many different moves with said item and with such training you will be able to enter a fight with something to work with even if you are not a pro.

Quote from: Is Friday on July 02, 2009, 05:06:56 PM
I think it presents more coded problems than is "unreasonable".

Also: Experience in applying martial arts/fighting is much different than knowing the skills. Thus! Off/def. You can go through a million drills and not be able to apply it as well as someone that's actually "done" it when their life depended on it.

Respectfully, if this is the case, get rid of the ineffective teacher.  Drilling a thing a million times is what people do to commit a skill to muscle memory, to be able to perform it flawlessly without thinking, on some trigger.  Drilling like this almost has to be done from teaching, to be truly effective.

I think you could avoid game bending problems by having a cap to the teachable skill being (teachers skill - some large number).  In a perfect world, there would also be a teaching skill that would determine "some large number".  A cap implemented in this way would make legendarily skilled fighters, regardless of stats, a valued resource.  I think old, crippled, or otherwise past their prime warriors should be able to take this kind of role.  It'd certainly give another layer to martial organizations and stories.

Because the code does not account for the emotional/psychological/chemical effects of fighting off/def works as a shitty replacement. You can't argue to me that someone with 20 years dojo experience yet never been in a real fight before that he did not anticipate would not suffer performance reduction just based on that.

Quote from: Halcyon on July 01, 2009, 05:20:33 PM
If the point is realism, I think they certainly should be teachable.  Balance skills, footwork, range perception and control, timing perception and control, position as an offensive and defensive tool, and several other skills can be studied independently of weapon specific skills, like manipulation of weapon balance point, specific lines and arcs of attack more fitting to a weapon, matching weapon to specific armor, adjustment to different weight, length and weapon speed, etc.

If the point is avoiding some game mechanic problem, thats a different story.

Right, and how do you teach someone like balance skills, footwork, range perception, etc., etc., etc?

You sit there with charts and explain it to them?

No.

You throw them in the ring and bloody them up until they get the gist of it, i.e. sparring.

Making offense and defense teachable skills would make sparring obsolete, because you could have one -really- good warrior teaching an ass-ton of students without actually fighting against them.

And I don't believe that matching weapons to armor should be a skill.....

I vote no.

Quote from: Qzzrbl on July 02, 2009, 07:13:44 PM
Making offense and defense teachable skills would make sparring obsolete

Yeah, I'd really, really, REALLY miss the endless sparring. Without sparring, what else would there be to do in a military clan? Having off/def be teachable would make the game more interesting and mutually involving, and possibly open up new avenues of RP and new roles, therefore I vote no.

Quote from: Gimfalisette on July 02, 2009, 07:24:14 PM

Quote from: Qzzrbl on July 02, 2009, 07:13:44 PM
Making offense and defense teachable skills would make sparring obsolete

Yeah, I'd really, really, REALLY miss the endless sparring. Without sparring, what else would there be to do in a military clan? Having off/def be teachable would make the game more interesting and mutually involving, and possibly open up new avenues of RP and new roles, therefore I vote no.

-shrug-

I don't know about you, but the interaction I get with my clan-mates, the constant joking around and talking and  getting to know the other characters a little better.... I kinda find it enjoyable.

It's only as fun as you make it.  ;)

Quote from: Qzzrbl on July 02, 2009, 07:26:25 PM-shrug-

I don't know about you, but the interaction I get with my clan-mates, the constant joking around and talking and  getting to know the other characters a little better.... I kinda find it enjoyable.

It's only as fun as you make it.  ;)

So why would it make sparring obsolete again?

Quote from: hyzhenhok on July 02, 2009, 07:27:35 PM

Quote from: Qzzrbl on July 02, 2009, 07:26:25 PM-shrug-

I don't know about you, but the interaction I get with my clan-mates, the constant joking around and talking and  getting to know the other characters a little better.... I kinda find it enjoyable.

It's only as fun as you make it.  ;)

So why would it make sparring obsolete again?

Because it would make it possible for some people to get good at combat without ever having to lift a weapon to attack/defend anything. Not to say anyone here would do this, but I'm sure someone somewhere will find a justifiable IC reason to make it happen.

I agree with the sentiment that offense and defense = combat experience.

Quote from: Qzzrbl on July 02, 2009, 07:29:43 PM

Quote from: hyzhenhok on July 02, 2009, 07:27:35 PM

Quote from: Qzzrbl on July 02, 2009, 07:26:25 PM-shrug-

I don't know about you, but the interaction I get with my clan-mates, the constant joking around and talking and  getting to know the other characters a little better.... I kinda find it enjoyable.

It's only as fun as you make it.  ;)

So why would it make sparring obsolete again?

Because it would make it possible for some people to get good at combat without ever having to lift a weapon to attack/defend anything. Not to say anyone here would do this, but I'm sure someone somewhere will find a justifiable IC reason to make it happen.

I agree with the sentiment that offense and defense = combat experience.

You have to actually roleplay teaching a lesson to justify using the teach command...you're making it out to be as though that isn't the case. I've never seen anyone "teach" a combat skill without including some sparring, so I don't see why offense or defense would be any different.

Yeah, because teaching weapon skills makes people totally awesome.  ::)

Right.... And if I'm correct in my assumption that offense/defense = combat experience, then they should learn through actual combat....

Rather than a few emotes, a speech about how this works in combat and why, and a teach command following.

If high offense/defense didn't mean being a total badass, whether you have weapon skills or not, I wouldn't be so against it being teachable.

But it's a core, integral part of Armageddon's combat system, and having something like that easily attained just doesn't set right with me.

Quote from: Qzzrbl on July 02, 2009, 07:43:25 PM
Right.... And if I'm correct in my assumption that offense/defense = combat experience, then they should learn through actual combat....

Rather than a few emotes, a speech about how this works in combat and why, and a teach command following.

If high offense/defense didn't mean being a total badass, whether you have weapon skills or not, I wouldn't be so against it being teachable.

But it's a core, integral part of Armageddon's combat system, and having something like that easily attained just doesn't set right with me.

The way the teach command works would prevent people from becoming "total badasses" simply via teach.  However, they would at least be passably competent, which would save us all the nuisance of having our newbie recruits reel-locked and three-shotted because we randomly failed a single rescue attempt, despite having branched from it 10 playing days ago.

Quote from: Synthesis on July 02, 2009, 08:00:45 PM

Quote from: Qzzrbl on July 02, 2009, 07:43:25 PM
Right.... And if I'm correct in my assumption that offense/defense = combat experience, then they should learn through actual combat....

Rather than a few emotes, a speech about how this works in combat and why, and a teach command following.

If high offense/defense didn't mean being a total badass, whether you have weapon skills or not, I wouldn't be so against it being teachable.

But it's a core, integral part of Armageddon's combat system, and having something like that easily attained just doesn't set right with me.

The way the teach command works would prevent people from becoming "total badasses" simply via teach.  However, they would at least be passably competent, which would save us all the nuisance of having our newbie recruits reel-locked and three-shotted because we randomly failed a single rescue attempt, despite having branched from it 10 playing days ago.

But then every organization's just gonna get a senior of the company to go on a crash-course with new recruits to get them competent in a matter of days, wheras it took weeks for everyone else to get to that level by sparring.

I'm not trying to lead anyone into an argument trap or anything, this is just what I see happening.

Why shouldn't people in an organization led by a master of combat be better than your average indie who's just been out fighting scrabs on his own?

Hmm....

You bring up a really good point, but I'm starting to think that we both have two different ideas as to what offense and defense actually are.

Staff? Definitions plox?

Quote from: Qzzrbl on July 02, 2009, 08:08:33 PM

Quote from: Synthesis on July 02, 2009, 08:00:45 PM

Quote from: Qzzrbl on July 02, 2009, 07:43:25 PM
Right.... And if I'm correct in my assumption that offense/defense = combat experience, then they should learn through actual combat....

Rather than a few emotes, a speech about how this works in combat and why, and a teach command following.

If high offense/defense didn't mean being a total badass, whether you have weapon skills or not, I wouldn't be so against it being teachable.

But it's a core, integral part of Armageddon's combat system, and having something like that easily attained just doesn't set right with me.

The way the teach command works would prevent people from becoming "total badasses" simply via teach.  However, they would at least be passably competent, which would save us all the nuisance of having our newbie recruits reel-locked and three-shotted because we randomly failed a single rescue attempt, despite having branched from it 10 playing days ago.

But then every organization's just gonna get a senior of the company to go on a crash-course with new recruits to get them competent in a matter of days, wheras it took weeks for everyone else to get to that level by sparring.

I'm not trying to lead anyone into an argument trap or anything, this is just what I see happening.

Frankly, it makes a lot more sense that what currently happens.

"Okay, we're going to be training combat skills. Newbie Amos and Newbie Malik, get in the ring and have at it. Eventually (and by eventually I mean after multiple IC weeks) you'll get the hang of it. Meanwhile, Regular Badass and Regular Pwnsauce are going to go off and practice by themselves, because if they tried to teach you newbies something you'd get owned too hard."

I personally wish offense and defense were taken out altogether. I think they're simply not needed, and because both natural abilities are so powerful, I personally believe there should be no way for anyone to instruct a pupil in either area.

Quote from: hyzhenhok on July 02, 2009, 08:18:13 PM

Quote from: Qzzrbl on July 02, 2009, 08:08:33 PM

Quote from: Synthesis on July 02, 2009, 08:00:45 PM

Quote from: Qzzrbl on July 02, 2009, 07:43:25 PM
Right.... And if I'm correct in my assumption that offense/defense = combat experience, then they should learn through actual combat....

Rather than a few emotes, a speech about how this works in combat and why, and a teach command following.

If high offense/defense didn't mean being a total badass, whether you have weapon skills or not, I wouldn't be so against it being teachable.

But it's a core, integral part of Armageddon's combat system, and having something like that easily attained just doesn't set right with me.

The way the teach command works would prevent people from becoming "total badasses" simply via teach.  However, they would at least be passably competent, which would save us all the nuisance of having our newbie recruits reel-locked and three-shotted because we randomly failed a single rescue attempt, despite having branched from it 10 playing days ago.

But then every organization's just gonna get a senior of the company to go on a crash-course with new recruits to get them competent in a matter of days, wheras it took weeks for everyone else to get to that level by sparring.

I'm not trying to lead anyone into an argument trap or anything, this is just what I see happening.

Frankly, it makes a lot more sense that what currently happens.

"Okay, we're going to be training combat skills. Newbie Amos and Newbie Malik, get in the ring and have at it. Eventually (and by eventually I mean after multiple IC weeks) you'll get the hang of it. Meanwhile, Regular Badass and Regular Pwnsauce are going to go off and practice by themselves, because if they tried to teach you newbies something you'd get owned too hard."

That's because the only way to "go easy" on unskilled fighters is to load yourself down with rocks in this game. :/

Quote from: Qzzrbl on July 02, 2009, 08:20:57 PM

Quote from: hyzhenhok on July 02, 2009, 08:18:13 PM

Quote from: Qzzrbl on July 02, 2009, 08:08:33 PM

Quote from: Synthesis on July 02, 2009, 08:00:45 PM

Quote from: Qzzrbl on July 02, 2009, 07:43:25 PM
Right.... And if I'm correct in my assumption that offense/defense = combat experience, then they should learn through actual combat....

Rather than a few emotes, a speech about how this works in combat and why, and a teach command following.

If high offense/defense didn't mean being a total badass, whether you have weapon skills or not, I wouldn't be so against it being teachable.

But it's a core, integral part of Armageddon's combat system, and having something like that easily attained just doesn't set right with me.

The way the teach command works would prevent people from becoming "total badasses" simply via teach.  However, they would at least be passably competent, which would save us all the nuisance of having our newbie recruits reel-locked and three-shotted because we randomly failed a single rescue attempt, despite having branched from it 10 playing days ago.

But then every organization's just gonna get a senior of the company to go on a crash-course with new recruits to get them competent in a matter of days, wheras it took weeks for everyone else to get to that level by sparring.

I'm not trying to lead anyone into an argument trap or anything, this is just what I see happening.

Frankly, it makes a lot more sense that what currently happens.

"Okay, we're going to be training combat skills. Newbie Amos and Newbie Malik, get in the ring and have at it. Eventually (and by eventually I mean after multiple IC weeks) you'll get the hang of it. Meanwhile, Regular Badass and Regular Pwnsauce are going to go off and practice by themselves, because if they tried to teach you newbies something you'd get owned too hard."

That's because the only way to "go easy" on unskilled fighters is to load yourself down with rocks in this game. :/

Disengage.

1) Weigh yourself down.

2) Etwo a shield.

3) Disengage.

4) Es a weapon you're not familiar with.

Quote from: Eloran on July 02, 2009, 08:34:18 PM
1) Weigh yourself down.

2) Etwo a shield.

3) Disengage.

4) Es a weapon you're not familiar with.

Once your offense is high enough, what weapon you use doesn't even matter.

And yeah.... Disengaging after nearly killing your sparring partner in two hits will teach them -alot-.

I can 'know' everything there is to about say, kung fu... but without going through the motions and training my own body, myself, so that my reaction times in live situations match that knowledge, I'm still useless.

Offense/defense are the only things I can think of that reflect that realism in combat, because they are hidden skills that can't be trained.

Quote from: Qzzrbl on July 02, 2009, 08:38:40 PM

Quote from: Eloran on July 02, 2009, 08:34:18 PM
1) Weigh yourself down.

2) Etwo a shield.

3) Disengage.

4) Es a weapon you're not familiar with.

Once your offense is high enough, what weapon you use doesn't even matter.

And yeah.... Disengaging after nearly killing your sparring partner in two hits will teach them -alot-.

So don't use weapons at all.

And yeah, actually, it does.

Quote from: Eloran on July 02, 2009, 08:34:18 PM
1) Weigh yourself down.

2) Etwo a shield.

3) Disengage.

4) Es a weapon you're not familiar with.

The brawny sergeant says, in sirihish, "Don't worry, Runner Amos. We'll get Trooper Malik to teach you a few tricks."

Completely naked and unarmed, the badass trooper has entered from the east, and nods to the Sergeant.

The badass trooper says, in sirihish, "I'm ready to impart my knowledge to the newbie, Sarge."

The puny runner say, "I'm so lucky to have a such a great teacher!"

The puny runner has a grand 'ole time beating the shit out of his glorified sparring dummy. Only he doesn't even manage that much.

Yes, it's so much more realistic than a teach command

If you really know how code works in this game, as opposed to typical DIKU which doesn't work precisely because of trains and practices, it actually works really good at reflecting how you would learn.

Also, teaching would never make anybody good without training, because it requires the student to be at an distant second to the teacher.

These arguments do not work.

There are more hidden skills that help represent aspects of being experienced in combat, and taken all together with your visible skills, they represent your "experience".

Offense and defense are skills in every sense of the word. There are techniques involved, methods that a person may never learn if they just show up every morning and spar. A lot of the things people seem to think offense and defense represent are covered by your stats. They also seem to think people are going around teaching left and right as it is. And that teaching is either the shortcut to maxing or even capable of doing that for you.

In any case, chances are this will never happen, so log your lessons well.

Quote from: hyzhenhok on July 02, 2009, 08:46:56 PM

Quote from: Eloran on July 02, 2009, 08:34:18 PM
1) Weigh yourself down.

2) Etwo a shield.

3) Disengage.

4) Es a weapon you're not familiar with.

Code Select Expand

The brawny sergeant says, in sirihish, "Don't worry, Runner Amos. We'll get Trooper Malik to teach you a few tricks."

Completely naked and unarmed, the badass trooper has entered from the east, and nods to the Sergeant.

The badass trooper says, in sirihish, "I'm ready to impart my knowledge to the newbie, Sarge."

The puny runner say, "I'm so lucky to have a such a great teacher!"

The puny runner has a grand 'ole time beating the shit out of his glorified sparring dummy. Only he doesn't even manage that much.

Yes, it's so much more realistic than a teach command

Perhaps we should wait on the staff's definition of the offense and defense skills before we discuss it further?

Besides, there are other combat-related skills that can be taught.

Besides, trying to get through to a moving target that isn't easy to hit is pretty good exercise.

::Edit:: And excuse my double "Besides" there.... Ish teh sleepeh.

Quote from: hyzhenhok on July 02, 2009, 08:46:56 PM
A whole lot of crap.

I almost considered taking the time to explain to you what a logical fallacy was, but I don't think it'd do any good.

In short, don't simplify my argument like that. Please.

Offense and defense can best be summed up like in two words:

1) Experience.

2) Intangibles.

You can teach skill. You can teach tactics. You cannot impart experience on your pupil. You cannot impart intangibles on your pupil.

Quote from: Eloran on July 03, 2009, 12:45:51 AM

Quote from: hyzhenhok on July 02, 2009, 08:46:56 PM
A whole lot of crap.

I almost considered taking the time to explain to you what a logical fallacy was, but I don't think it'd do any good.

In short, don't simplify my argument like that. Please.

Offense and defense can best be summed up like in two words:

1) Experience.

2) Intangibles.

You can teach skill. You can teach tactics. You cannot impart experience on your pupil. You cannot impart intangibles on your pupil.

Gentlemen, this is one of few times I absolutely agree with Eloran. Offense and Defense are skills that, at least how I view them, are to give an idea of your lifetime experiences and combat experience. Those that constantly fight, and never get hit, probably won't have a big defense. Having some guy come in and "teach" you how to get your ass kicked? *shake*

Quote from: Riev on July 03, 2009, 12:57:54 AM
Gentlemen, this is one of few times I absolutely agree with Eloran. Offense and Defense are skills that, at least how I view them, are to give an idea of your lifetime experiences and combat experience. Those that constantly fight, and never get hit, probably won't have a big defense. Having some guy come in and "teach" you how to get your ass kicked? *shake*

Quote from: Majikal on July 03, 2009, 01:00:38 AM

Quote from: Riev on July 03, 2009, 12:57:54 AM
Gentlemen, this is one of few times I absolutely agree with Eloran. Offense and Defense are skills that, at least how I view them, are to give an idea of your lifetime experiences and combat experience. Those that constantly fight, and never get hit, probably won't have a big defense. Having some guy come in and "teach" you how to get your ass kicked? *shake*

I also have to agree with the man. He's right. I disagree, however, in how he wishes they were removed. In one word? No.

Quote from: X-D on July 02, 2009, 04:57:27 PM
But what you cannot teach is flexibility, balance, knowing when exactly to move one way or the other from what the other person is going to do, body learning, programmed reflex etc etc etc. This is what base off/def is.

Sorry, but I'd have to disagree with that. Some brilliant martial arts teachers are able to do that. That classic stuff from Karate Kid ("wax in, wax out", etc) is sort of teaching defense and offense. Ok, fine, Karate Kid was fantasy, but so is this. Point is, I know a good teacher who taught me balance, body control, and little hints like anticipating movement, as well as techniques to learn them faster.

But I think it's pretty damn tough to roleplay teaching offense and defense, so this idea still gets a "whatever" vote from me.

No, it was teaching to block/parry....a skill.


As to the rest of the post, Oh sure, I can tell you how to do that, but it means nothing without practice and lots of it. If I instruct one person on balance and not the other then put them in the ring together, neither are going to be any better.

Though Eloran put my thinking on the matter best.

Well, since I'm aching for some sparring roleplay and have trouble logging in, here's how I'd consider teaching either :P

Offense:

You give the nubile man a long wooden plank.

You say to the nubile man:
      "Hit me with it!"

Looking quizzically at the long wooden plank, the nubile man says:
      "But I want to learn to use daggers"

You slap the nubile man hard.

You say to the nubile man:
      "If you can hit me with a plank, you can hit me with anything. Just do it!"

The nubile man lunges at you with the long wooden plank.

[30 seconds of misses]

Easily dodging his clumsy moves, you say to the nubile man:
      "Stop fighting so stiff. Loosen yehself."

The nubile man swings the plank in big arcs.

[More misses]

The nubile man says to you:
      "This plank is heavy!"

Casually evading another slow swing, you say:
      "That's coz yeh swinging with yeh wrists."

You say:
      "Swing wit' th' shoulders. Control the plank, don't let it control you."

[Some more misses]

The nubile man jabs the long wooden plank at you.

[Misses]

You easily step aside and laugh.

You say:
      "That how ya use yeh daggers? I've seen elves jab better than that."

Dodging another blow, you say, with a mock jab:
      "Yer strength comes from yeh feet. Root yehself into the ground and force it forward with yeh feet."

The nubile man jumps and swings the plank upwards.

You exclaim:
     "Nah like that! Ya pushing yeh strength into yeh feet t' jump. Push it into the arms!"

You cross your arms in mock parry.

You exclaim:
     "A'ight, break! Get some rest."

You teach 'Offense' to the nubile man.


Defense:

You say to the nubile man:
      "Put yeh weapon away. Today, I teach yeh defense."

You draw a bone sparring club.

The nubile man exclaims:
      "Why can't you use a plank?!"

You slap the nubile man hard.

Grinning as you put the club in your palm, you say to the nubile man:
      "Coz I'm th' teacheh and I can do whatever the Drov I want."

You hit the nubile man, barely grazing his body.

You disengage.

The nubile man exclaims:
      "I wasn't ready yet!"

You exclaim:
      "Well, feck you! Them gith ain't gonna wait for yeh to be ready. Lesson one.. always be alert!"

You hit the nubile man, barely grazing his arm.

You disengage.

The nubile man clutches his arm in pain.

You say:
      "Oi, when I pull my arm to the left, tha' means I'm gonna swing it to the right."

The nubile man exclaims:
       "I know, I know, it's so hard to block!"

You say:
      "You don't block it wit' yeh wrists! Yeh get outta the way!"

Jerking his body aside to show a dodge, you say:
      "Yeh turn yer body back a little.. and to the right.. ya time it right and I'll miss."

You hit the nubile man solidly in the head.
The nubile man reels from the blow.

You disengage.

The nubile man shouts:
      "Ow!"

With a frown, you say:
      "What the feck yeh doin'?"

The nubile man says:
      "I tried to dodge that one, by that turning thing."

You say:
      "Yeh, and ya let me hit ya right in th' temple. Stupid."

You say:
      "Ya wearin tha' gith skull helm. Gith.. and human skulls 'r weakest at the temple.
Next time, turn yeh head a bit, at least I'll hit ya in the thicker part. Learn t' use armor."

You nick the nubile man in the abdomen.

You disengage.

You jabs the bone sparring club hard into the nubile man's stomach.

The nubile man grunts, clutching his stomach.

You shout:
      "Stupid fecker!"

You say:
      "It's stupid to jab clubs..."

You exclaim:
      "..but even more stupid to leave yer stomach tensed like that in a fight!"

Shaking your head in disapproval, you say:
      "If ya even feel something against a part of the body, pull tha' part away like when ya pull yeh
hand from a hot grill. If yeh fast, the weapon misses. If not, it just hurts less."

The nubile man nods weakly.

You hit the nubile man solidly in the neck.
The nubile man's eyes roll back in his head.

You disengage.

Peering dubiously at the body, you say:
      "Lesson over."

You teach "Defense" to the nubile man.



On not being able to teach the good stuff, I suppose it would be realistic to have a max on how much offense or defense can be taught. Maybe up to 15% or so.. the rest from then on is practice.

On not having anything to do aside from sparring, well, teaching sessions are a lot more fun than coded sparring ;)

Quote from: Gimfalisette on July 02, 2009, 07:24:14 PM

Quote from: Qzzrbl on July 02, 2009, 07:13:44 PM
Making offense and defense teachable skills would make sparring obsolete

Yeah, I'd really, really, REALLY miss the endless sparring. Without sparring, what else would there be to do in a military clan? Having off/def be teachable would make the game more interesting and mutually involving, and possibly open up new avenues of RP and new roles, therefore I vote no.

So because you're annoyed with combat RP, we should remove combat from the equation?  Why exactly?

Quote from: Synthesis on July 02, 2009, 08:12:38 PM
Why shouldn't people in an organization led by a master of combat be better than your average indie who's just been out fighting scrabs on his own?

They can be better, on average, by having better weapon skills which can be taught.

Quote from: Krishnamurti on July 02, 2009, 08:42:03 PM
I can 'know' everything there is to about say, kung fu... but without going through the motions and training my own body, myself, so that my reaction times in live situations match that knowledge, I'm still useless.

QFT.

I think almost every argument against the idea could be used against the 'teach' command in general, with respect to combat-related skills.

That is, if we didn't have the ability to teach weapon skills, and someone was suggesting that we gain this ability, the arguments in question would readily defeat the suggestion.

I just don't think there's anything especially powerful, special, or mystical about base offense and defense.  It should be able to be taught to a certain (low) level.

I guess could live with it of the teachability of offense and defense were capped at a relatively low level.

Quote from: The7DeadlyVenomz on July 03, 2009, 01:06:25 AM
I also have to agree with the man.

I'm actually a female. Just for future reference so you can call me a bitch instead of a dick.

Quote from: Eloran on July 03, 2009, 12:45:51 AM

Quote from: hyzhenhok on July 02, 2009, 08:46:56 PM
A whole lot of crap.

I almost considered taking the time to explain to you what a logical fallacy was, but I don't think it'd do any good.

In short, don't simplify my argument like that. Please.

Offense and defense can best be summed up like in two words:

1) Experience.

2) Intangibles.

You can teach skill. You can teach tactics. You cannot impart experience on your pupil. You cannot impart intangibles on your pupil.

Allow me to dignify you with a response.

LOL

My favorite part of the thread was someone trying to impart knowledge about fighting through their experience watching The Karate Kid.

Quote from: hyzhenhok on July 03, 2009, 01:10:13 PM

Quote from: Eloran on July 03, 2009, 12:45:51 AM

Quote from: hyzhenhok on July 02, 2009, 08:46:56 PM
A whole lot of crap.

I almost considered taking the time to explain to you what a logical fallacy was, but I don't think it'd do any good.

In short, don't simplify my argument like that. Please.

Offense and defense can best be summed up like in two words:

1) Experience.

2) Intangibles.

You can teach skill. You can teach tactics. You cannot impart experience on your pupil. You cannot impart intangibles on your pupil.

Allow me to dignify you with a response.

LOL

So are you saying there aren't any intangibles involved with combat experience?

Quote from: Qzzrbl on July 03, 2009, 01:23:44 PM

Quote from: hyzhenhok on July 03, 2009, 01:10:13 PM

Quote from: Eloran on July 03, 2009, 12:45:51 AM

Quote from: hyzhenhok on July 02, 2009, 08:46:56 PM
A whole lot of crap.

I almost considered taking the time to explain to you what a logical fallacy was, but I don't think it'd do any good.

In short, don't simplify my argument like that. Please.

Offense and defense can best be summed up like in two words:

1) Experience.

2) Intangibles.

You can teach skill. You can teach tactics. You cannot impart experience on your pupil. You cannot impart intangibles on your pupil.

Allow me to dignify you with a response.

LOL

So are you saying there aren't any intangibles involved with combat experience?

No, Eloran completely misread my post and overreacted. I was trying to insinuate that surely there is some knowledge an experienced warrior can impart to someone inexperienced with combat, even if there is little to no overlap in their guild-given combat skills. I was trying to ridicule the current game situation, and apparently Eloran though my redicule was aimed at the post that she authored.

Are you saying that there are only intangibles and unteachables involved with learning to fight, generically? It doesn't make much sense to me that an axe-wielding veteran warrior wouldn't be able to teach anything to a newbie, just because that person doesn't have chopping weapons, shield use, parry, etc. in their skill list.

Quote from: hyzhenhok on July 03, 2009, 01:33:54 PM

Are you saying that there are only intangibles and unteachables involved with learning to fight, generically? It doesn't make much sense to me that an axe-wielding veteran warrior wouldn't be able to teach anything to a newbie, just because that person doesn't have chopping weapons, shield use, parry, etc. in their skill list.

Uh, they can teach a number of skills.

There are plenty of combat and weapon skills that can be taught.  You can teach someone how to hold a sword, the correct posture to adopt when lashing out with your foot, the principles of balance when you're slamming your body into someone so that the other person falls down and you don't.  You can not teach someone what they learn through practice, experience.  That is Offense and Defense.  Does this have to be said again, really?

Quote from: spawnloser on July 03, 2009, 02:05:52 PM
There are plenty of combat and weapon skills that can be taught.  You can teach someone how to hold a sword, the correct posture to adopt when lashing out with your foot, the principles of balance when you're slamming your body into someone so that the other person falls down and you don't.  You can not teach someone what they learn through practice, experience.  That is Offense and Defense.  Does this have to be said again, really?

Does it really have to be said again that the PROBLEM here is that there's really only 1 reliably overlapping skill between most combat mentors and their recruits?  POSSIBLY two if the Sergeant in question took the time to practice a whole lot with piercing weapons.  If you could teach base offense and defense, that increases the total number of skills a warrior can teach -anyone- to three, four for combat-oriented non-warriors.  Furthermore, post defense-nerf, it seems like teaching someone a weapon skill does ZERO to improve their defense, unless they already have the parry skill to work with.  Thus, the only thing you can 'teach' your non-warrior recruits is how to desperately attack something and hope they kill it before it does too much damage.

All the "intangibles" in question here would be what happens AFTER teach is no longer possible with base offense and defense.  That is, the minimal level you could teach someone codedly would allow them a small head-start on becoming competent.  To become anything more, yes, they would STILL HAVE TO PRACTICE A LOT.

Syn, it seems though that what you're suggesting, would allow long-trained warriors the ability to give, say, NEW pickpockets a leg up in combat.

If they wanted to get -any- significant leg up in combat, they can special app it. If you say that it wouldn't be significant, this entire argument is null.

Quote from: Riev on July 03, 2009, 04:14:55 PM
Syn, it seems though that what you're suggesting, would allow long-trained warriors the ability to give, say, NEW pickpockets a leg up in combat.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.  Why shouldn't a pickpocket who's being trained by the Champion of Allanak -not- be better at fighting than your average newb?

Quote from: Riev on July 03, 2009, 04:14:55 PM
If they wanted to get -any- significant leg up in combat, they can special app it. If you say that it wouldn't be significant, this entire argument is null.

Why bother with special applications when there's a command (teach) available that readily accomplishes the task?

Eh, I'm of the mind that off/def represents your pc's experience over time, the hard skills (parry, weapon types, dual wielding etc) represent the things your pro warrior can give you tips on, tweak your style and help you perfect. More things to be taught for the purpose of beefing up pc's adds little to the game, the teach skill is effective enough as it is IMO. You would have people giving sparring lessons, throwing in some blurbs about how to parry and then following with a teach of both parry and defense or showing someone a proper kick then teaching kick and offense. This is all a change like this would amount too.

Quote from: Synthesis on July 03, 2009, 04:28:58 PM

Quote from: Riev on July 03, 2009, 04:14:55 PM
Syn, it seems though that what you're suggesting, would allow long-trained warriors the ability to give, say, NEW pickpockets a leg up in combat.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.  Why shouldn't a pickpocket who's being trained by the Champion of Allanak -not- be better at fighting than your average newb?

Because codedly, a pickpocket wouldn't be able get that good at combat even if he spent 30+ hours  of non-stop sparring on his own.

I take that as a sign that the Staff don't want pickpockets to be good at combat.

If you want a character who's familiar with combat, pick a combat class.

Though I have yet to vote I'll say that I believe off/def is more of an innate skill that one learns through experience.  It is not so much a technique in particular, but the ability to read opponents and situations then augment ones position for success against what they think comes next.  Off/def is sort of like Spidey Sense or street smarts, but in a manner likened to combat.  Without a clear example of just what off/def is, aside from the ability to hit or avoid being hit, it is very hard to put a make a decision.  Though, based on what I do know, off/def takes a long time to train and has such a great effect on combat that I'm not too sure I am comfortable with it being teachable.

Quote from: Qzzrbl on July 03, 2009, 04:49:21 PM

Quote from: Synthesis on July 03, 2009, 04:28:58 PM

Quote from: Riev on July 03, 2009, 04:14:55 PM
Syn, it seems though that what you're suggesting, would allow long-trained warriors the ability to give, say, NEW pickpockets a leg up in combat.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.  Why shouldn't a pickpocket who's being trained by the Champion of Allanak -not- be better at fighting than your average newb?

Because codedly, a pickpocket wouldn't be able get that good at combat even if he spent 30+ hours  of non-stop sparring on his own.

I take that as a sign that the Staff don't want pickpockets to be good at combat.

If you want a character who's familiar with combat, pick a combat class.

So under the current code, a class merchant can teach cook to a warrior and get him beyond what his class would naturally allow? Main guilds can teach subguilds beyond a level than the subguild would normally allow?

Your argument doesn't work unless teach is already broken, which AFAIK it is not. It is quite limited. People who use teach are not automagickally uber twinks who are out to max their characters and their clanmates.

EDIT: Maybe a little too much in coded detail.

Offence and Defence are secret skills that increase incredibly slowly.

I think that its fine how it is.  A chance to increase one percent in five thousand fails.

//pulls percentages out of his ass

Quote from: Eloran on July 03, 2009, 11:12:14 AM

Quote from: The7DeadlyVenomz on July 03, 2009, 01:06:25 AM
I also have to agree with the man.

I'm actually a female. Just for future reference so you can call me a bitch instead of a dick.

Man, you are still a dick. Bitch.

No, I'm playing, but really, pardon the assumption on your sex. Your opinion is no less right or wrong in my book. You obviously have some brains, and you think with them, and that's something I respect.

And, for the record, I have to agree with the woman. I meant to say that, actually, but I forget the 'wo' part.

If you could teach offense and defense I predict seeing more hidden magickers joining the Byn.

Quote from: spawnloser on July 04, 2009, 10:21:55 AM
If you could teach offense and defense I predict seeing more hidden magickers joining the Byn.

Saaaaad but truuuuuuueooooah![/hetfield]

Quote from: Eloran on July 04, 2009, 12:36:57 PM

Quote from: spawnloser on July 04, 2009, 10:21:55 AM
If you could teach offense and defense I predict seeing more hidden magickers joining the Byn.

Saaaaad but truuuuuuueooooah![/hetfield]

Hey, that's trademarked.[/lawsuit]

Quote from: spawnloser on July 04, 2009, 10:21:55 AM
If you could teach offense and defense I predict seeing more hidden magickers joining the Byn.

I don't see why this would increase the number.  Magickers are already working -only- base offense and defense when they spar, so these skills probably go up pretty quick without having to be taught at all.

Maybe an increase in secret magickers in clans that don't spar as frequently as the Byn.