If the attacker have nosave combat on, I'd like bash, kick, and disarm to not start a full combative round.
I'd like the message for bash to be generalized. I think "You knock %target down." for success, or "You try to knock %target down, but fail." for a failure is general enough.
I'd like the message for kick to be generalized as well. "You kick %target." or "You try to kick %target but miss." is generalized enough.
Generalized messages allow for greater range of emotive scenarios.
Quote from: The7DeadlyVenomz on April 14, 2011, 04:42:27 AMI'd like the message for bash to be generalized. I think "You knock %target down." for success, or "You try to knock %target down, but fail." for a failure is general enough.
Cool.
Quote from: The7DeadlyVenomz on April 14, 2011, 04:42:27 AMI'd like the message for kick to be generalized as well. "You kick %target." or "You try to kick %target but miss." is generalized enough.
Sure.
Quote from: The7DeadlyVenomz on April 14, 2011, 04:42:27 AMGeneralized messages allow for greater range of emotive scenarios.
Agreed.
Quote from: The7DeadlyVenomz on April 14, 2011, 04:42:27 AMIf the attacker have nosave combat on, I'd like bash, kick, and disarm to not start a full combative round.
Um... no? So the attacker can turn on nosave and then bash someone to avoid the repercussions of a fail launching combat and them getting their ass kicked while they're sprawled out on the ground? I don't like it.
I agree with Marshmellow.
The only thing I'd add is: Why does "kick" necessarily have to involve a kick? I think staff in the past have said before that kick is not a generic strike command, but I think it would be better if it was - for emoting punching with a free hand while wielding one weapon, shield bashing, actually kicking, etc. Then the echo can be generalized even further.
I've always treated kicks like a generic secondary strike (often shield bashes), but it's hard to do when the thing echoes a kick. Anyway, its a bit of a derail.
Quote from: Marshmellow on April 14, 2011, 05:37:47 AM
Quote from: The7DeadlyVenomz on April 14, 2011, 04:42:27 AMIf the attacker have nosave combat on, I'd like bash, kick, and disarm to not start a full combative round.
Um... no? So the attacker can turn on nosave and then bash someone to avoid the repercussions of a fail launching combat and them getting their ass kicked while they're sprawled out on the ground? I don't like it.
Well, the first thing that popped into my mind wasn't abuse of the feature. I suppose that somebody would find a way to do it, though.
Heh, I've always wanted sort of a "slap" attack. Like a minor attack, which does about as much damage as a punch in the face (with the same likelyhood as a punch for missing) but doesn't call in the soldiers, and can only be done successfully once a day on one target.
So, you can slap that gicker who's been hitting on you the whole day. Or a Templar can slap a commoner for not bowing. Or someone can just slap around a friend as a greeting or as a game.
Knocking someone down or disarming them seems like a hostile move for sure. I suppose a militia member has the right to disarm a commoner, but it should be put as a militia code, not left to any commoner to disarm a soldier should they feel like it.
I think slap would work, even if for only a coded rp tool.
thick headed male makes some vile comment to luscious female
slap thick
luscious female slaps the thick headed male across the face
thick headed male reels from the blow
Quote from: Marshmellow on April 14, 2011, 05:37:47 AM
Quote from: The7DeadlyVenomz on April 14, 2011, 04:42:27 AMI'd like the message for bash to be generalized. I think "You knock %target down." for success, or "You try to knock %target down, but fail." for a failure is general enough.
Cool.
Quote from: The7DeadlyVenomz on April 14, 2011, 04:42:27 AMI'd like the message for kick to be generalized as well. "You kick %target." or "You try to kick %target but miss." is generalized enough.
Sure.
Quote from: The7DeadlyVenomz on April 14, 2011, 04:42:27 AMGeneralized messages allow for greater range of emotive scenarios.
Agreed.
Quote from: The7DeadlyVenomz on April 14, 2011, 04:42:27 AMIf the attacker have nosave combat on, I'd like bash, kick, and disarm to not start a full combative round.
Um... no? So the attacker can turn on nosave and then bash someone to avoid the repercussions of a fail launching combat and them getting their ass kicked while they're sprawled out on the ground? I don't like it.
Pretty much this.
I'm not so sure I'm behind the -slap- happy aspect that would ensue. Especially if this is available in more that a tavern or bar where I or another could answer with a firm fist to the slappers face.
My thought is that someone(s) will simply use it as another means of confrontation, perhaps even as much against those they would not have the ballz to fist fight. I see people having a grudge and because they know they can walk up to you on the street and slap you, getting away with it, they will.
If your in a bar, why slap someone when you can break a mug of ale over there head.
If you really need to slap them, emote it, a slap should hold about as much a whalup as that, an emote. And allow the other to play along with its effectiveness.
And aside: I still think that the brawl command needs adjusting for knock outs. I think that there is a flaw in it that using the kill command I could knock someone out with out much harm to their hp, but I can't with the hit command.
Along with this, I just don't see many people really reflecting their asses kicked when they get to the point of you can only eye them because to strike them once more might cause thing to become serious.
Some folks just need to be knocked out and pissed on.
Quote from: Potaje on April 14, 2011, 12:56:25 PM
If your in a bar, why slap someone when you can break a mug of ale over there head.
That's what the hit command is for. And you could emote it sort of like breaking a mug of ale on them, like people emote kicks as shield bashes.
QuoteIf you really need to slap them, emote it, a slap should hold about as much a whalup as that, an emote. And allow the other to play along with its effectiveness.
Well, that's why this isn't a MUSH :P I like the code handling it for me. A slap from a skinny guy is going to hurt less than one from a half-giant. A slap from an experienced raider is going to hurt way more than one from a noob merchant, and that raider's going to be able to deftly block slaps too.
QuoteMy thought is that someone(s) will simply use it as another means of confrontation, perhaps even as much against those they would not have the ballz to fist fight. I see people having a grudge and because they know they can walk up to you on the street and slap you, getting away with it, they will.
I think this is all the more reason to do it, as a means of confrontation. They can slap you back for sure (which is what happens in these confrontations). The big ones who can fist fight will be able to use it to enforce their authority. And someone who randomly slaps everyone is not going to make any friends. Slap someone who can backstab you and it won't end well.
Maybe add a bit where you only get crim coded if you slap someone in front of a soldier, but not if it's in a brawl room.
Quote from: Marshmellow on April 14, 2011, 05:37:47 AM
Um... no? So the attacker can turn on nosave and then bash someone to avoid the repercussions of a fail launching combat and them getting their ass kicked while they're sprawled out on the ground? I don't like it.
...What?
If the attacker turned on nosave and then bashed someone and failed-- they'd still be prone and suffering the coded delay effects, still leaving them open for attack.
They might be open to attack, but the attackee will need to actually initiate the fight then. The code might be wonky. What exactly gets you wanted? Backstabbing someone, or the fight that begins if the victim doesnt instantly die?
Either way, the one who fails an attempt will still win himself a few seconds. By the time the one who dodged the bash and realized what happens and decide to attack back. The failed bash delay timer will be half ran out.
So no. I agree. I wouldn't like a change like that.
Yeah, the target could initiate combat to kick the bashers ass, but it doesn't happen automatically, like it should, as pointed out by Dar. If someone tries to kick my ass with a combat skill, I shouldn't have to initiate combat. Combat was initiated by the basher.
Quote from: Marshmellow on April 16, 2011, 05:54:07 PM
Yeah, the target could initiate combat to kick the bashers ass, but it doesn't happen automatically, like it should, as pointed out by Dar. If someone tries to kick my ass with a combat skill, I shouldn't have to initiate combat. Combat was initiated by the basher.
I agree.
NOW... if the DEFENDER could turn on a nosave option to not pursue combat when someone uses a combat skill against them, that I could get behind. (Could be useful for sparring situations.)
Quote from: Marshmellow on April 16, 2011, 06:36:16 PM
NOW... if the DEFENDER could turn on a nosave option to not pursue combat when someone uses a combat skill against them, that I could get behind. (Could be useful for sparring situations.)
Doesn't nosave combat do that? I've done kicks and been kicked at when the defending is nosave combat-ing and can't remember being attacked back.
That is what nosave combat does. You act as if you had disengaged when attacked.
I guess I should have added a smiley or something to show that I was being sarcastic. My bad. ;) (Yes, I know that nosave combat does that.)
Quote from: Morgenes on April 16, 2011, 07:26:48 PM
That is what nosave combat does. You act as if you had disengaged when attacked.
This is so. What I want is for the attacker to be able to use those skills, and not start a fight as well. One of them are already like that if you fail. The other two are not. I forget which one it is. I want it to be like that whether you fail or succeed, if nosave combat is on. If the defender doesn't have it on, then he hits at you, but you don't hit back.
Quote from: The7DeadlyVenomz on April 18, 2011, 03:44:26 AM
Quote from: Morgenes on April 16, 2011, 07:26:48 PM
That is what nosave combat does. You act as if you had disengaged when attacked.
This is so. What I want is for the attacker to be able to use those skills, and not start a fight as well. One of them are already like that if you fail. The other two are not. I forget which one it is. I want it to be like that whether you fail or succeed, if nosave combat is on. If the defender doesn't have it on, then he hits at you, but you don't hit back.
Why can't you just command-stack the command and disengage? Disengage isn't affected by delays, and the commands you're talking about don't have pre-delays, so it's as easy as typing kick;disengage or bash;disengage.
Quote from: Synthesis on April 18, 2011, 04:16:44 AM
Quote from: The7DeadlyVenomz on April 18, 2011, 03:44:26 AM
Quote from: Morgenes on April 16, 2011, 07:26:48 PM
That is what nosave combat does. You act as if you had disengaged when attacked.
This is so. What I want is for the attacker to be able to use those skills, and not start a fight as well. One of them are already like that if you fail. The other two are not. I forget which one it is. I want it to be like that whether you fail or succeed, if nosave combat is on. If the defender doesn't have it on, then he hits at you, but you don't hit back.
Why can't you just command-stack the command and disengage? Disengage isn't affected by delays, and the commands you're talking about don't have pre-delays, so it's as easy as typing kick;disengage or bash;disengage.
I think I've developed carpal tunnel after years of doing that.