What would make the game more realistic for you?

[Spoon]

For my first serious post in this ancient thread,


I really like manonfire's idea. It solves SO many problems with PvP combat, raiding etc. Raiders would need to start using strategies to kill people, like hiring a sneaky type to initiate combat, or blocking off exits a few rooms away. Or getting spears.

Plus gives you time to run from mekillots the size of airliners appearing out of nowhere.

[Tisiphone]

I would actually be much happier making the combat system MUCH more automated than 'tis currently, with MUCH less to do keyboard-side - and yes, I already know that we don't have much.

If I had my druthers, kick, bash, and disarm would be replaced by automatic specials that break down by guild - warriors get better at them and do them more often, rangers less so, etc. etc. down to merchants. These would all have toggles, of course, just in case. The only things that would survive automation, in fact, would be combat-starting commands (be they hit, kill, backstab, sap, or whatever) and flee.

Perhaps, just PERHAPS, there might be 'styles' to go along with that, reflecting fighting inclinations of the character, whether trained or otherwise, but I dunno.

This would free up time for emoting, and would avoid all chance that a keyboard monkey can beat my character because of his higher skill as a typist.

[manonfire]

My ideas are to make combat more realistic. Period.

I didn't take into consideration any other extenuating circumstances when writing out the post, so there's undoubtedly a number of holes in the idea.

Edit: Bold for emphasis.

[Shoka Windrunner]

I would actually be much happier making the combat system MUCH more automated than 'tis currently, with MUCH less to do keyboard-side - and yes, I already know that we don't have much.

If I had my druthers, kick, bash, and disarm would be replaced by automatic specials that break down by guild - warriors get better at them and do them more often, rangers less so, etc. etc. down to merchants. These would all have toggles, of course, just in case. The only things that would survive automation, in fact, would be combat-starting commands (be they hit, kill, backstab, sap, or whatever) and flee.

Perhaps, just PERHAPS, there might be 'styles' to go along with that, reflecting fighting inclinations of the character, whether trained or otherwise, but I dunno.

This would free up time for emoting, and would avoid all chance that a keyboard monkey can beat my character because of his higher skill as a typist.

There are sometimes though, I don't want to do some of those things.  I don't want them to trigger, and times when I do.  And moment to moment, even in the same combat, I don't want to have to worry about typing in disarm off, or kick on.  Especially if I know that bashing that walking pile of stone armored gelatinous goo would seem like a dumb idea, but it's to late, because I had it defaulted to on, and now I'm inside the pile of goo trying to hold my breath because it triggered right away.  (not based in reality or virtual reality...just an example)

Besides there is a delay after every single attack like that, so you can't just set an alias to kick;disarm;bash;fire stomp and spam it over and over.  Cause you'll be backed up on lag so much, your 'flee' you typed, will never happen.

[Gimfalisette]

If I had my druthers, kick, bash, and disarm would be replaced by automatic specials that break down by guild - warriors get better at them and do them more often, rangers less so, etc. etc. down to merchants. These would all have toggles, of course, just in case. The only things that would survive automation, in fact, would be combat-starting commands (be they hit, kill, backstab, sap, or whatever) and flee.

I get that you're saying you want more time to emote, but automating combat specials isn't an optimal solution. When I'm playing a fighter, I want full control over when I do a combat special, because there are many situations in which doing one could result in my character's death, or the death of another character.

[Salt Merchant]

One thing would be timers on items.

Foods could rot or dry out over time. Flowers would wilt. Seeds would spout and develop into plants, under the right conditions. Leathers would crack without periodic oiling. Items left out on the desert would eventually become covered in sands.

[FuSoYa]

For me it would be a more consistent system to communicate or get information from NPCs.  I'm not saying everyone should respond (i.e. you shouldn't be able to talk gith name) but I think if you talk to any in a city it would be nice if it would give you a name and position/job or at least some response.  As it is now it's real hit or miss with way more miss.

Brandon

[brytta.leofa]

I heavily, heavily support manonfire's idea.

In -some- ways I agree, but honestly, its adding in code for something that -should- be able to be handled through an emote system anyways. Its hard -enough- (in my experience) to attempt to kill another person when you DON'T have to approach. ...

For instance, if I enter the room, and start talking to someone, and we have a conversation, and THEN I have to approach them? If there was "approach" code wouldn't this be more of a hostile action? What would be the point of approaching if you -didn't- want to attack them?

First off, I think that flee should be harder to pull off if approach were added. Fleeing is ridiculously easy at present, probably to compensate for the fact that someone can initiate combat against you with no warning.

Second, this really is something that isn't handled adequately with emoting.  Combat is the highest-stress situation for players, and the most likely to be handled badly.  The regular complaints about lack of emoting in combat, the difficulty of raiding (and the easy of being "randomly" killed by raiders), etc...those tell me that emoting on its own ain't cutting it to everyone's satisfaction.

Third: approaching is something you do regularly.  It's, in fact, something you probably do with emotes now without thinking about it:
tell barkeep (striding towards ~bar) Oi, gimme a Red Sun, fella.
tell templar (walking up cautiously, ^me eyes darting briefly toward ~giant) Er, Lord Templar?
etc...
Add a few coded nudges to it (for instance, the ability to "talk" to people in your cluster), and it would get used all the time.  Add it as an adverbial-type modifier, and it would be transparent.

There are really simple and elegant solutions to other objections.  When you approach Amos, you also approach the person Amos has approached.  Go approach Malik (who's standing on the other side of the room), and you ain't approached-to Amos any more.  When you're riding across the desert in formation (following your sergeant who you approached way back in your compound), the approach-cluster stays unbroken.  Heck, there are astounding possibilities for mass combat, but that's a whole 'nother post.

A unit of T'Zai Byn mercenaries rides in from the west.
A unit of heavily-armored soldiers of Tektolnes rides in from the west.
A mixed unit of soldiers of Tektolnes rides in from the west.
Detaching from a unit of soldiers, the vibrant, willowy half-giant charges at you on a light green inix, bellowing a war cry.

Arrows aimed at you have a chance of striking someone near you.

It would be ridiculously awesome, guys, and it barely requires anything you don't do already in non-combat situations.

[psionic fungus]

There are a ton of things I could list here, but I'm just going to comment instead...

In -some- ways I agree, but honestly, its adding in code for something that -should- be able to be handled through an emote system anyways.

There is honestly no way to "emote" the coded effects that proximity should have.

You shouldn't be able to steal from someone who just entered the tavern if you are standing at the bar.

You shouldn't be able to instantly cross an indeterminate amount of desert to attack someone in the same room.

You shouldn't be able to "listen" and hear conversations, not only at the bar across the busy room, but also at every table in between...

I personally prefer "approach" to "advance", but the basic idea is the same.  I think it is a -huge- flaw to not have a system for determining proximity to characters and objects.

Its hard -enough- (in my experience) to attempt to kill another person when you DON'T have to approach. Yes, you can enter the room and just start swinging, and its happened to me several times, but your ideas just seem like code whose purpose is -only- to inhibit a players ability to play the game.

No... It's to make things more realistic, that is all.  There are -many- reasons to approach someone besides to attack them... If you want to attack someone and can't physically sneak up on them or charge them, then you'll just have to come up with a clever way to get within range without alerting them to you intent.  Or just attack, if you're -really- confident.   

For instance, if I enter the room, and start talking to someone, and we have a conversation, and THEN I have to approach them? If there was "approach" code wouldn't this be more of a hostile action?

If I were designing "approach" code, I would certainly have benefits and detriments to having a conversation without first approaching the other character.  I would expect that a character would generally be approached before conversation much other than a "Howdy" were attempted.  For example, if you tried to talk to someone you hadn't approached in a crowded tavern you might have to "loudly tell" or "shout" just to be heard.

What would be the point of approaching if you -didn't- want to attack them? I don't want to have to approach someone that I've been talking to, or camping with, simply because I'm outside. I -surely- don't want to have to approach them in every room we travel in (especially if its combat-only)

You would have to approach someone before you gave them items, or in some circumstances talked to them.  You would have to approach someone before you attempted to steal from them, or in any other circumstance where it makes sense for characters to be in immediate proximity to each other.

This can be handled automatically, in many cases.  So if you try to give Amos a travel cake and you're not close enough, you will simply approach him (unless that means standing up, of course).  Proximity could be kept through movement, if you were also following the person you had "approached".  Groups would also be able to separate into rough formations with this system and the watch/follow expansion I've suggested elsewhere. The "leader" could "watch" and "follow" a "scout" from a room behind, while being followed in the same room by the "merchant", who is followed by two "guards" who have used "approach" and are within proximity of the "merchant", the whole group could also be trailed from a room away by another "guard". Approach with watch/follow expansion allows for some serious tactical maneuvers by both raiders and caravans.

A few simple tweaks like this can make huge changes to realism and game play, and they are the exact types of details I want to see addressed.

[Dalmeth]

Instead of all this advance silliness, why not give the commands to initiate combat an initial delay that is independent of movement delay, but whoever is initiating the attack will still remain delayed until movement delay is finished?  Sneaking, of course, would have a chance to hide the initialization message.

[psionic fungus]

That solution doesn't address any other proximity issues in the game, and, in my opinion, does a poor job of addressing it in combat, as well.

[RogueGunslinger]

Maybe the approach code could be some form of variation on the adverbial commands code. Something like:

>guard amos. (Keeping a warry eye from across the tavern)

You begin guarding Amos the noble from a distance.

>approach Amos

You begin guarding Amos the noble from a safer distance

>halt

You halt your approach on Amos the noble

Amos the nobles perspective:

The burly man begins watching you from a distance, keeping a warry eye from across the tavern.

The burly man start approaching you.

>Think OH, it's just bob, my guard
you think "Oh, it's just bob, my guard

The burly man begins guarding you from a reasonable distance.


Then... back to bob.

The shady looking guy enters from below.

>think Who da hell's he?
You think: "who da hell's he?

The shady looking guy begins approaching Amos the noble.

>approach amos (stepping in front of ~shady

The shady guy approaches within a couple spans of Amos the noble

Stepping in front of the shady guy, you begin guarding Amos from a safe distance

You block the shady guy from approaching Amos the noble.

The shady guy bumps in to you, frowning he looks up at you.

From Shady guy's perspective:

You begin approaching Amos the noble

>think It's about time. Need to give him a message.
you think: "it's about time. Need to give him a message.

You approach within a couple spans of Amos the noble.

Stepping in front of you the burly man begins guarding Amos the noble from a safe distance.

You attempt to approach Amos the noble but the burly man blocks you!

>halt
You halt your approach on Amos the Noble.

>em bumps in to you, frowning he looks up at !burly.
You bumps in to the burly man, frowning you look up at him.

>stealthily draw blade
You stealithly draw a short, glistening blade blade.

>tell burly (holding up ~parchment) I have a message from Nobe Tightass for Amos.

Amos the noble says, in sirihish:
                          "Hmm? Let me see."

Amos the noble approaches within a couple cords of you.

>tell amos (handing out a parchment) The message...
You say to Amos the noble, handing out a parchment, in sirihish:
                                           "The message..."

>quickly backstab amos

>say (jerking out with ~blade) Is DEATH!!
Jerking out with a short, glistening blade you say, in Sirihish:
                                               "Is DEATH!"

The burly man tries to guard Amos but fails!


A bit long, and rough. But I think it illustrate a point... Maybe...

[Shoka Windrunner]

Maybe the approach code could be some form of variation on the adverbial commands code. Something like:

Stuff...

Man, I don't want to play chess.  I want to play Arm...

[NoteworthyFellow]

Maybe the approach code could be some form of variation on the adverbial commands code. Something like:

Stuff...

Man, I don't want to play chess.  I want to play Arm...

I agree.  I think "approach" code would just be a huge hassle, especially given some of the examples above, like having you approach just to talk to someone.  I am not at all in favor of it, to be honest.

[manonfire]

My ideas are to make combat more realistic. Period.

I didn't take into consideration any other extenuating circumstances when writing out the post, so there's undoubtedly a number of holes in the idea.

Edit: Bold for emphasis.

[Morrolan]

I do like some aspects of the "approach" idea.  For anyone who has played the tabletop game "Burning Wheel", that is how I envision application of this idea.

Of course, you might get:
Malik > approach amos
Amos > retreat malik
Malik > approach amos
Amos > retreat malik

wash, rinse, repeat

But how would a person retreat from several "approachers" at once?  While trying to hold formation?  When their sargent is lagged?  I love the idea, but it seems complex enough to be ripe for code-abuse.

I remember when I first came back to Arm (approx. 2001-02?), there was discussion on the GDB from a newb who followed an "elf" until he ran out of stamina (not understanding the stam code) and then was sumarrily killed for his newb coins.

Again, I love the idea of the approach code.  But I would hesitate to put something like this into the game.  It is one more hurdle for new players to learn before they can begin to enjoy the game.

Morrolan

[Vessol]

Coded itches.

Your left wrist itches a bit. Scratch it.

Guess your trying to ignore it, huh? Well not your lower leg is starting to itch!

Your really concentrating on trying not to have to scratch yourself in front of the templar, huh? Your groin itches, a lot, unbearibly.

Scratch it...

Scratch it...

SCRATCH IT DAMNIT

Your vision goes black.

[psionic fungus]

But how would a person retreat from several "approachers" at once?  While trying to hold formation?  When their sargent is lagged?  I love the idea, but it seems complex enough to be ripe for code-abuse.

As I envision the system there would have no ability to "retreat" from someone, but if someone you didn't know were to start approaching you, and have a weapon drawn, you might "watch" them, or perform some other defensive gesture that would prevent them from getting an advantage over you.

If you wanted to move from the area someone was occupying after approaching you, you would have to move somewhere else yourself (this was elaborated on when I originally proposed the idea), perhaps across the room (there would be at least 5 locations in every room: north, south, east, west, and center.), or to another table or object (which would also be placed within one of the five room locations).  If the other character were "following" you, they would attempt to stay "approached" and follow you to the other part of the room.  Same for "shadowing' while hidden and sneaking.

Also, can you explain how this could abused?  I guess the "retreat" function would complicate things, but even if it were implemented in that manner, I imagine if you're trying to "retreat" or "approach" after you've "approached" and "followed" a leader you would just break ranks, stop following, no longer be "approached" to your leader, and lose any possible bonuses...  Soldiers would be trained to hold rank and allow their leader to decide who to approach/attack/etc.  Where does the problem come in?

I remember when I first came back to Arm (approx. 2001-02?), there was discussion on the GDB from a newb who followed an "elf" until he ran out of stamina (not understanding the stam code) and then was sumarrily killed for his newb coins.

Huh?  Now I'm confused...  How is this relevant?

Again, I love the idea of the approach code.  But I would hesitate to put something like this into the game.  It is one more hurdle for new players to learn before they can begin to enjoy the game.

I think the implementation -could- be done very intuitively and -could- represent much less of a hurdle than many aspects of the current game. 

[Barzalene]

I'm totally good with the current level of realism.

[Vessol]

I wouldn't mind a more realistic combat system with injuries and all that. But, who am I to complain? I have been completely hooked lately .

[Angela Christine]

Smell-O-Vision.

[Maso]

Coded illnesses and diseases with coded cures. Not fast acting stuff like poisons, but things you character can survive with, eleviate with the right 'herbs'/remedies/magicks or cure over time.

I want to see things happen to my character that I don't decide upon. By chance. Besides death.

[Shoka Windrunner]

I think I've stated this before somewhere, but I want to mention it again:

The world is going to go to crap.  And there is going to be ruins everywhere, Krath there are ruins everywhere, wagons, burned out forts, destroyed villages, the 'Rynth...

What I'd like to see, is some of these ruins, caves, buildings, holes in the ground whatever, becoming visible for a time in game.  As in the sand has uncovered the entrance to Steinal.  But it's random.  It's there now, and later, when you go back, it's not.

I would almost like for it to be, at least some of it, a coded sort of puzzle or some such, you walk across the desert, and the sand shifts, dropping you down into the top of the Storm's End Tavern in the Spice Den, because the roof gave way.  And lo and behold you find a shit ton of spice.  Some old ragged dun colored cloaks, a pair of cracking and faded grey leather boots...a plump prostitute...(just kidding...unless it was an undead plump prostitute, and that would be cool)

But now you got to get out.  So you take the dirty ragged tapestries that used to hang from the ceiling.  You craft them into a simple piece of rope, then you have to decide, how much spice can I carry and climb this piece of crap rope I found? 

Just a quick example off the top of my head.

But this, besides just being an incredible story to share with everyone else, would just be awesome period.  The old world wouldn't be totally gone.  It would still be there.  Just waiting for the Winds of Fate to lay them bare for a time.  (I know everything that is being taken out would have to go, so the description of the rooms would have to be different.  No mek bones or things like that, but calling them very large bones, would work and so forth)

Maybe you get really lucky...you fall through the roof of a Nenyuki Bank...

Things like this, would make me VERY happy.  I always loved finding the random stuff while playing the Fallout games.  It's awesome and one of the things I remember most fondly.  However...I don't want to see a splattered mekillot with a flower pot on it's head.  Heh.  Just cool little tidbits from Arm 1.  Making legends, and stories that will spread through cities.  Treasure Hunters wandering the wastes.  Excavations to refind Tek's tower...

You get what I'm saying.

[RogueGunslinger]

You get what I'm saying.

Dude, dude... What?

[Zoltan]

I hear you, Shoka. That'd be fucking sweet. Nothing beats that sense of discovery. Or, as the case may be for players in 2.Arm, rediscovery of these old places.