Combat limits.

[FightClub]

I was wondering, if there's a limit to how many people can attack a single person in combat?  Anyone know?? Just curious.

[Larrath]

I don't believe there is any limit whatsoever, which makes me sad.

[Synthesis]

Sounds like a good idea that could be implemented relatively easily.

[LauraMars]

I don't see why there should be a limit.  Don't you guys like getting ganged up on by ten halflings?  That always is my favorite way to start the day.

However, it would be interesting if there was some kind of chance code that allowed for failure of attack the more people were involved in the mob.

I.E. If you're the eighth halfling to attack Hunter Suzy, you might not be able to squirm your way in, or, you might even end up biting your fellow halflings.

[Synthesis]

No, in a melee with a bunch of people swinging swords, there is a point at which it becomes impossible to properly swing a sword without injuring your ally.

Indeed, at this point, the solo victim gains the advantage, in that he is unlimited in his attacks:  he can strike anywhere and damage his enemy, whereas his attackers are limited in their maneuver space by the proximity of individuals they would rather not harm.

[Hymwen]

I doubt some poor fella would consider it an advantage to fight ten halflings

Anyway, it sounds reasonable, but it would have to vary depending on the size of whatever you're fighting. The limits for the amount of people who can fight a mekillot wouldn't be the same as for a scrab. Don't know if that would make it hard to code.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

Hmmm ... it might not be too hard to implement, actually.

[Yang]

To be honest there's not much difference between eight halfings and ten halflings. Or between ten and five, to be politically correct.

KEN-TAR!

[Cenghiz]

It's often nerving to have ~10 NPCs attack your poor magicker at once. I wish there was a code forcing everyone to only assist, not directly hit when someone's already involved in a fight. What I mean is not that I want assist command be used more often. I want a 'delay'.
No delay for the second.. Maybe no delay for the third attacker. But if the nineth attacker can find an opening through the other eight people and start attacking instantly, it feels real cheezy.
In a MUD I tried right before ARM, there was a system - rows.
After grouping someone, you would choose a row: "row 2" and any people attacking you was first forced to roll against the combined guard skill of the rows before your row. Upon failing overwhelming a row's guard skill at every combat round, you would instead attack someone randomly from that row. Also every row had limits to what they can (second row couldn't hit with swords and daggers, only longer weapons, the third row and latter was mainly used by magickers) and the amount of people that can occupy a row was quite limited.
But I believe coding such a system would be deadly hard.[/i]

[X-D]

I'm sorry, I do have to say, some of these answers gave me chuckles.

There is no limit in game. I think it has been talked about before...can't remember if it was old GDB or new. There should be, maybe, but to do so would mean putting in code to adjust the number of attackers verses the size of the attackers and the size of the one being attacked. More halflings can of course surround and attack a half-giant then half-giants around halflings. Then, weapon size and type would have to come into affect as well. Five people with short stabbing weapons can get much closer, so fewer, but they also don't need worry about hitting the other attackers as much, but you cen get more people with long spears around somebody and they need not worry either, and if the defender has a shorter weapon, they need not worry about getting hit by him. then you need to figure out how to do this with multiple weapon sizes and styles all at once.

Oh wait, the game already does this, by accuratly getting the defender downed in a matter of moments.

As to an advantage on the Victem..heh, no. One only need ask people like general Custer for an answer on that. Or download one of the many video's on the web on gang initiations where 5-20 gangmembers soundly pummel one prospect. Or ask anybody who has ever been jumped by three or more people.

Movies don't count people, IRL, somebody massivly outnumbered in melee LOSES, quickly.

This is accuratly represented in game I think. Well, good enough for playability, and weighted in favor of the one being outnumbered. If it was truly accurate, somebody outnumbered 4-1 would be dropped in about as long of a time as it would take to parry the first blow as the two people behind him quickly chopped is legs out from behind...call it, oh, 3 seconds?

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

Actually, I won a fight once where three people jumped me.

I was, however, put down quite soundly both when I was 'jumped in' and when I was jumped by 12 people in a hotel room.

X-D has a point, certianly. I, however, would not mind seeing the heroic quality in this setting, where it is concievable for one person to wade through a million gith because he is just that good. As far as brutal reality goes, however, the code pretty accurately reflects the difficulty of taking on a number of foes.

[X-D]

Somehow I knew it would be 7DV replying:)

And yes, it is possible to take on more then one and win, 2, 3, more, but, with each one added the odds go down by a larger progression.

1 person, I can probly take em, 2...still a good chance, 3 Gonna be a little more luck then skill here, 4 I'm gonna be hurt, period, 5 I hope they under the age of 10.

Though, I have a friend, good size, athletic guy, 29 years old, who got WAY fucked up being jumped by a 12 year old boy, and two 13 year olds.
I mean, MESSED UP perm. He gets teased of course. But, when your blocking the knife from the one in front and the one to the side clubs you in the face with a 40ounce and the one behind drops a ten pound river rock on ya dome at the same time...well, that pretty much takes care of it. He says the fight lasted maybe 2 seconds top end.

By the way, none of these kids did more then 6 months for this mutulation/mugging near murder.

[LoD]

There are certainly RL limits to how many people can effectively attack you.

That limit, however, is likely higher than what most people would believe.  I fight in a group that often has 60 people on the field at home practices and 300+ at events, and so these situations can come up quite often.  

If you're fighting a shoulder-to-shoulder wall, with no potential for flanking, then you've got a limit of about (5) attackers.  This would generally be comprised of about 3 shieldmen/swordsmen and 2 spearmen behind them.  Anything more would be pretty ineffective and crowd the space.  You're also limited in your strikes because you've got people on both sides of you, so it's pretty much a range of vertical or near vertical strikes.

If you're fighting in the open field/desert and the group can surround you, then I'd say you have a limit of about (7-9) depending on the weapons.  The more people, the more vertical the strikes need to become, but it's certainly possible and effective against someone trying to defend.

One of the issues I have with the combat is that there is really no accounting for the footwork and field presence of the fighter.  No matter how experienced, well trained or practiced they are, there is an instant penalty at 'x' amount of attackers.  The code assumes that all of these attackers are able to constantly keep up with your movements, having an angle to strike, being close enough and skilled enough to strike every round of combat.  In 3 v 1 situation, this won't always be the case.

Good footwork will force the attackers into each other, or require them to move faster to keep up with your flank.  If the disparity between fighters is so great, you can chew through quite a few people.  This isn't REAL combat, however, just as the MUD isn't REAL combat.  The code is certainly more realistic than having no penalties to multiple attackers.

-LoD

[X-D]

As you said, its not real combat. And if it is the same group I was in for like 7 years (and still go to the odd event) There are quite a few rules to combat for safety reasons that you simply would not have with the real thing.

I think the coded defense of your char does a good enough job of accounting for footwork anyway, amazing how much a high defense char can dodge in arm.

[Synthesis]

To clarify my position, I think it should be capped at around 4 attacking human-sized individuals. (I would include halflings and dwarves as human-sized, for simplicity's sake.)

To make it easy, half-giants and similarly-sized beasties would count for 2, limiting them to 2 half-giants or 1 half-giant and 2 humans.

"Mob"-sized critters (slave gangs, units of soldiers, etc.) would count for a full 4 attackers.

I can see being attacked by more than 4 people, obviously, but I just can't imagine more than 4 people actively swinging at a single target all at once, which is how the code currently handles it. It seems to me that more than 4 attackers would more or less "take turns" putting a smackdown on their victim, which currently can be handled by simply disengaging and allowing another person to attack.

Ultimately, it comes down to a question of exact numbers, and 4 makes a nice, round number.  You're still going to get mauled by 4 attackers, unless you're a ninja, and the other fellows left out of the fracas can still be useful (see below).  Issue will probably be taken with the exact number, but 6 seems like too many.  I suppose 5 would work, letting half-giants equal 2.5 humans and "unit" mobs equal the full 5.

This could also result in some nifty things, for example:

1. If you already had 4 people attacking someone, that person would be unable to further engage any other opponents.  (Currently, if you're an uber warrior being engaged by multiple opponents, with a magicker sitting on the sidelines about to cast, you can simply charge through the melee and engage the magicker. This is silly.)

2. If your group of 5 is engaging a single target, your 5th member is now free to stand back and toss throwing knives or shoot arrows at the victim, without worrying about being engaged and being in a vulnerable position due to having only 1 weapon wielded, or only a bow.  It is not entirely unimaginable that you could shoot accurately through your allies, when they only number 4.  However, it would be interesting to add the possibility of wounding your friend, if you really aren't that good with a throwing knife (that is, if you miss completely).

3. Death in large-scale battles will run over a slower time-span.  Since you can only be engaged by 2 half-giants or 1 unit of soldiers, it will take a little time for them to kill you, which allows individuals with the rescue command a possibly more adequate opportunity to guard their charges.  Additionally, while templars and magickers would remain priority targets, actually taking them down might prove to be much more difficult, as it should probably be, anyway.  The battle spam would still be incredible, but there would be far fewer 1-round deaths, and the "all but the lucky perish within 5 seconds" phenomenon would be, if not entirely removed, would at least be somewhat abated.

[X-D]

I can see being attacked by more than 4 people, obviously, but I just can't imagine more than 4 people actively swinging at a single target all at once, which is how the code currently handles it. It seems to me that more than 4 attackers would more or less "take turns" putting a smackdown on their victim, which currently can be handled by simply disengaging and allowing another person to attack.

You can't? I can and have. And really, if you want realism, then the bonuses confered on 4 or more attacking one should be GREATLY increased.

Also, you are not taking into account weapon types/size/style. Something that makes a REAL difference as to how many people can strike at one all at once.

[Folker]

Does this really matter? I'm not an experienced mud combatant, but from what I observed, by the time the 5th or 6th opponent joins into the fray against that one person, that person is already a corpse.

[FightClub]

It's more of a matter of playability than reality, if we broke -every single damn thing- down to weapon length stature, numbers -- like you want.  This game would be -- about fifty gigs of code, and probably about six rooms deep.  This is a game, suppost to be fun, fantasy.  There really is no reason why something like this shouldn't be considered.  Putting a max of four people would be a good starting point, which could be worked around afterwards. While what your suggesting is to allow the current system hold, and let pc's get butchered by 600 npc's at once, like their flying in from overhead and through the ground and shit, let me ask you (what's realistic about that?) It isn't...

[moab]

Here's a question:

If size x can only be attacked by y number of folks who are swinging swords, can he be attacked by y+z number of folks using thrusting weapons which require less space to use?

I think this become increasingly more complex.

Calc the size of the target
Calc the (average?) size of the opponent(s)
Calc the weapon (average again?) of the opponents(s)
Maybe factor in shields getting in the way for some of the people

Dunno.  Seems fine the way it is. Either way  4 or 10 you die pretty darn quick.  :-D

[Synthesis]

Regardless of the final calculation (I already posted my proposed numbers), the point is to make it impossible to be attacked by 6 half-giants or 6 "units of Allanaki soldiers," or 10 mekillots, or whatever.

Yes, you will still die when you are limited to 1 or 2 of these large things, and you will still die when you are attacked by 4 or 6 of any other (skilled) humanoid thing.

However, you will not die nearly instantaneously, as is the case now.  It takes significantly longer for 4 things to kill you than it does for 6 things to kill you.

At the same time, yes, I can see penalties against defenders being increased slightly with the limit to 4 attackers.  The code would have other benefits beyond merely slightly increasing survivability for defenders against multiple opponents.  (See my previous post for those.)  Even if there were no resultant survivability benefit, these other benefits would remain.

I would disregard weapon sizes and shields simply to keep the calculations simple.  It may make sense in a perfect system, but adding so many variables makes tweaking the code much more difficult.

[Twilight]

Lets say someone was facing off against 4 half giants, because that was the code limitation, rather than the 100 half giants that want to do him in.

A character might get enough of a chance to flee when facing off against 4 half giants that they might be able to survive, when instead it should have been a pretty much instantaneous beep.

Extreme example I know.  But if you take into account levels of skill, eg an advanced warrior taking on multiple moderate or low level skill warrior, the single person might be able to survive because of the coded limitation on attackers using flee.  However, they might be facing odds (5 to 1? 10 to 1? and entire unit or two of soldiers to 1?) that should make surviving basically impossible.  That is, they should get the beep even before they get the chance to flee.

Heck, 1 skilled warrior surrounded by 250 angry merchants (but only 4, 5, 6 whatever attacking due to code restrictions) might actually win.  Against all of them.

[Maybe42or54]

I once killed a whole unit of soldiers. I even landed a vicious hit to its neck!

[FightClub]

I once killed a whole unit of soldiers. I even landed a vicious hit to its neck!

Let me guess, the character's name was Guts, and afterwards he was deemed the hundred man slayer?  Fantastic.