Defense Nerfed

[Gunnerblaster]

People with crappy connections might as well stay home. It was bad enough before, being caught by the random Doom Beetle descending from the the murky realm known as "the square north-east," but at least you had a sprinter's chance, once your connection stopped lagging. Now, if combat even starts, you're pretty much toast, unless you have mad skills, because that beetle is going to daze you with the first blow, and keep dazing you until you're meat. Yay.

-Self Edited because I'd rather save'em the time of doing it-

[spawnloser]

Well...Gunner, since I got here before your post gets editted and know what probably killed you, just be grateful things weren't wholly realistic.  If things were, it would just kill you in one stomp.

Still, even if it wasn't what I think, sometimes the green newbie get's a lucky shot off and KO's the uber warrior.  Sometimes the uber-warrior just sucks ass.  I'd suggest not jumping to conclusions.  Be civil.  Discuss.  The staff is more likely to respond to you in a positive fashion that way.

Oh, and one last thing, this isn't the thread to discuss dazing.  This is the 'defense got nerfed' thread.

[Gunnerblaster]

Well, spawn, if it HAD killed me with one stomp, I would've rathered that. Atleast I would've died thinking that I got owned by some creature to match that of a mekillot instead've some feckin' run-of-the-mill critter...

[Flaming Ocotillo]

After reading the first few paragraphs, then completely ignoring the rest because I knew the rest would be a long continuation of the first few paragraphs, I suggest this:

With respect, how do you know the remaining paragraphs were simply a paraphrase of the first two if you didn't read them?

He didn't say paraphrase.  He said continuation.  Different words, same attitude and tone.

It doesn't matter, though. Halaster was saying that the original post was snarky. Why, when you can simply scroll past such jackassery, would anyone stop to read it?

Replying to a post that you haven't read in full is just bad form. Promoting the idea of not fully reading posts and yet replying to them on a GDB system is completely contrary to the very fundamental CORE of a DISCUSSION BOARD. I personally love the combat code changes and am hoping to see more, but I thought I'd post this up to put an end to any discussion in this thread about why it's ok not to read people's messages in full and then offer a reply. It's completely ridiculous to propose that we should reply to messages we haven't fully read.  Skipping over posts and _not_ replying to them is totally expected and normal behavior, but skipping a post and replying to it just doesn't make sense.

No, it's not cool to skip post content and reply to the post. Spawnloser's post may inspire a derail regarding why it's ok to skip post content and reply, but let's not allow it to go there.

[Jherlen]

I think what Synthesis was saying, whether you've taken his criticism as constructive or insulting, is that in his opinion (and I am happy he has the freedom to share it) the code change pushes this MUD towards H&Sness.  From the little bit I've experienced and the large amount I've read on the board here regarding changes to combat, I have little to no insentive(sic) to put any thought in a character concept.  I'll just whip up a quick 3 1/2 line mdesc with a one sentance background and make sure it is in no way unique or original because, frankly, I don't want to get attached to a character that will die faster than you can type 'f l e e'.

I disagree with what you say, sir, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it.

I don't think the code changes are destroying anyone's incentive to create well-thought out characters at all. On the contrary, I think they reinforce your incentive to act and roleplay realistically - to NOT go out alone into the desert and try to solo salt worms, or a tribe of gith, or a nest of raptors, and so on. The code changes are upping the risk factor of that to the point where it's a bad idea in most cases.

An H&S much would have a much different balance between PCs and the environment. In H&S muds, the top-leveled, maxed out characters are usually gods in their own right, capable of killing 95% of the NPCs in the game. (The other 5% they can group with others and kill, too.) In a roleplay mud, and especially in Armageddon there will be things out there that you would have to be insane to fight unless you're some kind of ubersorceror. Unlike an H&S, even the maxed out warriors and rangers are not comic book superheroes who can defeat entire armies in single combat. By placing PCs on a lower plateau of power than the things that want to eat them, we're encouraging those PCs to make smarter, more cautious decisions if they want to live long. I think that's the point of an RPI.

You could, I suppose, keep spamming characters with no backgrounds and weak mdescs, and charging into the deserts to fight things until you die, and then "respawn" a new one and repeat the same process, but I don't think that's what the game is designed for or what the code change is promoting. It would probably quickly stop being fun.

Say what you want about the new combat code, but I don't think it hurts roleplay.

[Synthesis]

Sorry for the delay in posting a defense of my orginal post, but the sheer quantity of replies and real-life time constraints kept me from it until now.

Most of the (useful) counterpoints were made by the earlier posters, so those are more heavily addressed.  In particular I address quite a few of Larrath's points, simply because he was the first to bring them up.

1. Larrath, RE: "Carru and Lag."
Yes, carru bash is annoying and lag was a problem before the daze code went in.  However, the daze code significantly increases the chance of a large creature being able to hit you repeatedly.  Before, if you lagged out or if you simply missed the creture's entrance message, you could soak the first hit and flee out instantly.  Now, it's quite possible that if you overlook the message or lag out, you'll be forced to stick around while that large creature lands some follow-up blows.

2. Larrath, RE: "Rebuilding your Defense."
Your argument is valid only if the changes to the code lower overall defense only through the middle range.  If it lowers maximum achievable defense (which I'm inclined to think it does), sparring to "rebuild defense" will only aid those who haven't already reached their upper limit.  If this is the case, then it pretty much leaves everyone at least a little more vulnerable.  Personally, I'd always considered my PCs vulnerable enough. Given the high turnover rate of combat-oriented PCs, it seems excessive to heap further difficulties upon them.

3. Larrath, RE: "Grouping."
The fundamental problem with grouping is the OOC unreliability of your group members.  If you are a hunter who is barely getting by, you can't idle around for four hours waiting for your buddy to log in.  (Even if you could, why would you want to?)  In a clan, with many members, it's often difficult to get any sort of group effort together, and so much more so when you don't have the convenience of a GDB forum or an IC rumor board.

4. Larrath, RE: "Rescue."
Outside of rote sparring, rescue usage is infrequent, for a variety of reasons: 1) the difficulty of grouping in the first place; 2) it is tactically more sound for the ablest fighter to simply engage before the attacker can randomly pick a target; 3) it is tactically more sound for the target of the initial attack to simply flee once the attacker has been engaged.  Until these circumstances are changed, pretty much the only PCs with any skill at rescuing or guarding will be coming out of the Byn.

5. jstorrie, RE: "Fighting T-Rexes."
As far as I know, nobody was ever going to go solo against a mek, under normal circumstances.  However, at least they had a chance of getting away if they were unfortunate enough to be attacked by one.  Now, I would say that the chance is significantly lower.  Given the terrain meks inhabit (as has been pointed out numerous times), it is unlikely that such a beast could ever launch a surprise attack, as they unfortunately are fairly capable of doing at the moment.

6. jstorrie, RE: "The Desert is Harsh."
I figured the desert was fairly harsh enough, as it was.  Besides which, these recent changes don't particularly affect the harshness of the desert, only the frequency with which people will be killed by large beasts (which they probably were actively seeking to avoid, in the first place).  Browsing through "Most Dissatisfying Deaths" thread, I see quite a few chalked up to mobiles, but not a one in the "Most Satisfying Deaths" thread.  Apparently, nobody enjoys being killed by a mobile, no matter how uber.  Sure, we all get a good chuckle when we run across some hapless newb's bahamet-brutalized corpse (sometimes you even get a bunch of loot!), but I don't think the game is any better off for that death.  One grievous pinch to the arm is enough to warn off any would-be solo bahamet hunters.  We don't need PCs to actually die from a random encounter with an insanely large beast to impress upon them the danger of such things.

7. Generally, RE: "NPC Command Delay."
This was an admirable fix, but it doesn't really concern my argument.  Yes, it decreases the chance of dying to what was a true bug, but now you've gone and increased the chance of dying to a similar bug (inability to look north-east, etc.).  NPCs are delayed, but they can still appear virtually out of nowhere, attack, -and- keep you there while they engage in further melee.  Note that this is a criticism of the daze code, but the defense nerf ties into it by increasing the likelihood of being dazed by such an attack.

8. Xygax, RE: "Statistical Analysis."
Yes, I jumped to some conclusions and upon further consideration I've amended some of my previous views.  However, your call for statistical analysis before criticism is absurd, simply because it would be impossible for any player to compile a set of statistics that would adequately address the issue in a timely manner.  If this were a pre-requisite for comment on code issues, there would be little point in having a Code Discussion Forum.

9. Generally, RE: "Magickers."
My prediction for magickers was addressed more to the daze code than to the defense nerf.  Of course the two are not entirely separate issues, but the one is apparently far more significant than the other.

10. Generally, RE: "Nastiness."
I'm sorry you interpreted my tone as malicious or mean-spirited, but it wasn't intended to be.  Yes, I used rhetorical hyperbole to get my point across, but I seriously doubt I would've generated six pages of discussion with an initial post that read like a statistics lecture.  Sometimes, you've just got to have a little fire in your belly before anyone will care.

11. Generally, RE: "Bug Fix, Not a Nerf."
I still believe my criticism of the terms in which the defense nerf was couched is a valid one: it is not merely a bug fix, it is a calculated downward adjustment of defensive abilities--i.e. a nerf.  Perhaps the bug itself was that defense was too good.  That's fine.  However, this does not change the fact that the change is also a nerf:  it may be a bug fix and a nerf, but it certainly is not only a bug fix.

[jmordetsky]

Okay. My turn. I don't normally flat out bitch about changes...Especially not in the last 6 months. I have loved and embraced most of the changes made.  I loved watch, I loved the changes to sneak and hide. I loved bio. I love lamp. I loved hemote and semote. I even loved daze.

Wait, Lamp? NEver mind that.

With this I was worried but I waited until I sparred a little to say what I have to say.

I HATE this change. I HATE it. I HATE it. I HATE it. I hate it so.

All I can say is WHY? WHHHHYYY hast thou forsaken us so?? How hast thou displeased you?

Now. That being said.

I hate this change because my current character is significantly weaker then they were last week. And I find it irritating, my OC ego is bruised and it seems chars that were only slightly better then me yesterday are now 100 times better then me.


Now. *That* being said....Is this a bad things? I think what I see is that the change has made warriors stronger and to be fair with the boost to sneakies of late, maybe that's a good thing.

All in all. I hate it.  I liked it the way it was, and now I think it sucks.

Talk to me in two weeks and my mind may change. But as of right now I am thoroughly disgruntled.

I don't think this needed fixing. Things were hard enough as it was, especially with the addition of daze.

[Hymwen]

Like I mentioned earlier but without clarifying much, the impression I get is that stats now matter a lot more, especially in the beginning. From testing and observation, it seems that hits are much much more frequent and characters with low defense skills will hit eachother practically every time, so now agility, strength and endurance has been the absolute deciding factor in the outcome of fights for me. It's probably different when relatively skilled opponents fight and dodges/parries actually occur, but as long as failed attacks are almost non-existant then the speed and force of your attacks as well as how much you can endure will be pretty much the only thing that matters.

[Dakkon Black]

I worry that now a slew of people will find strength to be so important just to survive so that they can daze other people first, all we'll ever see is pc warriors who suicided over and over to get an awesome strength roll.

I worry that in the wastes, pc's will attack first and rp later, because if they don't, they other guy might, and that means that he gets the first chance to daze.

But I have faith that the staff are watching this change very closely and aren't about to leave it in a state that doesn't work well. I have to admit, I rather hated the idea from the start.

Perhaps a cool idea would be making daze an actual skill that warriors can branch later and that larger beasts would have.  Obviously I don't know if everything can daze, but... tregil dazing me to death would suck, and the truth is, I've had chars who almost died to tregil before the daze code went in. Heh.

[UnderSeven]

I just got to say about the magicker arguement.  

Seriously?

Magickers with Daze code in a sense got nerfed.  They're more vulnerable because now they're going to have a harder time casting.  They're going to find themselves possibly getting dazed.  And you say, OH GOD the magickers are going to try to kill us faster!  

So like.. if the staff make magickers so uber they don't have to worry about you ever hurting them then it's crap cause magickers are too powerful!  But if the staff make a change that makes magickers more vulnerable it becomes OH GOD now the magickers are going to be more careful cause we might kill them otherwise.  

Clearly the staff can't win this no matter what they do.  

I would like to further point out having played a fairly long lived and powerful magicker, that powerful magickers to my experience were a lot more rare then people seem to think.

[Xygax]

8. Xygax, RE: "Statistical Analysis."
Yes, I jumped to some conclusions and upon further consideration I've amended some of my previous views.  However, your call for statistical analysis before criticism is absurd, simply because it would be impossible for any player to compile a set of statistics that would adequately address the issue in a timely manner.  If this were a pre-requisite for comment on code issues, there would be little point in having a Code Discussion Forum.

You're saying that making "I have experienced an issue" a criteria for discussing that issue is absurd?  If all you have is anecdotal evidence, then offer that (via private e-mail, since current anecdotes are inevitably too IC for the boards), if you're going to complain in broad, sweeping generalizations, then you'd better have some statistics.  I don't find this requirement absurd in any way, and it should stem the tide of knee-jerk reactions such as those with which this thread is replete.

I can certainly also be persuaded by "I anticipate an issue," but those sorts of arguments should be constructed with logical reasoning empowered by courteous phrasing.  If you want people to value your opinion, you owe them the same level of respect.

-- X

[Yang]

Has the way combat skills are trained and learned been altered as well to adapt to the new system? I'd have to admit I'd anticipate some problems in that area, if skill-advancement hasn't already been explored in combination with the new defense adjustments... such as with Nusku's impressive experiments.

[Dakkon Black]

I definately agree that the lever goes both ways, and either way you balance it seems to favour one over the other, but I don't actually think the daze code is the problem for magickers. Just the way it can come about.

In a room that should be hundreds over cords long, someone can arrive and before you've drawn daze you. It's not rp realistic, but codewise it can be done, and is done out there by some people.

I think the real answer would be some kind of challenge code like approach. You could never attack another pc unless you approached them first.

Then if you walk into a room and someone enters, at least you as any pc, from magicker to noob ranger trying to greb for a root, you don't get owned out of the blue by somebody not paying any attention at all to how far realistically they must have been in the room.

Only has pro's I'd say. Doesn't allow random attacks, and creates a safety barrier that can be used to increase desert rp.

[Dakkon Black]

El Double Poste.

[najdorf]

approach code sounds great, but there are already too many codes in game, another simpler solution might be, -and i remember discussed before-:  a delay can be put before agressive actions, which might include kill, hit , subdue, bash,...
it can be like:
kill duskhorn..
You rush towards a graceful duskhorn.
5 second passes and combat starts.
Everyone in room might see the message, or they may not (depending on alertness)
bs and sap can have some priviledges.

[Testing]

I have to say that when a very experienced dwarven hunter is incapable of dropping a scrab by himself something has gone terribly wrong.  I posted in another thread that one of the things I admired about Arm was its ability to engage players who wanted to play solo, indy characters that could still have an impact and at the same time have large, imm-controlled groups.  This "fix" makes it very, very difficult to be an Indy player.  What it really does, in the end assessment, is drive players into the large, Imm-controlled clans like Kadius, Borsail, etc.  This takes the control of the story of the game away from players and puts it in the hands of the Imms, and in my mind this violates the most basic principles of Arm.  One of the things I've always loved most about Arm is that a player could rise up and become the ruler of the world, that players were responsible for driving the story and the plot.  If that is no longer the case, I think it's a highly regretable situation.

I love Arm, I love the work that all the folks put in on it, I love the creativity they employ in coding and trying to make this an excellent game, and I realize that sometimes they're just gonna miss, and that's ok.  I'm not trying to be down on the game or on any of them, I'm just pointing out what seems to be more than just a logical inconsistency, but rather something that violates one of the basic principles that makes Arm the best game there is.

[Beux]

Ohhh...an approach code would be horsum. But obviously...sneakies would have a skill that allowed them to work on doing in sekretly...and rangers should be able to work on approaching animals without warning/scaring them.

[FightClub]

*giggle* I can't wait for Halaster to quit buffing magickers, and fucking combat classes, wouldn't it be dandy?

But on the point -- this would simply enable you to be hit more often, so it would take you less time to get your defense higher, which can be a problem with being a warrior.

Carru's lag, yeah always been a problem, doesn't change much, the stun thing...not seen much to it, atleast me hitting npc's with it.

I'll take this as a blessing in disguise and leave it at that.

Edited further to add.  I've had a lot of unpolite things to say about the modifications to combat in the past. All of the modifications they have done, have had few consequences  for me as a player such as stam loss, for moves and combat initiation, it doesn't really bother me, rest as much as I rested before, so along with that I doubt they'll put in anything we can't handle.

Edited further further to add that's scrabs are nasty nasty bastards, if you've taken them in the past easily, and they seemingly just started nailing you, wait for a reboot and then try another.  Sometimes, god forbid a npc will get immensly strong off of players that can't kill it.  I've had on a few occasions gith of legendary proportions that have survived an array of combatants because they heal in a single tick when not engaged in combat they'll be ready for the next battle soon after.  Having stat gains comparable to a pc.  Might or might not be the case, but worth exploring.  Myself I've noticed I'm getting hit more often by monsters that usually don't hit me, nothing significant, but it's happening, and I doubt it's nothing a few days training can't fix.

[talus]

I won't presume to know anything about how the new combat code actually works behind the scenes, but I do know that I don't like the change that it has brought to the feel of the game's combat.

For me, fights that occurred between evenly matched opponents used to be exciting and inspiring shows of skill and technique. It was fun describing how two opponents would have this dramatic struggle for the upper hand in combat. You could feel the dedication, time, and thought both participants had put into their art. Blows slipped through their defenses because of mistakes they had made, or simply because one opponent was faster  or more cunning than the other.

Now, these fights between evenly matched opponents seem to be just a bunch of unskilled, sloppy slug-fests in which both participants abandon everything they've learned just to see who can hit harder. characters that were formerly skilled and knowledgeable in their craft now seem like they have no idea about what they're doing. Granted, I suppose that they will eventually regain the skill that they used to have prior to the changes and maybe start having those exciting, edge-of-your-seat duels again, but it's still a big setback.

I also have to admit that it's frustrating for me on an OOC level when my 600ish hour old character now suddenly has to fight at almost the same level as 0-72 hour old characters. It's just as if I was starting all those last 400 hours or so all over again. My character probably feels like how I would if I'd suddenly forgotten the last X years of my education for some reason and had to take the classes all over again to regain qualifications and knowledge I previously had.

[FightClub]

Sounds like it's time for Johnny Badass to explore a potential injury to explain his loss in ability.  Might be good rp, but if it's occuring on a great scale I can see a problem.

[Lizzie]

I've tried some combat since the change, in a "controlled environment" and I really got a kick out of it. My opponents got beat, but it didn't take too much shorter a time than it would've before the change, and it just plain felt great to see that all the time I've spent with this PC so far working on the skills have actually amounted to something.

I wouldn't be surprised if armor types and choices will have a more significant impact now as a result, but I haven't tested it to be sure. But it seems to me that someone walking around the desert wearing nothing but their newbie gear is going to see a *much* higher risk of a one-whack kill than someone in a full desert-gear suit, than ever before. I was able to watch my PC get taken down a few notches on the defense side of things, which gives her a reason to consider one or two different pieces of equipment, or new equipment to cover a part that was previously uncovered. In other words, vulnerability and weak points seem to be more obvious now than they were before.

L. Stanson
So far, so good.

[LauraMars]

One day I'm slaughtering everything in my path like a machine gun, the next I'm running like crazy.  Oh well.  It's still pretty hardcore.

[Xygax]

*giggle* I can't wait for Halaster to quit buffing magickers, and fucking combat classes, wouldn't it be dandy?

This is an excellent example of how not to word a post when one wants one's opinion to be given weight.

-- X

[Janna]

After reading the first few paragraphs, then completely ignoring the rest because I knew the rest would be a long continuation of the first few paragraphs, I suggest this:

Wait a week. Then post constructive feedback. A 15 paragraph rant on what you think might happen before you really know the effects is.. pointless.
_________________
- Halaster

Since I think everything that can be said on this has in various ways I'll keep mine short. IMO I think its really sad that so many players jumped all over the staff and there ideas for this before even giving it the slightest chance at all. I'd really hate to be an employee to one of you and have a new 'direction' or 'idea' for the company....Bring my helmet to work.

[LoD]

What it really does, in the end assessment, is drive players into the large, Imm-controlled clans like Kadius, Borsail, etc.  This takes the control of the story of the game away from players and puts it in the hands of the Imms, and in my mind this violates the most basic principles of Arm.  One of the things I've always loved most about Arm is that a player could rise up and become the ruler of the world, that players were responsible for driving the story and the plot.

More than Imm-controlled clans, these are "Not You"-controlled clans.  These are established organizations that have a long history and may well contain tens (small elf tribe) to hundreds (Merchant House) to thousands (Legion or Arm of the Dragon) of NPC's and VNPC's that have been working for years to keep things moving.  PC's have the potential to rise to very high levels of power within these organizations over a great period of time, but many players seem to lack the patience, understanding, or desire to put forth enough effort to actually achieve it.

And I completely understand.  However, it is simply not true that being part of these organizations means you are no longer responsible for driving plots within the game.  The construction of several estates have been driven purely by PC endeavors, the northern Byn compound, wagons, resource centers (i.e. mines), political involvement (i.e. Rebellion), and many other aspects of clan life are not only determined by, but are conceived and proposed by, the players.

I do not think that the combat code changes (daze and the defense bug fix) will force people into more Imm-controlled positions, however, what I have witnessed thus far are these:

:arrow: Fights progress much more quickly.

It seems to be much easier to land a blow with the new changes, and fights tend move much more quickly.  I'm sure some will applaud the change for the good things that it helps to solve, but there are several other changes that I see being made for the worse.

PRO Less 15-minute spar fests, spam hunting, and untouchable warriors.

CON Less reaction time, room for emotes, and a more difficult time describing the flow of combat due to both its brevity and a player's need to keep an eye on the code.  

:arrow: Attributes play a much larger role.

The previous system allowed more quickly for skill to outdistance raw physical ability, which is realistic.  Fighting is not sprinting, where someone's raw physical ability has the potential to almost completely negate technique.  Real fighting involves much more technique, and the people who are practiced will easily and quickly overcome opponents who are not.

PRO New players with high rolls might feel like they are able to immediately produce or contribute.

CON Some players might begin to seek high attribute scores in lieu of a practiced technique for survival and place an unhealthy emphasis on the code's importance to a "role".  This may encourage players to select stat orders that encourage higher survivability over an accurate representation of their character, as well as more race combinations that provide better starting statistics.

:arrow: Desert mortality rate will likely increase.

Lone hunters, travellers, and small groups will likely experience more situations where someone has an accident.  Dazed by a carru, swarmed by gortok, overpowered by scrab.  I am unsure if brand new characters will advance more quickly in their defense, or if the change has created a system where blows simply land more often across the board.  If the second option is the case, then it will favor the stronger animals of the desert.

PRO Some may feel that this change is realistic, forces people to respect the dangerous nature of certain creatures, and creates a "harsher" feel for the desert.

CON Some may feel that this makes the desert seem too dangeorus, makes more difficult a role many enjoy (the lone hunter), and hurts the game by encouraging more NPC vs. PC death - which one could get from any game.

Conclusion

All of these changes are new, and the Immortals will be monitoring their effect upon the NPC's and PC's within the game to make necessary tweaks where it's become unbalanced.  Special care should probably be taken during this time because it very well could result in the death of your character.  Situations that haven't been dangerous for many RL years may now suddenly be fatal, and caution would be prudent until changes have been made.

I'll reserve judgement until I see the final version of the code and its effect upon the playerbase, however, my initial opinion are that these changes take away more RP than they add.  And I'd rather suffer the 15 minute spars, the spam hunting, and the untouchable warriors of the world if it lends more opportunity and time for players to interact with players (and the world) during training and/or live combat.

-LoD