Spars, and ending them without FLEE

[Akaramu]

I dont know, it seems sorta wrong that you have to use the flee command to end a spar. There should be a coded command specifically to begin a spar, and end it automatically when one of the combatants wishes so... without running to another room in panic.

[Tamarin]

I don't relly see a problem, here...most poeple simply emote stepping out of the circle once they re-enter the room or some such thing.

[jmordetsky]

yup...

>flee

You flee south

>n

:raises his hand in surrender and steps out of the spar circle as a blow glances off ~helm

[spawnloser]

Though I don't think I've ever sparred with any of my characters, being someone that doesn't play combat characters much, I have seen a lot of sparring...and yes, uberjazz has the idea.  Just emote how it appears.  Don't worry about coded echos in cases like this.  The only issue is if there is someone in the room you flee to.  They tend to notice stuff like that.

[Akaramu]

Seems unrealistic to me that you have to run out of the room and come back to end the spar, even if you ignore it, it kills some of the atmosphere for me. Also, movement speed is always set to run afterwards, and sometimes I forget to switch back which leads to unnecessary running.  

Why not a BEGIN SPAR PERSON command? (Approved by both)

And then a simple END SPAR and both people's aggressive acts end.

[Marauder Moe]

There are a lot of commands and echos that detract from the game atmosphere.  They can't all be fixed so you just learn to ignore them.  Either way, this would be a very low priority and I'm sure the staff coders have more important matters on their list.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

A while back, I suggested (and I am sure that I was not the first) that a command allowing folks to part combat by mutual agreement be implemented. I've thought about it, however, and I've come to realize that if we did this, one's flee skill would never go up. And this is a crucial skill. So, I say, implement it, perhaps, but it's certianly not pressing.

[Lazloth]

This is one that presumably can be fixed, and fairly painlessly I think.

The condition of sparring is not the only time when it would make sense to break of combat without leaving the area.  Imagine the militia is beating the shit out of an elf, Templar walks by and yells for a cease & desist.  Imagine jumping someone in a locked room and her pleas for life you as the aggressor decide to accept.

Along these lines, some command like 'disengage' (NOT DISENGAGE THOUGH YES I KNOW DISENGAGE EXISTS AND WHAT IT DOES) can be introduced.  It (THE NEW SYNTAX) will perform a flee check without the move_to_room function called.  Hell, you can even keep it under the 'flee' umbrella if you had to.  flee here or somesuch.

This is much more annoying than kick messages and emoting elbows, in fact.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

Call it flee room. Simply add another parameter to the flee command. Great idea, Lazoth. Make it just like the flee command, with the same delay and all of that. This way, you can keep trying to back out of lethal combat and all of that, all without actually leaving the room. I like that, a lot.

[spawnloser]

I'll agree on this one.  The fact that someone needs a skill to be able to stop killing someone seems kinda silly to me.

[X-D]

Though I like the idea, flee room, flee here, has many problems, specialy because of autocombat.

I'd much rather see disengage change to a timed command for pc vs pc.

It is very easy, and I would give it no echos, one must rp to let the other know.

And by timed command, picture.

Two people fighting, one is pleading his case, thinks he has made a point, types disengage and emotes something like em steps back watching ~pc his blades lowered slightly.

Once he typed disengage that toggled a timer, say 30-60 seconds, the other player can emot, and type disengage if he wishes and combat is over..

In lazloth's elf/militia/templar example, everybody would disengage normaly, same as works now, the primary combatants each must also type disengage, poof, done.

This would be extremly easy to imp I think, and quite useful, specially for them bynners, might reduce shieldwall falls too, at least when the wrong keyword attack is going on, you don't have to flee over the edge to stop from killing your fellow runner.

[Ueda]

I don't think it distracts from RP, so I say leave it the way it is.

[spawnloser]

So, if you're in the a room and someone comes racing in from the next and then leaves directly to head back there...it's not going to distract you at all, Ueda?

[X-D]

Of course some people have very narrow views.

Of course leave flee the way it is, but still modify disengage.

But I suppose people have problems with added options to -improve- RP.

The closed room example BTW, I've been in that before myself, and even if I would have wanted to not kill the person, the only thing I could do is toggle mercy and hope.

Silly in some cases.

One of the funniest things I've ever seen (and it has been mentioned before on this board as example)  was when my LT char has the house guards out on a mission, some things happen involving halflings, people get scattered and such, So, I'm gathering them up, I look north and there are two guards fighting each other, WTF? Go north, stand there watching for a moment, trying to decide if I should just kill both of these traitors, then I notice they are yelling at each other to stop, then yelling at me for help, Alright, I'm like WTF again, then one tried to flee...
So and so tries to flee but is too exhausted.

You guessed it, both out of moves, damm funny oocly for me, was all I could do to sheath my weapons, rescue one then flee, I was simply laughing too hard.

Now, if my char had not been around, the only hope these two would have had is that mercy works, nothing else comes along while the less hurt person is resting or that somebody answers a wish in time.

Watched two bynners fall from the shield wall, simple keyword problem gets them into combat, too bad the both typed flee self.

So, your right Uada, this tiny, easily fixable code limitation does not detract from RP, no, in many cases it has removed the RP completly.

[__Torax__]

Alright perhaps I am thinking a little twinkish here... But its the first thing I think of when someone suggests a change to the coding.

Alright, picture this.

You've got two warriors outside fighting...Right?

Warrior #1 is kicking the piss out of Warrior #2
Warrior #2 decides "flee here, disengage, whatever" (The Battle stops)
Warrior #2 decides "run" "E,N,E,N,N, E"


Anyone seeing what I am seeing or is this just me?

[Mr.Camel]

No, Torax,  flee here would require both parties to use type it within a certain period... Say, I type flee here, I disengage from combat, and unless you disengage too, you attack me again, thus forcing me back into combat. So both parties would need to type it in about the same time for it to work.

[creeper386]

Alright perhaps I am thinking a little twinkish here... But its the first thing I think of when someone suggests a change to the coding.

Alright, picture this.

You've got two warriors outside fighting...Right?

Warrior #1 is kicking the piss out of Warrior #2
Warrior #2 decides "flee here, disengage, whatever" (The Battle stops)
Warrior #2 decides "run" "E,N,E,N,N, E"


Anyone seeing what I am seeing or is this just me?

If something like that would be implemented it'd be no different then someone  deciding to "flee east" "N,E,N,N,E" except they don't have to type run, but I hardly consider it any sort of acctually solution at all as it DOES cause more problems then it solves. A skilled fleer could avoid death almost forever just because he keeps fleeing around this tiny locked room while uber warrior tries to kill him, that'd be distracting.

I think the best way to imp something like this, and it'd be more useful then anything else, would be with varying fighting stances.

>change stance no attack

You wouldn't fight back. Perhaps still defend yourself but not going on the offensive. Both people aren't attacking the combat is ended. Say a group of soldiers are beating on the elf, a templar tells them to stop so they stop and the elf can stop. Or he's already not fighting back as it's not going to do him any good, but might do more harm.

I'd also open the door for more things so combat could be more unique from character to character and such. Defensive posture, more offensive posture, I'm sure there could be other things as well that I'm not thinking of.


Creeper

[Delirium]

..because he keeps fleeing around this tiny locked room while uber warrior tries to kill him, that'd be distracting.

I actually see RP potential in that. Ducking behind couches, rolling under the table, throwing chairs, desperately trying to avoid the uber warrior that's just stomped into the room and tried to whack him. Maybe it would make assassinations the province of an.. (no way!) assassin!

>change stance no attack

See http://www.zalanthas.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=6476. Though, it seems to be something they're either very undecided on or in no hurry to impliment.

[Lazloth]

No, Torax,  flee here would require both parties to use type it within a certain period... Say, I type flee here, I disengage from combat, and unless you disengage too, you attack me again, thus forcing me back into combat. So both parties would need to type it in about the same time for it to work.

No this is wrong.   Mutual disengaging might, fleeing within the room wouldn't.  Why?  Because all you want to do is take the ..leaving away.. part out.  You are actively trying to get away from someone within the "same space" [which is virtually an acre, a league, whatever].

em kicking the dusty ground, @ sprays a burst of silt into %someone face
flee here
You attempt to flee..
[same lag time]
{ success breaks combat }

Sure, aggressor can just attack again (assuming NPCs etc), but in what situation would you really use that against mobs unless suicidal?

[Lazloth]

I am especially scattered today; 7+ hrs of travel will do that.

These are two concepts [disengage & flee here].  One would require "consent" to break after a fashion, one would not.

Both are certainly valid suggestions, but I think 'flee here' is easier to implement and more realistic.

[Mr.Camel]

Ah, sorry, I was talking about disengage. Didn't realise they were two different things.

[creeper386]

See http://www.zalanthas.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=6476. Though, it seems to be something they're either very undecided on or in no hurry to impliment.

I'd take that, as the thread some how got over looked, or is being discussed. As it's not TOO often that the staff completely ignore a post in that section. They ussually reply with SOMETHING.


Creeper

[Quirk]

I know this from another mud. It's not complicated to implement and would be vastly better than the clumsy "flee" to break combat we currently have.

One fighter types "stop", toggling a flag on their PC. The combat continues until the second person also types "stop". When both flags are set, combat ends. Then the flags are reset and the PCs go on to brag or mutter excuses depending on which side they were on.

Combat can hence be ended by mutual decision, as well as by one party running away.

Quirk

[growingall]

Since I experienced both, I feel it primitive to have to flee the combat.

'Quit' or 'Stop' should end the fight, provided that both chars involved types it.

[Tmp]

A while back, I suggested (and I am sure that I was not the first) that a command allowing folks to part combat by mutual agreement be implemented. I've thought about it, however, and I've come to realize that if we did this, one's flee skill would never go up. And this is a crucial skill. So, I say, implement it, perhaps, but it's certianly not pressing.

Consider the current situation where we do get to practice flee all-the-time when ending combat. Why should the flee skill go up during the times when people ICly just to step back out of the circle into the ring? It's downright wrong, unless it's an ICly directed drill for disengaging and retreating, with the other fella trying his best to drill a nice little hole in your head with a weapon while you do so.