Tick, tock, stop!

[Trenidor]

Another fancy idea I came up with today:

Tick!

It'd slow down combat to a speed like training weapons (whatever the % of decrease is for them to normal fighting) so that you could emote something. It would only last a couple seconds then return to normal speed of combat. If you did it with training weapons, instead of being (50%) it'd go down to (25%) normal combat speed

Example:

so and so slashes at you
so and so kicks you
>tick
ok.
>emote jumps back as ~so and so attacks him, causing the attacks to miss
[5 sec later]
so and so slashes at you
[10 seconds later]
(normal speed returns)

[ashjpd]

I think something like this was brought up in the past... not sure how it went.. it might have been to hard to code.. on the to do list.. or just plain not needed.. which I doubt. *shrug*

I would like something more of a strategy command.

change strategy defense
You will only be defensive now.

change strategy offense.
You will do deadly attacks, suffering your own protection.

ETC..

Or maybe that was the thing that was brought up, I not remember. :roll:

[Callisto]

No.

[Vettrock]

I like the strategy part, (when I suggested it I called it fighting mood but the idea is the same) but don't like the tick part.  Many times I could have gotten away if I just had a bit more time to thing about it.

[Xerokine]

I believe you should simply do this if you're going to change the coding around for combat.


Allow two styles; aggressive and defensive.

When in your aggressive fighting style you would receive a 15% bonus to your attacks speed and accuracy while also lowering your defense by 25% allowing your opponent to gain more hits on you.

When in your defensive style, you would receive the 15% bonus to dodge/parry/shield block and your attacks would then be limited down and the damage done by those attacks lowered considerably.

I believe this would add more interaction on the player's part during combat and also offering a little bit better help with the roleplay. Say for instance your character is becoming enraged but no matter how much you emote, your character just won't hit any faster or ever have that spurt of adrenaline. So, with this option you would be able to change your style into aggressive giving you that adrenaline boost and also that narrow-sight that comes along with loosing your temper during a fight. I believe you could classify it as a type of "tunnel-vision."

Just my thoughts.

[Ghost]

Thumbs up for strategy, or offensive defensive stances.

[Vettrock]

Well I think there should be a Normal Stance which is balanced in addition to the offensive and defensive stance.  Normal would have combat act just like it does now.

[Tamarin]

I think combat should just be slowed down in general, with a whole lot more commands added that work off the offense and defense skills so that you can actually strategize.

[Mr.Camel]

The problem with any combat system like that, uberjazz, is that a fight's outcome would depend on how good the player is, rather than solely depending on the character's performance. Slowing the combat system is something I would like to see, though.

[Delirium]

No.

[Agent_137]

I don't think the original suggestion had ANYTHING to do with stances .  . . that's been hashed plenty on other threads.

As far as tick and slowing shit down goes, that too has been hashed out before.

I'll get back to you with an opinion when i've done more than just sparring, eh?

[Gaare]

Indeed that thick can be useful.. But I believe its somehow useful...

Why don't we lose mv points while fighting?!! That would be a better idea so fighting defensively can mean something.

[sacac]

No.

What they said.

[UnderSeven]

No.

What they said.

The problem with this, well the abuse problem is if people can tick combat to emote then someone could deliberately delay combat left and right.  Like lets say your friends are comming.  Tick tick tick tick tick.  

So yeah.

About stances, I've seen games with it and it doesn't really add to the game.  The only thing I might like to see is the option to be an utter pacifist in combat.

[SailorMars]

The % I'd like to see imp'd is % of offense ability used in combat that defaults to 100%. If you set_offense 50, you'd only fight half as hard as you could. If you set_offense 0, you'd only defend. Why? Because right now there's not many ways for a master combatant to pull their punches with a student. Which would be like going into a martial arts studio as a brand new student, and having their top blackbelt go all out. :shock:

It would have neat RP potential, too, for when the mighty hero wanted to go undercover until the right moment.

Anyway, slight derail, but that's something I'd like 2 c.

Edit:

The only thing I might like to see is the option to be an utter pacifist in combat.

Hmm, maybe set_offense 1 would be the lowest level of offense that still didn't affect defense, while set_offense 0 meant totally passive, offensively and defensively. Just a thought after reading the above post.

[Larrath]

I don't know about a command to slow down combat (tick;contact templar;tick;psi The tall, muscular man!  In the plaza two leagues from the Gaj!;tick;flee), but what could be nice is a 'spar' command.

Spar will function exactly like 'hit', only it will always have mercy on, will do reduced damage and the rounds will be longer in-between.
In exchange, maybe the skill-gaining will be given a very small penalty.

Spar will only work for PvP combat, and it will be able to switch from sparring to fighting in mid-battle (either with the change command or with having 'kill/spar <blah>' change the current fighting style.

It could also have a special ldesc "$n is here, sparring against $N", and NPCs might react to it differently, at least for people in the same clan.

Sparring against someone who is trying to go in for the kill might invoke some defensive penalties, also.

[Agent_137]

hahah that'd be funny. Some one tries to kill you and you just "spar" them, kinda while looking the other way and checking to see if your fingernails are clean.

[Trenidor]

Restrictions can be made...cancel the flee skill while slow is on... (it'd still lag untill tick is up, then untill the command gets it's own order in the line for what commands should come next, kick works that way already)

Also, psi works as fast as you can think, so if you think durring battle....you could have enough time to contact the templar, tell him junk in your psi, and still be fighting.

another thing:
It could only work 1 time, in other words, if tick is on, combat is slowed, and no other ticks can happen till the timeframe is over.

IIRC, flee is slowed along with combat when you spar.
-----
Just saying no doesn't help anyone...
How can I tell you more reasons why it's good if you don't say why you think it's bad...
No with a reason is good, but no by itself doesn't mean anyone to anyone but the person saying it.
It should be considered a flame to do that IMHO...just yelling no at someone is as rude as flaming, anyway....
----

[Larrath]

Please note that I am in favor of a variation of this idea.

I just think that making this thing manual is too easy to abuse, even without fully meaning to.  It may also make assassinations or raiding significantly harder, as the victim will have time to use contact/psi, which are HARDLY at the speed of a 'think'.  A think has practically no delay.

I think that this sparring thing is better for combat training, or perhaps for arena fights or any deathless battle.  Regular combat does not need to be made slower, imho.

[Trenidor]

Could all those other ideas be directed elsewhere? This specific topic was for a differnt thing, go make your own topics please.

[Morrolan]

Just saying no doesn't help anyone...
How can I tell you more reasons why it's good if you don't say why you think it's bad...
No with a reason is good, but no by itself doesn't mean anyone to anyone but the person saying it.
It should be considered a flame to do that IMHO...just yelling no at someone is as rude as flaming, anyway....
----

There are, rhetorically, three ways to argue.  Based on logic (logos), based on emotional appeal (pathos), and based on authority/status (ethos).

So you want to claim it's a flame to argue any way but logos?  Hmm.  Rhetoric is not -yet- dead, so I'm going to hold back on agreeing with this.

"I don't like it" is a valid arguement (pathos).

As is "No!" (ethos)  "No" as an argument is based not on logic, or emotional appeal, but on the perceived status of the individual speaking (ethos).

And that's all true because I say so.   :twisted:

As for "tick", I do not think it is a good idea.

And as for offensive/defensive stances or a spar command, I think I would like it...but I spend a lot of time in paramilitary organizations in this game.

Morrolan
----------

http://www.rpi.edu/dept/llc/webclass/web/project1/group4/

[Carnage]

It should be considered a flame to do that IMHO

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.

But seriously, I wouldn't be surprised if it was.  :roll:

[Callisto]

It should be considered a flame to do that IMHO...just yelling no at someone is as rude as flaming, anyway....

:cry:

[X-D]

Alright, how about instead of just no, I tell you this way.

No, I don't like it, I have no real special reasons other then I do not like it.

There, Now you have an opinion for the idea from one of the players, it is a negative opinion to the idea being implemented in game, but still valid and just as much so as Callisto's simple "no".

Though how you can even think hers was a yelled no, I'll never understand, only the first letter is in caps anyway...hhhmmm.

[spawnloser]

Though how you can even think hers was a yelled no, I'll never understand, only the first letter is in caps anyway...hhhmmm.

To be precise, her response was, "No."  No additional capitols...no exclamation point...which simply leaves us with proper capitalization, punctuation and grammer.  Nothing wrong here, from my standpoint.

Still, the idea as presented is WAY too abuseable.  I'm against it.