|  | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
 Posted: Tue Sep 17, 2013 4:40 pm |  |
Yeah, that's true. I'm probably looking at it from more of an abuse angle due to some player behavior I've seen, but I guess if it was abused it could always be reported.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 17, 2013 5:40 pm | |
Most of the times I've seen people go from 3-4 stars back to full health in 30 minutes, they just got done fist-fighting/ Were treated by a really good doctor. For 'fist fighting', it kinda makes sense. You aren't curbstomping anyone. Even people who box can still walk and talk after they're done with a match, even if they get knocked out afterwards. You should still be bruised as hell, but it's not anything that'll make you easier to kill. If you get stabbed in the stomach with a bruised face or with a pristine one shouldn't really make a difference unless you just got punched in it repeatedly a few seconds ago. However, if you get your throat greviously bit, and a doctor takes it down to a minor through medical magics, your throat is still bit. Even if the painkillers are strong as hell and you can just ignore it, eventually the painkillers wear off. And you won't be able to talk totally normally for at least a bit.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
| | |
|
slyviolin
Registered
Sometimes I struggle with my demons. Other times we just fuck and have cheesecake.
| |
| | |
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 17, 2013 7:27 pm | |
The ask/agree thing I don't like. "Sv wants to punch you in the head, do you accept? y/n" Seems like it would lead to some metagaming with people being unhittable or always getting smashed.
Maybe an 'INFLICT' command that rolls out just one round of combat for the initiatater?
INFLICT (person) (lblade/sblade/brawling etc.) (head/bodyandsoon)
It would roll your prowess and weapon skill against the other person's prowess, dodge/deflect and output a single line of combat.
Very rough idea, mind you.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 17, 2013 8:05 pm | |
| slyviolin wrote: |
Maybe an 'INFLICT' command that rolls out just one round of combat for the initiatater?
INFLICT (person) (lblade/sblade/brawling etc.) (head/bodyandsoon)
It would roll your prowess and weapon skill against the other person's prowess, dodge/deflect and output a single line of combat. |
I really like this idea, myself.
I'm not sure exactly how it would play out, and it might have some unforeseen avenues of abuse, like most anything does.
I can vaguely imagine the possibility of people trying to avoid the consequences of using INFLICT by insisting that it, like brawling, was essentially non-lethal and therefore not inappropriate to use on anyone anywhere. I can also vaguely imagine a problem wherein INFLICT rarely has the intended results.
So much of who wins in most combat is reflected in the average success of a number of rounds, not on whether or not the first swing connects. If a thug is looming over my cowering PC in an alleyway, knife out, it's going to strike me as something of a false start when he or she then whiffs like a blind grandma instead of cutting me, or if I dance out of the way like an acrobat.
However, I still find the idea exciting.
There are any number of situations that just can't be duplicated with the code as it is (such as the thug in the alley), and most people (including me) seem to be of the opinion that being on the receiving end of coded violence is more satisfying when it has more IC context, more opportunity for IC response, etc.
I agree that requiring the receipt of code violence to be totally voluntary is likely to lead to certain people always volunteering, certain people never volunteering, and a lot of squabbling over fair play. I think that's why we have coded combat in the first place, really.
But I am very much in favor of an involuntary code option that doesn't lead immediately to an all-out, last-man-standing battle. Yes, you could sort of use STOP every couple of rounds, but STOP has come to mean "desires to cease hostilities" which might confuse the IC situation if all you want to do is emote a bit in between kicking someone's ass. I think something like INFLICT would also be less likely to inspire the kind of fight-or-flight hysteria that tends to come over people when their PCs are engaged in coded combat, making it difficult to coordinate RP (or stop) after that.
ETA:
| hobos wrote: |
| Yeah, that's true. I'm probably looking at it from more of an abuse angle due to some player behavior I've seen, but I guess if it was abused it could always be reported. |
I'm not sure I understand how over-emphasizing one's injuries (if one deemed that it was over-emphasis) might be abused. Not that it couldn't be, I am just having trouble envisioning the scenario.
If anything, I find it jarring how quickly injuries disappear. If you get socked in the eye, you've got one, max two days to have visible evidence that someone could inquire about before it doesn't make sense to retain it anymore, and then it's sort of like it never happened.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
| | |
| I would prefer not to. | |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 17, 2013 8:52 pm | |
Off the top of my head, a way to avoid people always selecting no could be fixed by having it so accepting means you are going to get hit and that declining means you can do the whole prowess/weapon check thing. If you want your guy to get hit, you can, if you don't, you can try to dodge.
Besides, the worry about people selecting no doesn't really add up, in my opinion. The ask/answer command is in theory a suppliment to RP fights. As it stands, the people who'd always select no would do the same thing (act badass and never let themselves be hit) in an emoted fight.
Editted to add: Wait, now I get where you're coming from. You mean that in the case of long fights, like brawls, it'd be hard to balance when you should get hit and when you shouldn't. I had my mind set on quick events like punching someone during a conversation or bullet-to-the-head executions.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 17, 2013 9:00 pm | |
Maybe you were just roleplaying just slapping someone and suddenly they have a severe concussion in order to overplay a victim. Maybe someone's in line for some political come-uppance, but they're always on the 'verge of death' and it would be insensitive to scold them let alone beat them up.
It could function as a way to exaggerate things or try to delay consequences, in my opinion.
But like I said, not arguing against it, I am sure if people mis-use it to be unrealistic they can be reported.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 17, 2013 9:12 pm | |
Well, a lot of the ways to abuse the command can still be done with training weapons. As of right now, there's still reliable ways of someone keeping themselves on the verge of death anyways. As for the slapping thing, well usually slaps don't cause bruises so there's no point in using the command over emotes, and you are slapping hard enough to warrant it, well you might very well cause a concussion.
I'm just saying that the ways I can come up with abusing the command can already be done with the current system. And while the slapping thing probably isn't important enough to even have a conversatio on, I figured it was worth an adressment.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 7:40 am | |
I think a PC choosing to hit another PC and the player of that PC accepting or dodging, with the resulting consequences, is a lot more believable than the player of a PC using a hidden code-only command to inflict damage on their own PC.
However, I can see examples of the latter being useful to augment roleplay as well, in cases such as Hyriana mentioned.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 10:19 am | |
| Bartleby wrote: |
| So much of who wins in most combat is reflected in the average success of a number of rounds, not on whether or not the first swing connects. If a thug is looming over my cowering PC in an alleyway, knife out, it's going to strike me as something of a false start when he or she then whiffs like a blind grandma instead of cutting me, or if I dance out of the way like an acrobat. |
It's kind of funny, but actually I think the vast majority of combats as coded are decided by whether the first swing connects, or rather on who connects the first swing. I think grandpa would heavily agree with me on this being the case, in code.
| slyviolin wrote: |
The ask/agree thing I don't like. "Sv wants to punch you in the head, do you accept? y/n" Seems like it would lead to some metagaming with people being unhittable or always getting smashed.
Maybe an 'INFLICT' command that rolls out just one round of combat for the initiatater?
INFLICT (person) (lblade/sblade/brawling etc.) (head/bodyandsoon)
It would roll your prowess and weapon skill against the other person's prowess, dodge/deflect and output a single line of combat.
Very rough idea, mind you. |
However, navigating back to the point at hand, I don't think it would be out of the question to just make it work as:
STRIKE (person) [surprise] [targeted area]
1) While inflict makes sense on an OOC level, I think 'strike' is a very clear word for the purposes the command would be used for. (Which is funny because I've actually suggested this same thing, using the word inflict, elseMUD and am only just now thinking of strike.) <3 Slyviolin.
2) No need to specify what weapon type you're using, as it should just default to whatever weapon you have in hand?
3) The [surprise] toggle would allow you to use some combination of hide/sneak to make the attack with subterfuge. Codedly, you could just make this have strike do the same thing as ambush? This might need some tinkering for abuse cases, since it could devolve into just... a way to ambush without even hiding.
4) The [targeted area] toggle would allow you to target a specific area. Pretty self-explanatory, really.
5) I firmly agree that the command should NOT require consent. As this is NOT a consent-based RPG.
6) For purposes of skill rolls and such, I don't see any reason why it would need use anything that isn't already in place. It'd just fire off an attack like normally come in rounds of combat, with aim or surprise if appropriate.
7) For abuse prevention, I would put a 'cooldown' on it to prevent it from being used over-frequently. I would also probably make it so that if the 'surprise' is used, and the ambush fails, the attacker is put off balance for a -long- stretch. That way there's a clear reason -not- to just use surprise in every case, for the coded benefit.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 11:07 am | |
Strike is a better word for it. It's clearer as to its purpose.
As for the using the default weapon in your hand, I was thinking ahead to instances where someone with a sword would want to punch someone in the face without putting their weapon away, not cut their head off.
The reason for consent is that I'm confident that people will be reasonable about when their PC should be hit. If you leave it up to a roll all the time, then you leave the large possibility open that you will miss even with both players wanting the hit to go through for the scene.
But, maybe we can have a little bit of both suggestions? The surprise toggle seems like a good non-consent toggle in of itself. Have that be the toggle that people can use when they don't want to leave it up to the other person, just so have it along with that long balance penalty to prevent abuse, like you said.
Editted to add: However, if there's a non-consent toggle, then I guess there'd be no reason for an attempted strike on a 'no' since the person can just try again with the non-consent. All in all, the 'yes/no' itself prevent abuse and lets people act out scenes without hiccups, and the surprise toggle can be used for everything else, along with all the penalties that comes with it.
One thing of note that I'll repeat: This should NOT be a single line of attack text. That single line is enough to start a full-blown fight from spectators. At least for the consented version. Maybe it's okay for the non-consent.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
|
