PlaneShift
Gameplay => Wish list => Topic started by: Niavard on October 31, 2005, 01:57:57 pm
-
It has always seemed odd, unrealistic stupid and un-rpish to me that in many games enemies were a resource of power rather than a problem, I believe this can be avoided by doing three simple things.
First and most obvious is a high punishment for dying, if the Death Realm is painful enough and takes enough time to get out of (preferably RL days), it might be enough.
Second is Making combat give you very little in terms money when compared to crafting, and very little of combat experience when compared to sparring or training (with the time the deaths will take taken into acount).
Third, and most important is making it combat extremly risky, this is best done by making even the most resilient of warriors go down after three, at most four hits (this should probably be reserved for Krans and Ynwns), and making normal people go down after one or two, and make the chance to hit slim, this way, with a little bit of bad luck an experienced swordsman can be brought down by an untrained newcomer (this should also discourage constant challengeing of the newcomers, since even the most experienced of warriors should have a, say 20% chance of losing instead of the 0.0000001% chance most games have between even short intervals of experience).
But won\'t this make ranged combat overpowered? make it so that most objects launched by various bows and crossbows often miss and even more often can be absorbed by even light armors, and make it so that spells usually either miss, backfire or are resisted.
My third point in short: have combat consist of mostly dodging/absorbing blows with your armor/parrying/resisting spells/missing, but make it so that a few hits can take down even very resilient krans or ynwns, making combat depend a Great bit on luck thus making it so that no one can fight safely even against a much weaker opponent.
If we do all this, combat will be so risky and unrewarding that people will try to avoid it most of the time, making the stalacite much more realistic and in my opinion rp friendly.
-
1st point: I think playing PlaneShift should be fun. Being thrown into Death Realm for few days, because you got lagged in a critical moment doesn\'t stand in my dictionary as \'fun\'.
2nd point: Gaining more money out of crafting is probably how it\'s going to be in PlaneShift. Gaining more experience out of training isn\'t realistic.
3rd point: Unexperienced fighter shouldn\'t have any chances in defeating an experienced fighter. Again, realism.
-
Originally posted by Draklar
3rd point: Unexperienced fighter shouldn\'t have any chances in defeating an experienced fighter. Again, realism.
Where did you get this from? I see no reason why experienced fighters always should defeat less experienced warriors, no matter the amount of luck involved, surely even experienced warriors can make a mistake or unexperienced warriors get a lucky hit, training should help one\'s probabilities of succes, never make sure one always win.
Source, please?
-
Originally posted by Niavard
Originally posted by Draklar
3rd point: Unexperienced fighter shouldn\'t have any chances in defeating an experienced fighter. Again, realism.
Where did you get this from? I see no reason why experienced fighters always should defeat less experienced warriors, no matter the amount of luck involved, surely even experienced warriors can make a mistake or unexperienced warriors get a lucky hit, training should help one\'s probabilities of succes, never make sure one always win.
Source, please?
From my real life experience. Despise being semi-experienced, I still stand absolutely no chance against the well experienced warriors in my knighthood...
And luck doesn\'t really have much to say when you are being showered with blows.
-
Originally posted by Niavard
Third, and most important is making it combat extremly risky, this is best done by making even the most resilient of warriors go down after three, at most four hits (this should probably be reserved for Krans and Ynwns), and making normal people go down after one or two, and make the chance to hit slim, this way, with a little bit of bad luck an experienced swordsman can be brought down by an untrained newcomer (this should also discourage constant challengeing of the newcomers, since even the most experienced of warriors should have a, say 20% chance of losing instead of the 0.0000001% chance most games have between even short intervals of experience).
But won\'t this make ranged combat overpowered? make it so that most objects launched by various bows and crossbows often miss and even more often can be absorbed by even light armors, and make it so that spells usually either miss, backfire or are resisted.
My third point in short: have combat consist of mostly dodging/absorbing blows with your armor/parrying/resisting spells/missing, but make it so that a few hits can take down even very resilient krans or ynwns, making combat depend a Great bit on luck thus making it so that no one can fight safely even against a much weaker opponent.
Fights don\'t end after 2 seconds. Blows are parried and bounce from armor many times before the final deadly blow. It is hard to implement this in online game due to lag (avarage 0,5sec in ps) and lack all the feelings what you have in real.
That is why we have HP - hit points Everytime they decrease, you got hit in a way that it give advatage to your opponent. Not every hit is deadly, but if your HP drop below 0, your opponent got through your whole defence, armor and nothing can save you.
But that is just my theory and maybe someone know somethink more.
I propose somethink else, more realistic.
1) Make enemies of the same type vary in strenght and skills. Every time a NPC spawn, it maybe be weak, but also really strong. So there are no two same gladiators or rogues, tefusangs and grendols.
2) NPCs should move and run effectively after the one who tried to attack. And it isn\'t always possible to run away
3) NPCs should spawn in areas, not points
4) NPCs should have a lot better AI
This makes killing harder, but we have to wait a long time before it happen
-
@Nikodemus: My goal was not to make combat hard which is all your idea does (it is still a resource), but to make it a problem rather than the resource right now...
Also, I did not suggest removing a hp based system, just balancing it so that a few hits usually empty ones hp, thus making the system depend much more than luck.
@Draklar: I suppose that you know alot more than me about medieval Combat then, so I suppose this system is unrealistic if it is impossible to beat a superior regardless how many times you try... /me wanders off to think of another way to discourage combat.
*raises a white flag*
-
Once medium and plated armour is in the game, then we can worry about ballance issues. I think a one-hit-kill is entirely realistic against an unarmoured foe.
-
as i told, everytime you loose hp, you aren\'t critically hit and drop dead.
-
Originally posted by zanzibar
Once medium and plated armour is in the game, then we can worry about ballance issues. I think a one-hit-kill is entirely realistic against an unarmoured foe.
One-hit-kills are never realistic in games that have no mechanics for specific techniques. To say that a trained warrior of any sort will fall from a single blow is far too simplistic. Different weapons, methods of attacks, and personal preferences to techniques all play a major roll in the amount (and type) of damage dealt from a blow.
Now in a game such as PS where there are \'target blows\' generated, then one-hit-kills are possible and should be likely in certain situations. For instance, the \"rogue hits you in head for ....\" should probably be fatal. :) On the other hand the less random \"rogue hits you in leg ....\" torso, arm, hand, etc in all likelihood would not be fatal.
A sword strike landing flat will do little damage. Likewise a glancing hammer blow will not be sufficient to be fatal. A sword strike on edge will do far more damage, but unless it lands on the head or enters the kneck it is unlikely to be fatal as well. A stabbing action again will do more damage to vital organs, but without being followed by a proper killing technique (such as turning the blade, etc) it is unlikely to be fatal.
Most cuts in combat due to slashing techniques are superficial, particularly as regards a \'medieval fantasy setting\'. Most hacking, except on exposed skin, results in more damage from broken bones then from the actual blade\'s edge.
-
Originally posted by Nikodemus
as i told, everytime you loose hp, you aren\'t critically hit and drop dead.
I\'m not suggesting that. I\'m saying that if you\'re unarmoured, you should expect to die from a single well-placed hit from a blade.
Originally posted by Askr
Originally posted by zanzibar
Once medium and plated armour is in the game, then we can worry about ballance issues. I think a one-hit-kill is entirely realistic against an unarmoured foe.
One-hit-kills are never realistic in games that have no mechanics for specific techniques. To say that a trained warrior of any sort will fall from a single blow is far too simplistic. Different weapons, methods of attacks, and personal preferences to techniques all play a major roll in the amount (and type) of damage dealt from a blow.
Now in a game such as PS where there are \'target blows\' generated, then one-hit-kills are possible and should be likely in certain situations. For instance, the \"rogue hits you in head for ....\" should probably be fatal. :) On the other hand the less random \"rogue hits you in leg ....\" torso, arm, hand, etc in all likelihood would not be fatal.
A sword strike landing flat will do little damage. Likewise a glancing hammer blow will not be sufficient to be fatal. A sword strike on edge will do far more damage, but unless it lands on the head or enters the kneck it is unlikely to be fatal as well. A stabbing action again will do more damage to vital organs, but without being followed by a proper killing technique (such as turning the blade, etc) it is unlikely to be fatal.
Most cuts in combat due to slashing techniques are superficial, particularly as regards a \'medieval fantasy setting\'. Most hacking, except on exposed skin, results in more damage from broken bones then from the actual blade\'s edge.
Ok, then what would you change with the current system?
-
Originally posted by zanzibar
I\'m not suggesting that. I\'m saying that if you\'re unarmoured, you should expect to die from a single well-placed hit from a blade.
And how are you going to decide when the single well-placed hit from a blade will happen?
-
I think the question is when it wouldn\'t happen.
Since those should happen on a regular basis, unless something stops them. And here you decide what.
-
Originally posted by Nikodemus
Originally posted by zanzibar
I\'m not suggesting that. I\'m saying that if you\'re unarmoured, you should expect to die from a single well-placed hit from a blade.
And how are you going to decide when the single well-placed hit from a blade will happen?
Is this a real question? Dodging, parrying skill, how good the other guy is with the weapon, and so on.
-
Originally posted by zanzibar
Is this a real question? Dodging, parrying skill, how good the other guy is with the weapon, and so on.
Yes, it is a serious question.
So are you proposing that you press /attack, your opponent also press /attack. Then you both look at system messages about parrying, dodging and bounced of armor hits till one of you hit the other one and kill him instantly?
So, why would we need HP?
That is why i wrote what i think about function of hit points.
One is: you can try to retreat if you see that your opponent is going too easly through your defence.
Draklar: I agree that those should happen on a regular basis, but still you cant exactly say how regual, it is approximation.
And they don\'t happen when somethink stop them, as you said.
And to clarify things and see what exactly you think:
Hit points in my theory serve exactly part of this purpose. Also, there are no hits which take all of the hp, because hp aren\'t health points, but hit points.
-
Look at WFRP 2nd Ed system. Lots of parrying/blocking/dodging and 1-3 hit kills. Unless you wear medium or heavy armour. That\'s how it should be.
-
I have been playing only first edition, it is the only one i played. Now if i play, it is without statisctics.
When I was fighting with my friends on pseudo swords, it was taking a lot blows before one of us hit the other in body.
So to repeat again. Hit points purpose is partially this.
-
Hmm.... I don\'t see hit points as representing some sort of abstract concept like that which encompasses not only physical health, but also overall defense. I really see HP purely in terms of how injured you are.
-
So how will you explain the fact one person have 60hp and the other 180hp ? Where the first person may be stabbed into stomach 1 times and the seconds 3?
Given all the reasons you still say no?
Give me a better explanation which would give better feeling what is happening in the middle of fight.
-
Originally posted by Nikodemus
So how will you explain the fact one person have 60hp and the other 180hp ? Where the first person may be stabbed into stomach 1 times and the seconds 3?
Given all the reasons you still say no?
Give me a better explanation which would give better feeling what is happening in the middle of fight.
Physical health? I\'m pretty sure a Kran has more constitution than a Nolthir.
-
Originally posted by Nikodemus
I have been playing only first edition, it is the only one i played. Now if i play, it is without statisctics.
When I was fighting with my friends on pseudo swords, it was taking a lot blows before one of us hit the other in body.
So to repeat again. Hit points purpose is partially this.
Edit: Got it wrong.
Did you have any proper training before doing that?
It doesn\'t take many swings to hit someone, unless you don\'t know how to fight (and for example swing at mid-air or at shield, or at sword)
-
Originally posted by zanzibar
Physical health? I\'m pretty sure a Kran has more constitution than a Nolthir.
Of course, that must be that exact situation what i meant. What else?...
Imagine there is much more of posibilities, but you are Zanzibar and Zanzibar won\'t choose the worst example to explain, but the most simple.
Gues what? I mean\'t two Nolthirs, one with 60 and second with 180
Draklar: No, i gues i didn\'t. We was training with nobody experienced in that for about a week.
So i don\'t really know how much blows do need two very well trained warriors, so that one of them deal the critical hit.
But if i had to make approximation, I\'d say it is how it is currently when two people fight with use of normal weapons and each has max sword skill and max hp.
/me is going sleeping
-
If that nolthir has as much HP as a kran.... then that nolthir has as much HP as a kran. Must be some nolthir.
-
:) the topic of combat is very difficult to discuss....
everyone has many different ideas.. and many different life experiences...
And discussing a combat between \"experienced\" , and \"unexperienced\" person can aslo be difficult.
Is the experienced guy a man who spent 20yrs of his life sword fighting, and the unexperienced guy just pickup a sword last night and wanted to see how to use it?
in this case outcome is pretty obvious... unless our \'master\' was asleep at the time of the fight.
in many cases soldiers were called \"experienced\" or veteran after surviving just one battle. this clearly doesnt make them 100,000 times stronger than an \"unexperienced\" opponent.
From personal experience of some 17yrs of martial arts training (karate, kendo). A true begginer still has a small ( and i mean small) chance of defeating a well trained person. That chance is mostly dependent on his physical/mental attributes. A 6\"6\' 130 kg mountain of muscle, who happens to be agile as a cat, could easily pose a threat to even a well trained man of say 5\"11\' and 80kg. Simple physics will tell you that. (this refers to unarmed combat mostly).
presence of a weapon favours training more of course, but physical attributes should not be underestimated.
Simple example.... Germanic tribesman were more than a match for Roman legionares in 1 v 1 combat despite the Roman\'s superior training and technology, simply due to difference in strenght, size etc...
While i dont claim to have the answers, i think its something to think about.
Cheers :)
-
Originally posted by zanzibar
Originally posted by Nikodemus
as i told, everytime you loose hp, you aren\'t critically hit and drop dead.
I\'m not suggesting that. I\'m saying that if you\'re unarmoured, you should expect to die from a single well-placed hit from a blade.
Well-placed hits are not as easy to come by as one might think. Unless of course your opponent is already incapable of movement for some reason. :) No one is going to make it easy for the opponent.
Ok, then what would you change with the current system?
I\'m not sure I would change anything at the moment. I haven\'t found the combat system all that lacking. It serves its purpose. Perhaps the question is, what do you want changed?
I think PS has the right idea with the combat system, I just don\'t think everything is implemented. Your combat ability is influenced by skill, abilities (str and agi for striking, etc, and stamina for conditioning, will for that ever ellusive thing referred to as \"heart\" by fighters) and all of that is pitted against the same traits of your opponent. Different attributes and skills give different advantages and disadvantages, and a skilled fighter can manipulate those advantages and disadvantages as necessary.
-
I think most people tend to think of successful attacks as always being clean hits. In combat situations, particularly when weapons larger than knives are being used, there are rarely clean hits. Even if you are outskilled, you will still block or evade to some degree the attacks coming at you. Training helps to improve one\'s ability to block and evade attacks, while improving your ability to strike in a way that makes it more difficult for your opponent to block or evade your attacks. No one is perfect, and therefore no one can successfully block every blow. The result is being hit for non-fatal damage. The blow is partially blocked, but the attack still penetrates the defense. Or the blow is partially evaded, but not completely. You end up with cuts, bruises, broken bones, etc, but you are not dead.... yet. If you end up with enough cuts and bruises, etc, your body will shut down and you will die -- loss of blood, trauma, shock, whatever you want to attribute it to.
Skill and technique should always give you an edge. Then again so does agility, strength, and conditioning. Sometimes, one gives more of an edge than the other -- depending upon how it is used. Many trained fighters have fallen to inexperienced fighters because the inexperienced fighter overwhelmed the trained fighter, therefore nullifying his skills and techniques. It happens in combat sports all the time -- the new guy comes out fists flying and doesn\'t stop until the far more experienced and trained MA is unconscious or has submitted. :) It becomes a matter of numbers, the trained fighter with all his technique and skill just can\'t block or evade all the blows of the less experienced-more aggressive fighter.
-
Dying shouldn\'t be too big of a punishment since I die more often because of fall damage or lag than of actual combat. Of course it should still be a bad thing but if I hear all those people complaining the set spawn points alone are already bad enough .. imagine being brought back all the way to the spawn when Yliakum gets closer to its intended size. I think that \'ll make most people be wary of dying.
I agree completely that crafting should make you a lot more money than fighting, unless you are being recruited in an official fighting force with salaries maybe. Hunters should get little money but still play a role in acquiring various materials for our crafters.
As for the whole argument about combat .. it\'s my opinion that in medieval combat it is mainly about the equipment, not so much the training.
In general I think that we shouldn\'t be making combat less important than it is now, I like it how it is. We should be making other things at least just as important than combat or more important though. Starting with crafting but I\'m confident the devs already know this and will make sure it happens soon (tm). :)
-
Originally posted by Zan
As for the whole argument about combat .. it\'s my opinion that in medieval combat it is mainly about the equipment, not so much the training.
I try to imagine myself going in full plate armour, armed with a well made longsword and wooden, light shield into one of the summer battles... And don\'t really see myself surviving for long x.x
But no, I\'ve seen people fighting and using exactly same weapons. Training is the most important factor.
-
Of course in that case it is. If everyone is equiped equally well it is a matter of who had the most training or has the most luck. In battles not everyone tends to have the same equipment though .. usually you had drafted peasants who armed themselves with whatever they could get their hands on and then there are the professional knights with their heavy armor, sturdy shields and shiny longswords on horseback. The poor peasies wouldn\'t stand much of a chance surviving a heavy cavalry charge no matter how trained they are.
Of course it is always a matter of equipment, training and luck, which is more important differs from situation to situation but I do get the initial point. The first two are usually represented pretty decently in games where as the luck factor is rarely ever present.
-
Originally posted by Zan
Of course in that case it is. If everyone is equiped equally well it is a matter of who had the most training or has the most luck. In battles not everyone tends to have the same equipment though .. usually you had drafted peasants who armed themselves with whatever they could get their hands on and then there are the professional knights with their heavy armor, sturdy shields and shiny longswords on horseback. The poor peasies wouldn\'t stand much of a chance surviving a heavy cavalry charge no matter how trained they are.
If the knights weren\'t trained, they would fall off their horses and couldn\'t stand up due to the heavy armour. While the peasants would just jab them to death.
Originally posted by Zan
Of course it is always a matter of equipment, training and luck, which is more important differs from situation to situation but I do get the initial point. The first two are usually represented pretty decently in games where as the luck factor is rarely ever present.
There\'s no luck factor. There\'s no luck in parrying blows, you have to learn to foresee your opponent\'s moves. There\'s no luck in dealing powerful blows, you have to learn to surpass your opponent\'s defense (either with intelligence, or sheer agression... or best combination of both). Plus the ability to seek for weak points in one\'s armour, remaining cool-headed, ability to use your opponent\'s moves against himself, etc...
-
If the knights weren\'t trained, they would fall off their horses and couldn\'t stand up due to the heavy armour. While the peasants would just jab them to death.
not really a good example....
if the knights werent trained they wouldnt be on the horse and in armour in the first place....
from memory suit of plate n a war horse was fairly pricey :)
yes training is very important, and so are you strenght, agility, endurance, level headness ect (these attributes are developed in training of course).
But if my memory serves me correct a short time before the battle of hastings, a viking (or danish , cant remember) army invaded england, and were defeated when caught off guard (they only had time to grab their swords n shields) by a pressing english army.
Despite being very tired the english won (so in this case equipment did play a decisive role in the battle).
But i think main point is that... An equally equipped person with better training will not ALWAYS win.
He may win a lot more often... of course (depanding of the difference in training).
Also we seem to have this romantic image of a 90yo master still beating the hell out of a bunch of 20yo gorrilas. Its a nice though... but in reality it just doeant happen.
But imo training >> equipment.. unless its stix vs plate mail ;)
-
Based on my 7+ years of first hand martial arts experience I will have to completely disagree about there being no luck factor. Honestly I can\'t even understand how you could say luck plays no part in combat when even the smallest child should know better. I\'m not the kind of person that likes to be absolute in anything, usually I try to keep an openminded perspective and see both ends of a discussion, understand both points. You are definitely a great roleplayer and know a lot, a whole lot but I think you\'re way off base here. You seem to be idealizing the concept of training and experience and making it into something more than it really is. Training is everything we have control over but in life we don\'t have control over everything and on the battlefield or in a duel that counts just as much. A whole lot of factors we cannot control or turn to our advantage no matter the ammount of training we had, I\'m sure you can all imagine some. Those factors are put into the equasion of life as the luck factor. With everything we do luck plays a role and better training might reduce some of those luck factors but in a fight, where things can change in fragments of a second, it will always play a significant role.
-
Originally posted by james brown
If the knights weren\'t trained, they would fall off their horses and couldn\'t stand up due to the heavy armour. While the peasants would just jab them to death.
not really a good example....
if the knights werent trained they wouldnt be on the horse and in armour in the first place....
from memory suit of plate n a war horse was fairly pricey :)
Umm... The point of this discussion was whether equipment is more important than training. So I gave example of what equipment is without training.
For a further example, experienced warrior with staff will defeat unexperienced warrior in full plate, longsword and wooded shield. With ease.
Originally posted by james brown
But if my memory serves me correct a short time before the battle of hastings, a viking (or danish , cant remember) army invaded england, and were defeated when caught off guard (they only had time to grab their swords n shields) by a pressing english army.
Despite being very tired the english won (so in this case equipment did play a decisive role in the battle).
1) When fighting potential is near equal, equipment will decide about outcome of fight. That doesn\'t prove equipment is more important.
2) Being caught off-guard reduces chances of winning due to the chaos.
Originally posted by james brown
But imo training >> equipment.. unless its stix vs plate mail ;)
You can just disarm unexperienced warrior with one of the sticks and use his weapon to defeat him ;)
Zan: I don\'t know how it is in martial arts since I don\'t train them, but watching knight duels and training in such fighting, I\'ve seen luck to hold minor importance over anything.
For example, knowing skills of particular warriors, I could foretell outcome of the duels.
Luck is something that appears only when unexperienced warrior sends some random blows, hoping that one of them will actually do something.
\"Luck\" very often is also just a faulty move of your opponent. Not quite real luck.
But generally about the 7 years thing, I\'d much rather hear actual examples. Argumentum ad verecundiam is a logical fallacy :<
Edit:
Argumentum ad vanitatem is also :P
Not saying you used them on purpose, but still might be something you\'d want to avoid ;)
-
Basically, these rules are taken from all of the other games that I despised, impliment a newbie taking down me and reaping 50 duel points and I\'m quitting...I will not be taken down by a novice, and thats final >.>
-
If this was to be done, we need another source of money and PP. This could be done through a very large quest system, with quests giving a lot of reward and PP. Also, since you still need a way after all quests completed, some other way must be devised.
-
Originally posted by Draklar
Zan:
But generally about the 7 years thing, I\'d much rather hear actual examples. Argumentum ad verecundiam is a logical fallacy :<
Edit:
Argumentum ad vanitatem is also :P
Not saying you used them on purpose, but still might be something you\'d want to avoid ;)
Yes I know saying that was something most people would ignore at best and probably just laugh at. Like I said I normally dislike talking like that but I was tired at the moment, too tired to carefully pick my words and arguments for something that is so blatantly obvious to me. I honestly don\'t care what people think about my \"7 years of experience\" and don\'t feel much for going over my university logic classes for every argument on here. What I said was meant to show I do know what I\'m talking about but of course since neither of us know eachother personally every mention of \'experience\' can be questioned.
You say you have experience in knight duels, etc. which I assume are being held on roleplaying events and medieval fairs, so could they be compared to a form of stage fighting more than actual combat? In that case I can understand where you\'re coming from much better.
-
Originally posted by Zan
You say you have experience in knight duels, etc. which I assume are being held on roleplaying events and medieval fairs, so could they be compared to a form of stage fighting more than actual combat? In that case I can understand where you\'re coming from much better.
Umm... It\'s mostly duels (due to there being more tournaments), but there are also few annual battles going on in the season. Notably battle of Grunwald, or Jomsborg\'s viking festival.
-
This is off topic but I wish we had that kind of things around here ...
Anyway I think our different views have to do with the different approach to combat.
-
LOL... they really ought to teach sarcasm as a subject in high schools around the world....(not everything said i meant to be taken literally ... sheesh use some imagination) O.o
i was never saying that equipment is more important than training .... just that every factor counts in a battle.
Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basically, these rules are taken from all of the other games that I despised, impliment a newbie taking down me and reaping 50 duel points and I\'m quitting...I will not be taken down by a novice, and thats final >.>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
So y bother with combat system.... just compare the levels and if your level > opponents you win no fighting needed..
perhaps rethink why you want to play this game
-
When watching old Xena reruns I notice that she kicks butt reguardless of weather she is wearing a silk nighty or her leather \"battle\" armor. Not realistic, but it is common for the gendra (sp?).
My hope is that training and atributes are weighted heavier than equipment. I would like PS characters to closer to the fictional fantasy movies than the current video game style that is the norm. Most other games the equipement at least doubles the power of your character. Heh, in some cases it is much more like 10x. This much focus on eqipment takes away from role playing in my humble opinion.
-
Originally posted by james brown
LOL... they really ought to teach sarcasm as a subject in high schools around the world....(not everything said i meant to be taken literally ... sheesh use some imagination) O.o
Indeed. If they taught that in schools, you\'d realise what you said wasn\'t really a sarcasm :P
derwoodly: Yeah, I agree. How much fiction movies might be... fiction. They\'re still better than the hack&slash environment generated by the new games.
-
I am on your side on this one. At least I think I am. I would prefer a system that would allow a warrior with a high skill level to be able to defend him or herself with a rusty sword. I dislike the a system that makes a warrior without a complete set of \"enchanted by the Gods\" armor a gimp, or getting your \"arse\" handed to you because you are forced to fight with a normal steel sword instead of \"Excaliber\". I would just prefer more DnD and less Diablo.
-
O.O
u mean dont want weapons to tranform a first grader into an invincible engine of destruction???? where is the fun???
we all know that in real world those who actually work hard and play by the rules never get anywhere.....
only luck (whether or not you are born into a multimillion dolla empire) makes a difference....
with this in mind current weapon system is very realistic.. >.<
-
uh ? common sense ? if a man with little experiance of how to wield a sword thrust a blade at a knight or trained fighter that man would go down. it would take a huge amount of luck for this untrained person to kill a professional.
and training would not give you more cexperiance than the real thing. training is one thing, doing that for real is quite another. in ANYTHING.
the death realm is going to be hard, very hard to get out of when it is finished anyway. most likly players will have to run from anything they find lurking there than chopping it up.
agreed that the focus on fighting should be toines down a little but these are completly unrealistic idea\'s.
-
Originally posted by dying_inside
the death realm is going to be hard, very hard to get out of when it is finished anyway. most likly players will have to run from anything they find lurking there than chopping it up.
PIT MONSTERS \\m/ (O.o) \\m/
\"Fred, did you hear that? Fred? Fred!\"
-
Originally posted by james brown
we all know that in real world those who actually work hard and play by the rules never get anywhere.....
only luck (whether or not you are born into a multimillion dolla empire) makes a difference....
Uhm... You state earning money and fighting as things that work on same basis? o.o
That\'s not how it works...