Remove duels from the game. (This is not a joke.)

[zanzibar]

All of that and pvp combat, its probably peoples problem with player versus combat that it is OOC. If you figure out a good solution go to wish list, but you know pvp hit and run dueling etc. is all part of roleplay, as is crafting, and mining and all the rest.

Hit an run in combat is entirely OOC.  There should be no debate on that point given the discussions we've had on it, and I'm annoyed that you're still defending it.

[Volund]

All of that and pvp combat, its probably peoples problem with player versus combat that it is OOC. If you figure out a good solution go to wish list, but you know pvp hit and run dueling etc. is all part of roleplay, as is crafting, and mining and all the rest.

Hit an run in combat is entirely OOC.  There should be no debate on that point given the discussions we've had on it, and I'm annoyed that you're still defending it.

No zanzibar, hit and run is not ooc, it cant be because in every single battle in history and currently whether swords or guns. People dodge and shoot, run and fire, sneak and slash. nothing OOC 'bout that. the ooc part really is the /challenge.

[zanzibar]

No zanzibar, hit and run is not ooc, it cant be because in every single battle in history and currently whether swords or guns. People dodge and shoot, run and fire, sneak and slash. nothing OOC 'bout that. the ooc part really is the /challenge.

The way people do hit-and-run attacks in PS is in no way realistic; you cannot compare it to the way people fight in real life.  It simply isn't the same thing.

Dodging is already built into the code for stationary combat.

[Volund]

Play x=me player y=opponent.
[player x= 40 sword 25 LA, player y= 50 dagger, maxed stats, maxed MA and LA.]

A.

Player x changes stance and runs to y.

Player y runs to the left changes stance and runs to x.

Player x jumps over a table, changes stance jumps over and runs to y.

Player y jumps backward twice changes stance and runs to x.

Player x runs right, throws a arrow, y is blinded, x wipes out opponent with two strikes.

-------------------------------------
B.
Player x walks to player y.

Player x changes stance.

Player y changes stance.

Player x dodges y's daggers.

Player y blocks x's sword.

Player x gets one hit killed by player y.

Now was A better than B?

Hit and Run cant be OOC, why? because it uses real tactics used during the medieval ages, all sci-fi action, almost everything in combat since cavmen learned to use fire.
If lag or OOC /challenge is a problem, patience.

[zanzibar]

In medieval combat between knights, combat usually meant two guys taking turns hitting eachother until one collapsed from exhaustion.

The way the combat system is written, agility and dodging are included in the computations for whether or not the character avoids the hit.  But people are cheating by running away, thus forcing the hit to abort.  It's an exploit of the game mechanics, there's absolutely positively nothing IC or fair about it.  And once you throw in lad, the claim that it's IC is even more ridiculous.  By running around, you are not dodging hits; you are running away from the fight.  The fact that you don't yield to your opponent, and that you continue attacking, is little better than a bug.

[Krann Omins]

bug schmug. the only foundation for calling that sort of fighting ooc [that i give merit anyway] is that it relies on playerskill rather than characterskill. But o guess what someone with int20 can still beat someone with 100 int at groffeltoe, someone with 150 agil may struggle more to make a special jump around a certain wall to reach a certain area of map than someone with 50 agil--
Therefore: so what?

[PS--the not relying on trained character skills is a large part of many folks' gripe with rp style fighting of '/ me' & '/ my'. once again the argument is: so what?]

everything you deem to be ooc is deemed such by your own ooc. your character would never say the person's actions are out of character unless they knew the person & felt it wasn't normal action for that person. You say it's  running way & making the person abort hitting: exactly, that's just how your character sees it & your character can call theirs a coward for doing so. It's not an exploit of game mechanics, otherwise when an npc is going to kill you you are exploiting mechanics if you run away. If i in reality hit someone then run away before they can hit me i don't expect them not to try & hit me back if i let them get near me, i wouldn't expect running to mean the fight is over--and if i'm still trying to get close enough to hit them again, thereby allowing them another oppertunity to hit me again, i wouldn't be yielding...

I'd consider it more of a bug exploit if someone challenged, hit me, then yielded before i could hit them back--seeing as its just a game mechanic preventing retalliation rather than my own lack of playerskill at chasing or wise spellcasting....(and really the whole yield thing should be at the person to whom one is yielding's discretion, if you want to kill them it should be up to you at that point-- & is very unrealistic to force acceptace of a yield when one cannot force acceptance of combat to start with)

BUT that should all be moot should this idea pass of removing duels (even if only temporarily)

[zanzibar]

the only foundation for calling that sort of fighting ooc [that i give merit anyway] is that it relies on playerskill rather than characterskill.

Plus there's the bit about how you're exploiting certain mechanics of the game in order to bypass other mechanics of the game.  (That's cheating, if you weren't aware.)  Etc and so on blah blah blah.

[Volund]

In medieval combat between knights, combat usually meant two guys taking turns hitting eachother until one collapsed from exhaustion.

The way the combat system is written, agility and dodging are included in the computations for whether or not the character avoids the hit.  But people are cheating by running away, thus forcing the hit to abort.  It's an exploit of the game mechanics, there's absolutely positively nothing IC or fair about it.  And once you throw in lad, the claim that it's IC is even more ridiculous.  By running around, you are not dodging hits; you are running away from the fight.  The fact that you don't yield to your opponent, and that you continue attacking, is little better than a bug.

You’re talking about knights. Have you heard about guerilla warfare Zanzibar? It’s very effective if you are up against large numbers. It’s one of the way’s the United States train’s its marines or other soldiers. It’s another way the U.S won the American Revolution. Hit & Run cannot be out of character because in character people run away. People shoot arrows and hide. People stab around a corner. Its strategy and tactics. Just because dodge and block is in the computations, it doesn’t seem very interesting to either player when standing there hoping you get a hit.

the only foundation for calling that sort of fighting ooc [that i give merit anyway] is that it relies on playerskill rather than characterskill.

Plus there's the bit about how you're exploiting certain mechanics of the game in order to bypass other mechanics of the game.  (That's cheating, if you weren't aware.)  Etc and so on blah blah blah.

.Why is it exploiting if it in truly is part of roleplaying. It's not exploiting because the player is just using terrain, tactics and timing to win.
A real exploit is spamming attacks or actually trying to make your opponent lag or crash.

[Krann Omins]

I think i understand his point tho... It's like in real life, if someone is trying to make physical contact & you run away, using the mechanics of your legs, to beyond their reach-- you are exploiting the part of physics mechanics where if a target object is out of someone's range they won't make contact-- in order to avoid the mechanic of their attempt at physical contact with what was expected to be a stationary target. If someone used an exploit like that while playing tag I'd certainly get mad & call them a cheater.

 

[zanzibar]

We're not talking about guerilla warfare.  We're talking about people moving in and out of striking range in a computer game.  You can use guerilla tactics without using hit and run attacks or mobile combat or moving while attacking or whatever you want to say.

Don't talk about guerilla warfare.  It's unrelated.

[Jackdaw]

This brings up a goodpoint that might be a halfway measure. Make it that you automatically lose the duel if you move too far away from the other person.

This would prevent those fustrating duels where the other person challenges and then runs off to hide until you get frustrated and default the duel. If it left some room then you would not have to stand toe to toe to slug it out but would allow for some small strategy to be used.

Even better, make the person who challenges be the one who loses the duel if you get too far apart. This would cut down on the number of people who make obnoxious challenges as all you have to do is move out of range and they lose.

[zanzibar]

This brings up a goodpoint that might be a halfway measure. Make it that you automatically lose the duel if you move too far away from the other person.

This would prevent those fustrating duels where the other person challenges and then runs off to hide until you get frustrated and default the duel. If it left some room then you would not have to stand toe to toe to slug it out but would allow for some small strategy to be used.

Even better, make the person who challenges be the one who loses the duel if you get too far apart. This would cut down on the number of people who make obnoxious challenges as all you have to do is move out of range and they lose.

I like you.

[Volund]

This brings up a goodpoint that might be a halfway measure. Make it that you automatically lose the duel if you move too far away from the other person.

This would prevent those fustrating duels where the other person challenges and then runs off to hide until you get frustrated and default the duel. If it left some room then you would not have to stand toe to toe to slug it out but would allow for some small strategy to be used.

Even better, make the person who challenges be the one who loses the duel if you get too far apart. This would cut down on the number of people who make obnoxious challenges as all you have to do is move out of range and they lose.

I like you.

First: I like the idea of running to far away, duels cancelled, but a sign should say "
you are going to far away, keep going and you will lose."
secondly:WOOOOOOOOOOO

[joshua6021]

Now Now everyone, Lets not call anyone names! This just makes them more thirsty for the duel. But I feel that since you can turn down the duel than there is no harm in it really. I mean in real life there are bullies. So let them have their fun. Just down talk to them if you don't want to.

[Eila]

In medieval combat between knights, combat usually meant two guys taking turns hitting eachother until one collapsed from exhaustion.

The way the combat system is written, agility and dodging are included in the computations for whether or not the character avoids the hit.  But people are cheating by running away, thus forcing the hit to abort.  It's an exploit of the game mechanics, there's absolutely positively nothing IC or fair about it.  And once you throw in lad, the claim that it's IC is even more ridiculous.  By running around, you are not dodging hits; you are running away from the fight.  The fact that you don't yield to your opponent, and that you continue attacking, is little better than a bug.

Your wrong, try your theory in front of a Ubernaught or a King Tefu.
In your eyes, the fact that you can outmaneuver these is irrelevent.
You see a dodge as a hit_and_run when in fact its a momentary evasion of one single attempt at a hit.
Perhaps our ancestors were supposed to stand in front of Mammoths and respect "the game mechanics".
Seriously, what you suggest is OOC.