I don't know if the spells are going to be based right off MMUD's spellbook, but if they are, can the -skin spells be changed to mostly enhance DR instead of AC? It never seemed to make sense that enhancing your own skin made you harder to actually hit, at least to me. It should simply be able to absorb more damage.
And of course, this is provided the AC/DR system will stay as it is.
Quote from: proteus on Jan 02, 2006, 12:15 AM
I don't know if the spells are going to be based right off MMUD's spellbook, but if they are, can the -skin spells be changed to mostly enhance DR instead of AC? It never seemed to make sense that enhancing your own skin made you harder to actually hit, at least to me. It should simply be able to absorb more damage.
And of course, this is provided the AC/DR system will stay as it is.
The ac/dr system will be the same, the spells will of course be slightly different. Spells like barkskin and stoneskin are rpg classics and of course druids will have them. The actual stats for all the spells I have in mind havent really been worked out yet, but having them more focused on Dr seems like a possibility. Of course your arguement seems like it should apply to all armours.
I never quite understood MajorMUD's AC/DR system either. If you think about actual swordfighting you only have a few things happening.
1) attacker misses because he doesn't have enough skill to aim properly. Miss message.
2) defender dodges the blow due to his defense skill or agility. Dodge message.
3) defender blocks the blow with his shield or parries with his weapon. Block/parry message.
4) blow hits, but is partially or completely absorbed by armor. defection message or damage reduced.
5) blow hits completely. full damage done.
6) blow hits in a critical spot and does more damage than normal.
There is nothing in there about AC making you harder to hit. That's your defense skill and agility. A miss message should only be triggered by the attacker's attack skill causing an errant swing. That should be checked first. If the attacker's skill causes a successful swing, it is then checked against the defender's defense skill to determine a block/parry/dodge. If the attack gets through the defenses, it is then checked against the armor rating of the defender to determine how much of the blow is absorbed. Critical hits should be a comparison of the attacker's skill against the defender's skill with a modifier on the armor rating (more armor makes criticals less likely).
It is a bizzare system, but it comes from the most classic fantasy style game. Overhauling that system maybe something we do at some point. But for now at least I'm sticking with AC/DR. Although I'd have to say for realism there should be an Offensive Combat Value(OCV) and a Defensive Combat Value(DCV) Combat would be a comparison of the 2 values +/- random chance. Most armour would then act to reduce DCV but increase damage absorbtion. DCV and OCV then would increase with level and stats.
AC represents the chance that a weapon blow will glance off or be entirely ineffective. I.e, you're wearing a conical helm, someone slashes down at you and it hits the side and slides off. That would be a miss via AC.
Quote from: lumikant on Jan 02, 2006, 12:38 PM
AC represents the chance that a weapon blow will glance off or be entirely ineffective. I.e, you're wearing a conical helm, someone slashes down at you and it hits the side and slides off. That would be a miss via AC.
In that case ac is really overstated in majormud. And it can't explain how one could miss via AC with a maul.
get a piece of sheet metal, bend it into an A frame, and hit the top with the maul. The maul with slide off the side, and do little damage. Plate armor is designed the same way, so that if you get hit in the shoulder with a hammer, it'll slide off your pauldron.
However, to address the fact that certain types of armor work better against certain types of attack you should introduce damage types and specific armor classes. I.e. Piercing, Slashing, Bashing, the big three. Chainmail would have a high AC against slashing, not so good against piercing, and damn near nothing to bashing. Plate would work well against everything.
Quote from: lumikant on Jan 02, 2006, 08:19 PM
get a piece of sheet metal, bend it into an A frame, and hit the top with the maul. The maul with slide off the side, and do little damage. Plate armor is designed the same way, so that if you get hit in the shoulder with a hammer, it'll slide off your pauldron.
However, to address the fact that certain types of armor work better against certain types of attack you should introduce damage types and specific armor classes. I.e. Piercing, Slashing, Bashing, the big three. Chainmail would have a high AC against slashing, not so good against piercing, and damn near nothing to bashing. Plate would work well against everything.
O thats a good idea. No wonder lots of fantasy MMORPGS use it.
I would like to see armour truly affect your combat. I mean not only is Plate armour heavy, but it is extremly hard to move in. I think players wearing heavier armour such as chainmail, scalemail, and platemail should get swing penalties for more than jsut the weight of the armour.
In fact, noone in platemail should ever be quick and deadly. I would describe it as steamroller deadly.
Chainmail and splintmail dont actually have any negative effects other than their weight. The period plate armors were also relatively easy to move in, although I can see not allowing the qnd bonus while wearing it.
Realism is a great thing. However it can also be over done. The game does need to be balanced, so adjusting combat values for certain armour types is a possibility but I'm not going to go over board on that. The key word is balanced, not nerfed.
Agreed. But plate classes are very powerful as it is. Most defense, most hp, and good damage.
As it is a warrior, cleric, or paly will out level and out kill anything else until your so high it doesnt matter what class you are. The only place they are weak is in pvp against a sneaker and only if he is halfway descent at running and bs'ing, because once you smash him he is dead. Caster usually cant stand more than one round of combat. so if they dont get a status on them they have lost, and since most boards fix surprise casting. And on to another point. Suprise casting should be in the game. I mean like it was meant to be there where you dont have to exploit a bug to use it. Why cant a mage cast a spell on someone unaware? Mages traditionally have been able to prepare spells where all that needs to be done is execute a command word, some spells dont even require words just thought, and others have been completly reagent based not need any spoken words. It just seems that in mud all spells are compicated rituals where everyone knows exactly what your doing.
Quote from: Reece on Jan 03, 2006, 07:50 AM
Agreed. But plate classes are very powerful as it is. Most defense, most hp, and good damage.
As it is a warrior, cleric, or paly will out level and out kill anything else until your so high it doesnt matter what class you are.
Right but it would be best to address this issue through content and adjusting other classes. If i made areas with highly magical monsters plate users would be at a disadvantage because their combat is effected by their armour, where everyone else would be dishing out their already higher damage rounds. Witchhunters could even be able to out level warriors.
QuoteThe only place they are weak is in pvp against a sneaker and only if he is halfway descent at running and bs'ing, because once you smash him he is dead. Caster usually cant stand more than one round of combat. so if they dont get a status on them they have lost, and since most boards fix surprise casting. And on to another point. Suprise casting should be in the game. I mean like it was meant to be there where you dont have to exploit a bug to use it. Why cant a mage cast a spell on someone unaware? Mages traditionally have been able to prepare spells where all that needs to be done is execute a command word, some spells dont even require words just thought, and others have been completly reagent based not need any spoken words. It just seems that in mud all spells are compicated rituals where everyone knows exactly what your doing.
The most recent bbs I played on I played a thief and I remained fairly compeditive because I used their abilities. I robbed ganghouses and I used their pvp abilities to the fullest. I leveled up quickly because of my tiny chart, and as such my exp was in general competitive rank wise with other people that started around the same time I did. This experience made me realise that theives really arent as weak as I had thought before, they just can't be played in the same way you would play most of the other classes. I don't have anything against surprise rounds. I don't see why they aren't in the game, other than the blatent issues with high level pvp. This could be adjusted rather easily by giving players large HP amounts and monsters high damage attacks. If we increased player hps by 100% and monster min and max attacks by 100% high level pvp wouldnt be as much of an issue, although this isnt a good answer for the problem as this would effect players in many negitive ways. We could adjust other aspects too to try to make things somewhat more balanced after doing that, for example making DR 2x more effective against monsters and doubling the effectiveness of healing spells.
LOL had an idea make some areas with -encumb spells thatd really fuck em up.
Edit
WTFBBQ i cant move and only have 2 swings.
Generally speaking, negative effects are in place for, yes, realism, but also because there is something really good about the item.
Yes, heavy armor might cost you some dexterity (which would theoretically affect dodge and attack ability), but it'll absorb a hell of a lot more damage. Also, in a party this person would need to be healed less often. Any perceived deficit in attack ability could be made up with a better weapon (greater damage per hit to make up for less attacks per round). It'd just be an option if he/she is believes the benefits outweigh the cost--the benefit being a character wearing heavy enough armor could traipse across the realm and ignore half the beasties encountered in the interest of getting somewhere quickly.
Not that platemail-bearing fighters traipse. I'm just saying...
Quote from: Valentine on Jan 03, 2006, 09:04 PM
Generally speaking, negative effects are in place for, yes, realism, but also because there is something really good about the item.
Yes, heavy armor might cost you some dexterity (which would theoretically affect dodge and attack ability), but it'll absorb a hell of a lot more damage. Also, in a party this person would need to be healed less often. Any perceived deficit in attack ability could be made up with a better weapon (greater damage per hit to make up for less attacks per round). It'd just be an option if he/she is believes the benefits outweigh the cost--the benefit being a character wearing heavy enough armor could traipse across the realm and ignore half the beasties encountered in the interest of getting somewhere quickly.
Not that platemail-bearing fighters traipse. I'm just saying...
You're probably at a slight disadvantage in this conversation because there are in fact limitation on plate armour already in the game. These negitives are repressented in your encumbrance. The closer you are to your maximum enc, the less you swing, and the less likely you are to be able to recieve combat bonuses with a particular weapon. In fact people who carry 34% of their maximum enc lose half of any bonuses they can get, and at 67% you lose all bonuses. I just don't see how wearing 200 lbs of platemail would hender your combat more than lets say 200 lbs of arrows.
Quote from: DeathCow on Jan 03, 2006, 09:11 PM
I just don't see how wearing 200 lbs of platemail would hender your combat more than lets say 200 lbs of arrows.
It shouldn't. Unless you want to get really fancy and say that because such-n-such an item causes a character to be top heavy, or blah-blah-blah increases weight beared on the back, then weight is weight and should be treated as such.
But yes, I am at a disadvantage...maybe if I lurk long enough I'll catch on.
Edit: Also, what the next guy said. I was thinking that but didn't want to get into another long worthless post.
Heavy armours such as platemail, scalemail, and banded mail not only encumber you, but are extremely inflexable. You cant move your arm as well because the joints hit eachother. You can not walk well because you can not bend your knees right, In fact, a knight how has fallen down in full plate armour usually cant get back up because he cant bend his body enough to get his appendages under him.
Quote from: Reece on Jan 03, 2006, 09:32 PM
Heavy armours such as platemail, scalemail, and banded mail not only encumber you, but are extremely inflexable. You cant move your arm as well because the joints hit eachother. You can not walk well because you can not bend your knees right, In fact, a knight how has fallen down in full plate armour usually cant get back up because he cant bend his body enough to get his appendages under him.
I just personally really dislike creating this kinda realism. I don't think it will be the best way to serve up balance, so I think I'd like to explore other venues.
How about a -crit modifier for heavier armour.
We could do that, but thats pretty much that same thing as removing the crit bonus that lighter people get, we cant jsut double up on the same negitive.
Here's one. You could give casters a chance to resist a spell based on there magic level. We could call it counterspells. the more a class is dependent on magic the better they are at counter spells. For example, mage-1 10% + level bonus, mage-2 20% + level bonus, mage-3 30% +level bonus. This would give casters a one up on harder magic based mobs and help there ability to script, and would help them be more competative on bosses.
Thats a good idea, in theory. If we were to do something like this we'd need some way to take into account the attacker. It be a little silly for a level 1 druid to have a 30% chance of surviving a level 500 mages casting of LOLZUDIENOW BEAM.
(b + lvl increase) - (a/2)? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
b = base chance
a = attackers counterspell chance level percent increase is as follows : mage-1 (base 10%) 1-10 .1% 11-20 .2% 21-30 .3% ect..
mage-2 (base 20%) 1-10 .15% 11-20 .3% 21-30 .45% ect..
for use sake lets do a lvl 20 mage-3 vs a 50 mage-3? ? ? ? ? ? mage-3 (base 30%) 1-10 .2% 11-20 .4% 21-30 .6% ect..
(b% + lvl increase) - {b% + (lvl increase/ 2)} =
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?36%? ? ? ? ?-? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 30%? ? ? ? ? ? ? = 6% this is the chance for a level 20 to counterspell a level 50
(b% + lvl increase) - {b% + (lvl increase / 2)} =
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?60%? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 18%? ? ? ? ?= 42% that he willl counter a spell? ? ?
Hows that for a formula.? Although this only encompasses pvp a simular formula for monsters could easily be made.
Note: players of simular level will not counter much at low levels, and at max will be able to counter 50%
Looks good.
Tommorow ill sit down and write some thing for player vs mob.
tired ... so very tired.
pvm formula
(base+level)- (monster level x .75) lets say you have a level 55 mage-3 caster and a level 45 monster.
66% - 33.75% = 32.25% chance of counterspell.
once again maxium chance of counterspell will be 50%.
Whats mosnter level based on?
Quote from: DeathCow on Jan 13, 2006, 07:43 AM
Whats mosnter level based on?
Monster level is based on the casting level you assign the given spell.
Edit
or you cold give all monstes a level field.
Quote from: DeathCow on Jan 03, 2006, 02:43 AM
Realism is a great thing. However it can also be over done. The game does need to be balanced, so adjusting combat values for certain armour types is a possibility but I'm not going to go over board on that. The key word is balanced, not nerfed.
Aftering reading a bunch of other posts, I was glad to read that, and hope you mean it.
Balance is sometimes eaier to reach if you reduce one class rather than improve all the others.