CARAAMON: 1 revision

2014-05-12T02:55:11Z

1 revision

← Older revision	Revision as of 21:55, 11 May 2014
(No difference)

CARAAMON: Created page with "{{Post |a=DR-KODIUS |t=Re: Autostance |d=01/16/2014 12:32 AM CST |n=662 |f=Dragon Realms 3.1 Test \ Combat |c=m,d |p=''>>Incidentally, does this also not completely destroy th..."

2014-03-16T04:53:28Z

Created page with "{{Post |a=DR-KODIUS |t=Re: Autostance |d=01/16/2014 12:32 AM CST |n=662 |f=Dragon Realms 3.1 Test \ Combat |c=m,d |p=''>>Incidentally, does this also not completely destroy th..."

New page

{{Post
|a=DR-KODIUS
|t=Re: Autostance
|d=01/16/2014 12:32 AM CST
|n=662
|f=Dragon Realms 3.1 Test \ Combat
|c=m,d
|p=''>>Incidentally, does this also not completely destroy the purpose of combat maneuvers? i.e. bypassing shield but won't they just autostance into parry now?''

Maneuvers no longer bypass defenses as it was breaking the math. Entirely possible to 1-hit kill everything due to players losing 50% of their defense and overkill mechanics coming into play. This will change once I've finished the defense rewrite.

Critters use a different mechanics than players.

The vast majority of critters only use 1 defense (evasion) and would insta-die at-circle without a different approach. It was estimated to be a multi-year project to rewrite combat AND rewrite every critter to support something different, so we let them swap a penalized portion of their unused shield/parry stance to make up the difference. This penalty decreases if they have a parry item or shield, and is negated if they have both. This is why sword/shield using enemies are so much harder to hit in melee. It is also why natural critters are easier to hit.

Every time a defense is ignored the critter suffers a cumulative 10% stance point penalty when stance points are traded. If they only have one defense and you ignore that defense, I believe the penalty is higher - but they always have some defense.

Not sure if I want to try something like this with players. It gets tricky because with critters there are only 4 possible start conditions, and with players it is infinite*.

Personally I'd like to see defense ignoring attacks penalize the ignored defense - not ignore it completely.

For example...

Ranged - not considered defense-ignoring. Stays pretty much the same and allows swapping parry to shield stance at or near-100% efficiency determined by DEFENDING skill check.

Single Defense ignore - Not allowed to swap ignored defense stance points. Ignored skill can still used with a 15%-30% penalty depending on DEFENDING skill check.

Two Defense ignore - Not allowed to swap stance points from either skill. Ignored skills can still be used with a 15-30% penalty depending on DEFENDING skill check.

System Pros/Cons:

* Ranged remains the same as it is today in Test

* Defense ignoring attacks are very useful (15-30% penalty is sufficient), without being grossly unbalanced. DFA spell accuracy/damage can increase since they aren't so overpowered.

* Prevents DFA from insta-killing someone because they dropped instantly from 1500 defense to 750 defense.

* Defenses aren't really ignored, just heavily penalized

* Many special attacks/spell messaging might break if the parry or shield contest succeeds

The alternative approach would to be something like...

If only 1 defense is contested, increase that defense by skill points equal to 75-90% of the ignored defenses. Keep ranged autostancing how it is in Test today.

* Prevents breaking of many abilities/spells

* Hard to understand, because you get better at one defense via other defenses

* Otherwise solves many of the same problems raised above
}}

Post:Autostance - 01/16/2014 - 00:32 - Revision history

CARAAMON: 1 revision

CARAAMON: Created page with "{{Post |a=DR-KODIUS |t=Re: Autostance |d=01/16/2014 12:32 AM CST |n=662 |f=Dragon Realms 3.1 Test \ Combat |c=m,d |p=''>>Incidentally, does this also not completely destroy th..."