Cerberus
|
| (addict) |
| 06/04/08 11:51 AM |
|
New Combat Testing
|
Changes have been made to combat on the test server. These changes are extensive, and apply directly to balance. It is not the intent to have changed the feel of combat only how combat is done and what tactics and equipment are viable in combat.
If you'd like to be involved in the testing of these new changes and have your voice heard before they go live to test, please contact me through the forums or via email.
The release is currently tentatively scheduled as "pre-fall 08" and there is no intent to stick to any date or date range, so there is more than enough time for testing, changes, and running commentary.
|
Cerberus
|
| (addict) |
| 06/04/08 12:01 PM |
|
|
Re: New Combat Testing
|
Please supply a name you'd like to use for testing in your request.
Levels, race + guild changes, equipment, etc will be provided for as my ability to handle it allows.
|
Cerberus
|
| (addict) |
| 06/06/08 11:27 AM |
|
|
|
Re: New Combat Testing
|
Having received little response or enthusiasm for testing of new combat before it goes live, I am afforded the unenviable position of having to take the changes I've made at face value. This will mean working out any potential kinks or disagreements on a system that directly affects characters.
I would prefer if people would volunteer to do testing of new combat in a system where changes can be made on the fly without causing havoc to players. Please help these changes come smoothly by signing up and donating your time and opinions to better the mud.
| Wicked Cthulhu |
| (stranger) |
| 06/08/08 06:26 AM |
|
|
Re: New Combat Testing
|
Name: Pyro
Race: Hill-Giant
Class: Elementalist
Please let me know what I should be looking for.
|
Cerberus
|
| (addict) |
| 06/09/08 12:27 PM |
|
|
|
Re: New Combat Testing
|
All of the obvious problems have been caught in the internal testing. The idea behind having players test on the testmud is for everyone to work at finding the hidden problems. If I could give a list of what to look for, I wouldn't need to have many sets of eyes on the new system because I'd know what to look for already, and could test for it myself... if that makes sense.
That being said, I can list the processes within the system that you should be paying attention to in order to test:
- Concentrate - percentage of full rounds of attacks, chance of losing spell, etc.
- Number of attacks - melee, martial arts, wielding one weapon, two weapons, three weapons, four weapons, amount seen in pets, mobs, etc.
- Hit chance - anything you can think of, drunk, fatigued, flying, resting, size differences, too much darkness/light, blank weapons, maxed weapons, etc.
- Number of combatants - fighting one opponent, two, ..., up to fifteen or more. This is probably not relevant for lag tests until we check on live with 10+ players in combat against many opponents each
- Defensive skills - These happening too often, not often enough, should they give chances to evade portions of attacks (essentially lowering damage taken) in addition/rather than evading all or none, etc.
- Special hits - poison, fist spells, vampiric blade spells, etc.
- Crits - Is TW noticable/unnoticable at times? Are there too many/few crits, some weapon(s) should give no crits, etc.
- XP given from many sources - noticable changes? Should defensive success result in xp?
- Protection - Does IMPREGNABLE always seem so, or does it seem less/more at times, are there situations in which IMPREG should not be so, etc
- Crit XP vs Hit XP - Is this recognizable? Does it seem acceptable? Is there something that should give more/less xp, etc
Feedback is the key here. If everything seems relatively the same to you, great. If it doesn't, great too. Just give your best effort at making a subjective interpretation of what's going on on test versus what you're used to on live.
| Muod |
| (member) |
| 06/09/08 05:45 PM |
|
|
Re: New Combat Testing
|
ok, defensive skills reduce damage, ie partial block...thats a brilliant idea. I love it, i think we need it.
| Minstrel |
| (journeyman) |
| 06/09/08 07:02 PM |
|
|
Re: New Combat Testing
|
Originally Posted By: Muod
ok, defensive skills reduce damage, ie partial block...thats a brilliant idea. I love it, i think we need it.
How about ripostes (counter-attacks)? Could implement it similar to crit-backs or somesuch. They could happen when the defensive skill "beats" the wield by enough on the roll.
| Muod |
| (member) |
| 06/09/08 07:09 PM |
|
|
|
Re: New Combat Testing
|
i'd do it as a physical hit back and when it beats it by enough, I do like that idea though i'd probably like to see a riposet skill since if it was just part of defense skills as a whole I think it'd be too good of a bonus to them heh
| Minstrel |
| (journeyman) |
| 06/09/08 07:15 PM |
|
|
|
Re: New Combat Testing
|
Originally Posted By: Muod
i'd do it as a physical hit back and when it beats it by enough, I do like that idea though i'd probably like to see a riposet skill since if it was just part of defense skills as a whole I think it'd be too good of a bonus to them heh
If it were a separate skill, it should definitely crit, I think (a crit from your weapon). If all you got was a base damage hit back, I doubt the skill would be worth investing precious, life-giving devs into.
|
Cerberus
|
| (addict) |
| 06/10/08 08:52 AM |
|
|
|
Re: New Combat Testing
|
Riposte is concepted and will be enabled with new combat. Since it has sprung up as an independent idea I feel comfortable saying that, even if it is not implemented as a skill until guild balance next year. Testing of riposte will be immortals only, as it is not expected to go live with new combat.
Partial defense from dodge/parry/block are ready to test. How this works is that if you fail to outright avoid an attack with one of these methods (yes, there are other means to avoid attacks with - see riposte above) there is a chance you will have reduced all damage dealt by that attack instead.
Parry and Block now have chances of harming the item used to defend. Please test whether or not it's detrimental to the viability of each as a defense skill.
| Wicked Cthulhu |
| (stranger) |
| 06/11/08 10:42 AM |
|
|
|
Re: New Combat Testing
|
I'm too much a newbie to help in this process. I just barely know what I'm lookin' at now.
| Kim |
| (enthusiast) |
| 06/14/08 05:06 PM |
|
|
Re: New Combat Testing
|
"Parry and Block now have chances of harming the item used to defend. Please test whether or not it's detrimental to the viability of each as a defense skill."
Well, I can test. But the answer is already 99.9% clear: Yes, it is heavily detrimental to the viability of them. I think that is quite obvious.
| Charon |
| (enthusiast) |
| 06/16/08 01:45 PM |
|
|
Re: New Combat Testing
|
I think it would depend on the chance. If a shield would break every hour, it's silly, but it you can expect a shield to break once every 80 hours of combat on average, that's not that terrible.
| Minstrel |
| (journeyman) |
| 06/16/08 04:28 PM |
|
|
|
Re: New Combat Testing
|
Originally Posted By: Charon
I think it would depend on the chance. If a shield would break every hour, it's silly, but it you can expect a shield to break once every 80 hours of combat on average, that's not that terrible.
For weapons, it would be terrible. I can't imagine anyone training parry if it meant regularly losing weapons that take tons of time, effort and having the right people to make.
| Muod |
| (member) |
| 06/16/08 04:35 PM |
|
|
|
Re: New Combat Testing
|
making a shield isn't as easy, hardly anyone has block rune and finding a chanter is never easy, though a shield is easier to make/replace then weapons.
I still have mixed feelings on it, though realistically it makes sense it will have an effect on gameplay which could be negative.
| carmy |
| (member) |
| 06/17/08 12:53 AM |
|
Re: New Combat Testing
|
I've never really been a big fan of implementing things that are solely there for "realism" that punish players.
Now, if this is being implemented to boost the economy because tinkers and chanters aren't getting enough work, then great. However, this really seems like an annoyance if you're gonna be losing equipment for the sake of losing equipment.
|
Cerberus
|
| (addict) |
| 06/17/08 06:43 AM |
|
|
|
Re: New Combat Testing
|
It's great that everyone can form opinions based on a handful of words, but I think it's clear that degredation of items is a drawback of some note. I'd really appreciate it if some of you would spend the time to test the changes and provide feedback based on the system being considered at this point.
Without feedback the changes will go in and may not be acceptable at first, which may lead to a poor time for everyone. It is my sincere hope that we can completely avoid testing in the live system, but this means people will have to take part in testing done before we go live. As of today, there are up to three wizard testers and one or two player testers who have contributed. Please take the time to register valid feedback, as your concerns aren't falling on deaf ears though they do need to be based on the system to be helpful.
Even if you don't feel you're well-versed enough in the ins and outs of Darkemud's combat, your opinion is valuable. These are example concerns that can be raised without any real attentiveness on the part of the player: It's interrupting my enjoyable play experience to have to run for repairs every 3 minutes, how about every 15 minutes? - I'm seeing too many full dodges and not enough partial dodges when fighting a goblin of the same level as me. - Fights against mobs the same level as me are resulting in me having to run away a lot, so I think mobs are doing more damage than they should be.
Of course, the more attentive the better: Using haste (2 attacks)against a mob with 2 attacks per round that I parry 100% of the time I'm getting approximately six and a half minutes of combat in with my catoetine short sword before it starts to give the wear warning. That's just about 400 swings between the two of us, which is far too low to be enjoyable. - While flying my partial/full dodge ratio is about 5:1 out of 50 swings against my opponent, but while resting it's about 1:3. That seems backwards to me. - Mobs my level are doing between 40-80 damage per swing (10% of my hps) against full laen armour with physical protection rune and no enchantments. This seems excessive to me considering they don't even have mineral weapons.
This combat recode is about a lot of things, including realism and fun. So while I'm more than happy to track down bugs, addressing the balance of fun and excitement from combat is the real goal. Please help to instill your own views of what is fun to do, see, and discover by giving feedback. Thanks to all those who have helped so far.
|
Cerberus
|
| (addict) |
| 06/18/08 02:20 PM |
|
|
|
Re: New Combat Testing
|
Since combat is going to be new and my doing, I feel I would the best suited to write a combat guide (think Player's Handbook for Dungeons & Dragons); however, I am torn on this. The following polls are designed to help me decide what to do about documentation for players, and while not binding they will be given much consideration. To explain the votes and your options:
In the "Yea or Nay" vote: Simple yes/no. If I should not be stepping on players toes, and we should wait for another Glorfindel to write an indepth review of combat as it now exists, you should vote for the "No" option. If I should write something (please dear God, anything!) that players can see and review in order to get a better feel for Darke's combat system, pick the "Yes" option. I've helpfully labelled them something other than "yes" and "no" in order to confuse and deter you.
For the "Factors shown" vote: By "factors" I'm talking about what effect things like body position have on to hit chance and to dodge chance. Pick as many as you think are a good idea. Examples (Disclaimer - The information provided below is not guaranteed accurate, and may in fact be purposefully wrong):
In-Character - "While rolling around wrestling can be a fine way to test the mettle in combat, it is generally detrimental to one's ability to dodge."
Generic - "Standing is the best position for dodging the blows of an adversary."
Moderate - "If dodging is of interest, avoid sitting or falling flat on your back during fights, though if standing is just impossible kneeling may be your best bet."
All - "The best posisitons that will improve your dodge chance are ordered decendingly as follows: standing, kneeling, sitting, prostrate."
For the "Modifiers" vote: By "modifiers" I mean raw numbers. Examples (Disclaimer - The information provided below is not guaranteed accurate, and may in fact be purposefully wrong):
In-Character - The negative effects of fighting many opponents at once can be dramatic!
Generic - Most people are best off fighting fewer than five opponents, though some particularly skilled combatants may revel in the challenge of facing more.
Moderate - Armour is up to 10% less useful when fighting multiple enemies, while the difficulty in making successful defense skill rolls can go up to 25% or higher than against one opponent.
All - Each opponent after the first will reduce armour's protectiveness by 2%, while defensive skill effectiveness loss ranges from 1-4% for each foe engaged beyond the second.
In general, I am leaning toward writing a player's guide to combat and using a mixture of in-character and generic information for both factors and modifiers. Again, I appreciate your participation and feedback, so please address your response directly to me and respect anything other players may post by not challenging them on it. Feel free to flame/yell/cry at me.
|
Cerberus
|
| (addict) |
| 06/26/08 08:52 AM |
|
|
|
Re: New Combat Testing
|
One of the changes that will in all likelihood be most obvious about new combat is that skill and stat modifiers are turned back on. This means that a crit hit can reduce or increase any skills or stats by set amounts for a certain amount of time.
For all you old timers who remember the days of snowball-disruption crits this won't be anything new. It is my hope that this will change the view of power standings for damage types, allowing more varied weapon builds.
| **DONOTDELETE** |
| () |
| 07/14/08 04:20 AM |
|
Re: New Combat Testing
|
"Crit XP vs Hit XP - Is this recognizable? Does it seem acceptable? Is there something that should give more/less xp, etc"
1. Severing crits should give as much XP as they do actual damage to NPC. (For now it's nothing usually)
2. I suggest, to filter criticals that can't affect NPC. For example, if NPC has no hands (severed hands), then no critical that affects hands should happen.
|
Cerberus
|
| (addict) |
| 07/14/08 07:40 AM |
|
|
|
Re: New Combat Testing
|
Combat changed over yesterday.
1) Severing crits give xp in the range somewhere between all and none of the damage actually dealt in order to sever that limb.
2) I'll not be rewriting the crit handler for this, though I agree with the sentiment and would recommend (if anyone does rewrite crit handling) that they also make it such that a hit to the unprotected feet does not cause the severing of a highly protected other limb in most cases.
|
Cerberus
|
| (addict) |
| 07/15/08 12:50 PM |
|
|
|
Re: New Combat Testing
|
I've heard through the grape vine that experience gain in general is too high, and hasted xp gain is still vastly greater than non-hasted. Anyone care to contribute to those thoughts? I'd be happy to modify xp gain, both hasted and non.
| Rancid |
| (newbie) |
| 07/17/08 07:59 AM |
|
Re: New Combat Testing
|
I tried to give input on test about the changes to combat. In its current inception, basically doing combat that takes a long time to kill is out and basically a waste of time. For instance, if I try to fight gatekeepers in vo with MA I loose all fps after 1 1/2 gatekeepers. This should be similar to doing combat with a non-IK exp weapon. I have to rest on a healing rune and regenerate all fps 4 times in order to clear out saak. For MA it is virtually impossible to cycle combat anymore. I give up on this character. I hope this offers some insight to anyone wanting to make a weapon that does not do IKs. If you do not kill very fast you will loose your fps insanely fast and its virtually impossible to cycle combat. I was told "there is a potential fix to this problem for MA users; but, it will not be coded by the powers that be."
Good luck.
Rancid.
| **DONOTDELETE** |
| () |
| 07/17/08 08:15 AM |
|
Re: New Combat Testing
|
Just to add to Rancid's post we found that MA damage is reduced so it is completely ineffective against TAed laen. While I can understand pure melee being uneffective against armored opponents MA is supposed to be must more advanced skill.
Actually, it is not only TAed laen... I had to remove everything (forted robe, cloak, etc) before I started getting hurt (I was spelled up though). It appears as if MA simply does not kick in, just regular melee is in effect.
|
Cerberus
|
| (addict) |
| 07/17/08 09:45 AM |
|
|
|
Re: New Combat Testing
|
There are bugs with martial arts and hasted experience gain.
The way that martial arts will work following the bug fix:
Every weapon class (damage type) of every hit of every round of combat gives a chance for that weapon class (and all subsequent weapon classes for that round) to equal or exceed the armor class of an opponent who is more heavily armored than the martial arts user's weapon class for that damage type. To be more clear, right now you may see messages saying things like "Like the crashing wave your blow flows through sword-demon." - these are the pseudo-critical effects that will effectively cause whatever the martial arts user's weapon class to meet or exceed the armor of their foe. Currently it is only having an effect for one damage type per round, which is not the intent and is the bug causing poor performance against armored opponents. The intent is that a martial arts user will be able to adequately fight and wound a foe in any amount of armor.
The way hasted experience will work following the bug fix:
Experience gained will be the BEST out of all hits in that round of combat, rather than the TOTAL of all hits in that round of combat. This should cause haste users to see a drastic drop in their experience gain. The intent is that users of haste will gain only slightly more experience than users without haste by being given the most possible experience a non-hasted user could have gained from that round. This could potentially harm hasted experience gain by reducing the amount of hit points available to give experience from a single mob, causing them to need to kill more mobs in the same amount of time.
This is open to suggestion and discussion. Current options:
- Additional attacks in a single round give a small percentage bonus to final experience gain for the round.
- Tally all experience for the round and divide by the number of attacks (averaging rather than best of)
| Kim |
| (enthusiast) |
| 07/18/08 09:42 AM |
|
|
|
Re: New Combat Testing
|
"For MA it is virtually impossible to cycle combat anymore."
The FP thing is because the reduced FP cost for fighters have been removed, essentially making fighters able to fight half as much as before. Fairly heavy nerfing, oy. Nothing to do with MA in itself. A quick test shows the same for me with regards to FPs.
"The intent is that a martial arts user of comparable skill will be able to adequately fight and wound a foe in any amount of armor."
What is "comparable skill"? Comparable to what?
|
Cerberus
|
| (addict) |
| 07/18/08 11:13 AM |
|
|
|
Re: New Combat Testing
|
Originally Posted By: Kim
"For MA it is virtually impossible to cycle combat anymore."
The FP thing is because the reduced FP cost for fighters have been removed, essentially making fighters able to fight half as much as before. Fairly heavy nerfing, oy. Nothing to do with MA in itself. A quick test shows the same for me with regards to FPs.
The FP thing is because the reduced FP cost for fighters have been removed, essentially making fighters able to fight half as much as before. Fairly heavy nerfing, oy. Nothing to do with MA in itself. A quick test shows the same for me with regards to FPs.
Originally Posted By: Kim
"The intent is that a martial arts user of comparable skill will be able to adequately fight and wound a foe in any amount of armor."
What is "comparable skill"? Comparable to what?
What is "comparable skill"? Comparable to what?
| Muod |
| (member) |
| 07/19/08 08:37 AM |
|
|
|
Re: New Combat Testing
|
I noticed the same thing with my fighter, I went from a slow loss of FP to insanely fast, maybe got in 5 minutes of fighting before having to rest. and getting a skill to reduce fp cost would be great if the skill wasn't overly expensive because fighters already have a ton of skills to train. Also fighters should have the option to limit the number of attacks they get a round so they don't run out of fp quick.
| Kim |
| (enthusiast) |
| 07/19/08 07:30 PM |
|
|
|
Re: New Combat Testing
|
"Fighters (had/have/will have) a skill that reduces the FP cost of attacks. Currently everyone pays the same amount of FP for a single swing."
Fighters have one. It doesn't work, and it is too expensive. Not made a final judgement yet, but with some experience (Getting 40+ C as a Paladin, Tinker, Nightblade and Fighter), this is quite detrimental to fighters. Let's not forget what metabolism spells do (more attack than fighters, and increased FP gain).
Of course, fighters have target limb and disarm, so always wins anyway.