Paper scissor stone dynamic

[MrCarb]

The coders here have been incredibly industrious, selfless and, at times, brilliant. I stopped playing for a long time and when i started again i noticed many changes that had never occured to me before, but seemed so obvious now. The only thing I really couldn't get behind was this paper-scissor-stone combat dynamic, and i'll try to tell you why.

In the old days, we may have had the option between dual wield, two handed weapon and weapon + shield, and thought something along these lines:

" Hrmm. My opponent does alot of damage, but has no saves. Therefore I want as much time as possible to try to land a maledictive spell or two, so I will use a mace and a shield to gain some extra defensive power"

or...

"Hrm. My opponent is low-dex race who is not using sanctuary. I will therefore sanc-up, dual wield my flails for maximum damage (and to overcome his strong parry) and trip the poor bastard to death."

etc, etc,

Now these are not complicated decisions, but there was some satisfaction in making them correctly on the fly. Now though, the thinking often goes...

"Hrm. My opponent is using a shield, therefore i will dual wield because the help file says 'dual wield > shield block'."

Basicaly, i think the paper-scissor-stone thing has introduced much complication but very little depth, while this game has always been about minimising the former and maximising the latter.

So what does everyone think? Yay or Nay?

[Davairus]

You're over-reacting a bit.

Its not hard to figure out which one is best to use. You just put the icon in your prompt. Then when it says "blade", you'll know to use a water cube and start up the uncanny. Simple. I'm sorry to hear it if you need help with that - I don't - but if it helps, nothing ethically wrong with making yourself an alias to do it. Its nowhere near as complicated as tick timers are to do. Perhaps you find it infuriating to play, in which case it'd be beneficial to pk'ing for you to just augment with script. Using aliases in pk's is nothing new.

As far as combat goes, its one of the smallest factors out there. Off the top of the head, there are four things that almost always make a difference in average long fight - sanc vs no sanc, vulnerabilities, equipment difference, and skill initiative. In that order. Whereas weapon advantages rarely affects any of that. Except when its required for some of the game's best skills, e.g. uncanny attack. When you consider how many other things influence a fight outcome, and how much they matter, it'd really be a mistake to percieve weapon adv as anything more than just an additional "edge" to attempt for, in every case where your skills didn't call for getting it...


Last but not least, its all blocked by weapon ward anyway so that's a bunch of guilds that shouldn't even have to worry about them beyond keeping a spell up.

[Groq]

I'm horrible at the new system.. very horrible. But I still think it's better than back when you quaff purple ran in and just slaughtered people. Makes things alot more interesting I think, you actually have to think in battle now.

[Erlwith]

I think less about thinking, more about reacting quickly.

[Burzuk]

[MrCarb]

Ok, yes, that's all fair. Judging by your post though davairus, i think you've missunderstood my objection due to my clumbsy writing. I do not think the new system is too complicated, i think it over-simplifies things and is just arbitrary . I would prefer a system where the thinking goes along the lines of 'i know A and B to be true, therefore I choose X tactics with that in mind', Rather than one where the help file tells you what's best for each situation (I am only talking about weapon type/combat style matchups here). And pointing out all the weaknesses of the old system doesn't really work as a defense for the paper-scissor-stone thing. If sanc potions were dominating then tone them down, if flails did not work as a strong offesnive weapon (which the help files said they did, and which would make sense) then make it so that they do.

I do not want to go back to the 'old days'. I like most of the changes being made, and I think all the isues you've made here were genuine problems that needed to be adressed. Nevertheless, i don't think a pokemon-esque combat dynamic is the right way to achieve that. It kind of feels like we're playing paper-scissor-stone where the winner is whoever can change hand shapes the fastest.

Of course, my 'old days' are not as old as your old days. Really I'm talking about the period shortly before this combat system was impelmented. (Now i'm just exposing my own inexperience again, which is not going to do me any favours...)

Anyway, there are only two 'no' votes, and one of those is me. The aim of the game is to please the players (and yourselves) and so a change that has this kind of popular support must be seen as an unqualified success.
I'm still not won over, however, and this remains just about the only new development that I would reverse.

Anyway; all i've succeeded in doing is winning unquestionable legitimacy for the new combat system by popular vote. You've got that atleast to thank me for.

[Davairus]

It isnt pokemon-esque. Pokemon is turn based, in AR its real time so you don't have time to just wield the right weapon.

AR requires strategy, it depends much on the non-combat actions of getting purples, putting a suit of eq together, deciding what tactics are you going to actually try out. This factor in combat on the other hand, is a more arcadey thing that involves a different type of playing skill, and you wont find a "real time" game that doesnt have that. Just look at starcraft with its micro. Does micro win battles in starcraft? Yes. Does it win the game? No. You can lose the game focusing too much on micro (which is what people are doing with weapon types and combat styles, right now). Yet people play starcraft instead of warcraft because it lets you handle that micro stuff yourself. Some people rock at the economy and just steamroll with zealots, others like to play the terrans and know how to use ghosts - 4 perfectly microed ghosts still dont beat 300 zealots, but with the proper support behind it, they're a worthy addition to get an "edge" with their thing that blows away protoss shield. And thats what a good pvp game is about. Having a variety of things and having the talent to know which is best for you to help you play to your strengths and cover your weaknesses. Perhaps this kind of character just isnt for you.

AR has a selection of classes so that if you dont like the way one plays you can pick another - look at a mage who blocks this completely with weapon ward, but if you arent prepared you're dead.

[Burzuk]

I don't think it's just necessarily about "fast" switching, since there are a number of skills that temporarily prevent switching -- dirt kicking, barrage, and so on. Davairus's analogy of in-combat "micromanagement" is essentially correct though, since AR's not just about steamrolling people with uber eq now (i.e. "macromanagement"). A good opponent can and will beat you if you don't use your equipment properly.

I think what you're saying is that you like the (many) changes in Combat Modules A/B overall (for example, the weapon overhauls, etc), but feel that the switching-related skills (hobble, overhead, uncanny attack, etc) are too much to handle. However, making the game more dynamic in this way was one of our clear goals from the start, and it will continue to be something you'll have to learn to do with any weapon-oriented class from now on. You can always play spellcasters if you'd prefer to prepare-and-forget (and quickly die if your preparations are even a bit off).