Combat Impairment

[LadyV]

I can assure I am not trolling with my suggestions. Im actually rather curious why some find them so bad. We have so many armors and weapons and most go unused. If your armor affects say archery would not not choose a armor that did not? Would you chase forever if your armor was slowing you down? Would you chase after the guy on foot in a swamp with your horse if it kept getting stuck in soft mud?

I'm not trying to suck fun out of the combat system but rather add new opportunities. Think about it a pure archer character in light armor could be devastating. A heavy armed warrior on horse could be unstoppable in some cases. As I have always said we need limitations in order to have diversity. Else we go right back to one armor one weapon gank sqauds and silly chases. Everyone gets bored after a month, raids now and then, and they all come back before world end.

Take a chance and do something different. Take a limitation and overcome it or work with it. Use your brain for a change instead of oh I max this out so I know Ill win. Think of the stealth opportunities strike quick and retreat into the night. Fight your battle in favorable terrain. Outlast an opponent who chose poorly to match up with you. I think it would add much flavor to a system in need of it.

[Hasta]

I think even when not considering the helmet the idea is fair with respect to night time vision impairment as well. Rather than aggroing a player turning you around why should you not be facing them in order to attack?

Because this is not Mortal Online? Level of realism as high as suggested will only bring problems and complications, not solving anything and not adding any "fun", rather annoy most of players.

The thing OP calls "agro" (the act of entering combat with another player) has nothing to do (and should have nothing to do) with actual ability to attack. "Agro" is a statement, not an action. The fact that I'm not able to see my foe clearly won't suddenly make me lose interest in gutting him (and break combat). If the suggestion was "to impair the ability to attack" somehow, that would be plausible and implementable. But initiating combat, being a declaration of intentions to attack, should not, again, be conditional (except for current, fairly long, range condition).

[Hasta]

Think about it a pure archer character in light armor could be devastating. A heavy armed warrior on horse could be unstoppable in some cases. As I have always said we need limitations in order to have diversity. Else we go right back to one armor one weapon gank sqauds and silly chases. Everyone gets bored after a month, raids now and then, and they all come back before world end.

Take a chance and do something different. Take a limitation and overcome it or work with it. Use your brain for a change instead of oh I max this out so I know Ill win. Think of the stealth opportunities strike quick and retreat into the night. Fight your battle in favorable terrain. Outlast an opponent who chose poorly to match up with you. I think it would add much flavor to a system in need of it.

And how many years would that take to develop and implement, then re-balance it over and over and over, fighting bugs and exploits all along the way?
That's a nice and inspired dream, but a very, very unrealistic suggestion.

And, then again, do remember that most of PvP-oriented players even with current system tend to use scripts, altered UI and a whole bunch of other stuff customizable clients allow. Add the necessity of these implementations, in order to be fair for all players, to be completely script-proof.

[LadyV]

The thing OP calls "agro" (the act of entering combat with another player) has nothing to do (and should have nothing to do) with actual ability to attack. "Agro" is a statement, not an action. The fact that I'm not able to see my foe clearly won't suddenly make me lose interest in gutting him (and break combat). If the suggestion was "to impair the ability to attack" somehow, that would be plausible and implementable. But initiating combat, being a declaration of intentions to attack, should not, again, be conditional (except for current, fairly long, range condition).

No you are not correct. Losing someone into darkness most certainly breaks combat. It may not stop you from searching but it does break combat at least for a time.

[LadyV]

And how many years would that take to develop and implement, then re-balance it over and over and over, fighting bugs and exploits all along the way?
That's a nice and inspired dream, but a very, very unrealistic suggestion.

Eternal alpha! Considering how fast they rewrote the base game and added new things I would say it would not be as long as you think.

[Hasta]

No you are not correct. Losing someone into darkness most certainly breaks combat. It may not stop you from searching but it does break combat at least for a time.

Would be viable, if "entering combat" and "leaving combat" happened automatically under some specified conditions.

[Archiplex]

What if there was no "aggro" and "deaggro'd" status, and you could use attacks on others freely- but instead combat being active was determined somewhat like the heat intensity system we used to have?

[Granger]

How to know if you're in combat (or not) and with what avatar?

[Archiplex]

How to know if you're in combat (or not) and with what avatar?

You 'target' people per skill, rather than per action essentially.
Targeting should simply be done with the "attack" action, placing your focus on whooever you click- switching it will switch to others

Of course a more freeform system would call for a lot more changes, so probably not possible with how they are already nearly done with their own changes

[Granger]

To clarify: the first thing someone will notice when you attack should be the damage you deal?