Injuries

[kralmir]

my objection is simple. i want the freedom to choose to repeatedly stab an "injured" person in the face and throath untill they stop being alive. that is a freedom and right this game values heavily. ask jorb himself.

[MagicManICT]

I haven't put as much thought into it as I would like to, and I was tired when I was writing it, also I think I rushed the end as I really needed to pee and wanted to finish it before getting ready for bed.

Type it up on your desktop first. You can copy/paste into a browser editor just as easily as you can between text files.

One more comment on injuries: How would you propose implementing injuries without completely reworking the entire combat system?

[ApocalypsePlease]

Scilly, instead of opening an argument with you, I request you read Jorb's thoughts on PvP, and see how this chance at "not dieing but being crutched" wouldn't fit in with Jorb's reasoning.

There is nothing wrong with your idea, it just doesn't fit in with the concepts and spirit of Haven and Hearth.

[Scilly_guy]

Yes I realise that is an option, I just find that its better to include other people in the early stages of an idea, if there IS some fundamental basic reason why an idea would not work that I have missed someone else might quickly point that out and save my time and theirs in that they don't have to read a massive post. I have seen several posts where people have written an essay going deep into their idea with complicated mechanics only to be shot down by something basic or no one has read it because its so huge.
I see the injuries working much like current buffs/debuffs/injuries (Thorn in the foot), each time you are KO'd you receive an appropriate injury, if an animal causes it you might get "Cuts and Bruises" which could reduce your Constitution, if a punch knocks you out you get a punch related injury, I don't see how it would need some rework of the combat system, SURE it might change how you fight in battle, if getting knocked out is going to give you a penalty.

My OP wasn't my idea set in stone, I was HOPING for criticism and debate.

my objection is simple. i want the freedom to choose to repeatedly stab an "injured" person in the face and throath untill they stop being alive. that is a freedom and right this game values heavily. ask jorb himself.

I have said that it'd only be someone with low UAC that MIGHT not kill someone when they attempted to, as you so rightly say, a clever person WOULD make sure they finished the job properly. ATM you can just KO people and take their stuff if you're feeling nice, wouldn't it give MORE freedom if you could KO them, take their stuff, AND injure them, if you weren't feeling as nice.

I'd happily agree that dead is dead, it was just the idea of logging in, thinking you were dead only to find out you were severely injured instead might be nice, I get that the reward for the victim is punishment for the person who is actually better at the game and who murdered them fairly. So I understand that this is a bit too radical, but that doesn't mean you have to object to injuries TOTALLY, what about injuries for a KO?

[Scilly_guy]

Scilly, instead of opening an argument with you, I request you read Jorb's thoughts on PvP, and see how this chance at "not dieing but being crutched" wouldn't fit in with Jorb's reasoning.

There is nothing wrong with your idea, it just doesn't fit in with the concepts and spirit of Haven and Hearth.

I had read that before but I had forgotten some of the content, thankyou for referencing me back to it. I think too much of my original idea came across as injuries being an alternative to death, as in my example Dragon Age, I do agree that they would not fit with Jorbs reasoning. I didn't intend my original idea to be the final product. I do not see that injuries occurring at KO wouldn't fit with what Jorb says, in fact, it would make a KOs something to fear even more.

[Snackified]

Fail.

I logged in just to reply to this.

You are the worst kind of poster, throwing around out-of context words without any backing as to why it's not a good idea. Do you really still think that saying things like "epic fail" is still edgy?

[Kaios]

Actually he's one of the few good posters the forum even has. The idea in its current state just doesn't suit the style of play most people enjoy in this game and isn't worth critiquing really, yet he did anyways.

Shutup man.

[ImAwesome]

Fail.

I logged in just to reply to this.

You are the worst kind of poster, throwing around out-of context words without any backing as to why it's not a good idea. Do you really still think that saying things like "epic fail" is still edgy?

I think what Kaios means is: Fail!

[MagicManICT]

Fail.

I logged in just to reply to this.

You are the worst kind of poster, throwing around out-of context words without any backing as to why it's not a good idea. Do you really still think that saying things like "epic fail" is still edgy?

Fail. What a noob.

[jorb]

A more detailed representation of health and injuries is something that I have considered, and I don't think it would be a bad idea as such. Contagious diseases that actually spread from player-to-player contact would, for example, be a whole bundle of fun. That being said It obviously cannot be *instead* of dying. It should if anything be precisely a way *to* die.