Weapons/combat

[Lothaudus]

What would be reasonable?

100 should be able to hit 300 and 300 should be able to hit 500. though 100 should probably not have very good odds of hitting 500 it shouldn't be impossible. Something like, 1/5.

I agree with that. Someone who has 300 vs someone with 500 should on a fairly simple level be 300 + 500 = 800; 300 / 800 = 37.5% base chance to hit (with manouvers modifying that) for the one with 300, 62.5% chance for the 500 player to hit the 300. Two people who are evenly matched at 100 vs 100 should each have a 50% chance of hitting each other (anyone could win the fight; statistically even). Slight issue around those who have 10 vs 500 but then again stats are fairly easy to raise up through those lower ranks and someone with 10 getting attacked by the 500 should expect to die.

On a simple level, someone who's twice as good as someone else should be twice as hard to hit. How those numbers are actually derived can be up for grabs.

Like the ideas of groups making a difference.

Indeed, That test server would come in real handy once you fire this up.

You don't say?

Aren't we playing on the test server already?

[Chakravanti]

You didn't read loftar's post. THey're not not using random elements.

And as to a 'test' server yes we and an INVESTED test server. Testing a new combat system in a permadeath arena is not ideal. Particularity when you stop to consider how many bugs we usually have to work out of ever minor update. IMNSHO

[kedrigh]

combat stuff

while i do love me some tactical combat, a system favoring player over character skill and quantity over quality in a grind-intensive game with quasi-permadeath sounds like a really really bad idea.

[sabinati]

really? you think a guy with high enough skill can take on 10 guys?

[Jackard]

combat stuff

while i do love me some tactical combat, a system favoring player over character skill and quantity over quality in a grind-intensive game with quasi-permadeath sounds like a really really bad idea.

you know nothing, jon snow

[Avu]

hahahaha ASoIaF reference.

[kedrigh]

really? you think a guy with high enough skill can take on 10 guys?

don't know, don't care, but the whole klaue business sure makes it sound as if.
the point is, the new system sounds as if two to four zero investment alts would be able to take down anyone they want, and regardless of what's wrong or isn't with the current system, that is not a good thing.

[sabinati]

currently, klaue could probably fight everyone and win. under the new system, i'm thinking it would be a lot harder for him.

i don't really think that a group of zero investment alts should be able to take down a high level player though, and hopefully the new system will be balanced enough that it wouldn't be so abusable.

[Jackard]

Explain how they would be "zero investment alts" when they would still require combat training and equipment.

[g1real]

The formula for fighting multiple targets should be something like...

skill/(enemies fought^1.5)*2 = real skill used fighting

1v2: 706 UARMD
1v3: 385 UARMD
1v4: 250 UARMD
1v5: 180 UARMD

But I'm sure you dont like me making up formulas for the game.