jorb wrote:Randomness is something we try to intentionally avoid. Having the outcome of a fight be determined by a one off critical hit is terrible.
Rexz wrote:jorb wrote:Randomness is something we try to intentionally avoid. Having the outcome of a fight be determined by a one off critical hit is terrible.
The difference in the range of damage done based on distance is still valid no? Please address the entirety of my suggestion :3
jorb wrote:Randomness is something we try to intentionally avoid. Having the outcome of a fight be determined by a one off critical hit is terrible.
shubla wrote:
I mean, if you are aiming for combat where the actual player's skills matter, not only his characters, then there will be randomness element added by the player himself (lag, how good day he has, does he guess correctly what he should do etc.), so does it really matter if part of this randomness is artificially added?
jorb wrote:DDDsDD999 wrote:Haven't played since this update because no one wants to play it. Valhalla is also impossible to test anything with because everything is completely unrealistic. But it was already the case that the non-targeted moves were only usable if your target was trying to run at you, don't see how go for the jugular on steroids changes it. This whole system of chaser has to use the targeted moves while the runner either counter-attacks the one person or gets dog-piled seems dumb, whether it works or not. And we can't really test if it does because of how bad valhalla is.
I don't really see any positives to trying to force this system to work this way. By forcing one side to deal with targeting, this combat system doesn't really make anything better than the current combat system.
Why is it one sided? The move is available to both sides if they want to use it. You also said this.
jorb wrote:I take it you're pretty down on the whole thing, and prefer the existing system entirely? Do we agree that the present system is bad? Doesn't it suck that it is just a stat check?
jorb wrote:One of my motivations here is that 1v1, especially as it pertains to PvE, is a completely braindead stat check. I would like that to not be the case, and I'm fairly certain that this system handles that better.
jorb wrote:Given how "no one" (your words) wants to test it under anything but real circumstances anyway, that may just be what we'll have to do. People have always been down on every new iteration of combat, so I'm not sure what weight to ascribe your theorizing.
jorb wrote:Does this system do anything actively worse than the presently running system? The result there right now would be pretty much the same, no?
jorb wrote:DDDsDD999 wrote:Haven't played since this update because no one wants to play it. Valhalla is also impossible to test anything with because everything is completely unrealistic. But it was already the case that the non-targeted moves were only usable if your target was trying to run at you, don't see how go for the jugular on steroids changes it. This whole system of chaser has to use the targeted moves while the runner either counter-attacks the one person or gets dog-piled seems dumb, whether it works or not. And we can't really test if it does because of how bad valhalla is.
I don't really see any positives to trying to force this system to work this way. By forcing one side to deal with targeting, this combat system doesn't really make anything better than the current combat system.
Why is it one sided? The move is available to both sides if they want to use it. You also said this.DDDsDD999 wrote:The system still just doesn't work, there's nothing to stop someone from just walking in the opposite direction from you because they feel like it.
I take it you're pretty down on the whole thing, and prefer the existing system entirely? Do we agree that the present system is bad? Doesn't it suck that it is just a stat check?
Sacraer wrote:the existing battle system is not stats check in mass battles and has never been. this is stupid only in 1x1 combat
jorb wrote:Rexz wrote:jorb wrote:Randomness is something we try to intentionally avoid. Having the outcome of a fight be determined by a one off critical hit is terrible.
The difference in the range of damage done based on distance is still valid no? Please address the entirety of my suggestion :3
I don't think it matters much how or when the randomness is applied. I don't want intentionally random elements in the combat system.
Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot], Python-Requests [Bot], Trendiction [Bot] and 68 guests