Combat Skill level caps.

0racle · Post by **0racle** » Sat Oct 30, 2010 11:50 am

combat skills can be boosted so high its almost unreasonable. and in any minor form of realism you cant punch a bear and kill it.
nor should an unarmed person be able to survive a direct stab of a curved sword with no armor.

i believe that marksmanship, melee, and unarmed should cap at 200.
it would make battles more realistic, and armor and weapon workmanship would be all the more important.

just an idea.
not everyone can be like Chuck Norris.

ElGato · Post by **ElGato** » Sat Oct 30, 2010 12:47 pm

0racle wrote:not everyone can be like Chuck Norris.

maybe not in your village

Jackard · Post by **Jackard** » Sat Oct 30, 2010 1:31 pm

0racle wrote:i believe that marksmanship, melee, and unarmed should cap at 200.
it would make battles more realistic, and armor and weapon workmanship would be all the more important.

By what reasoning did you arrive at such a nice, round, arbitrary-sounding number?

Wolfang · Post by **Wolfang** » Sat Oct 30, 2010 1:43 pm

After srs calculation and science.

aso11 · Post by **aso11** » Sat Oct 30, 2010 2:07 pm

If you cap combat levels and focus on "armor and weapon workmanship", what of UA? UA is just that. UN.ARMED. No weapons.

0racle · Post by **0racle** » Sat Oct 30, 2010 6:07 pm

Jackard wrote:
0racle wrote:i believe that marksmanship, melee, and unarmed should cap at 200.
it would make battles more realistic, and armor and weapon workmanship would be all the more important.
By what reasoning did you arrive at such a nice, round, arbitrary-sounding number?

100 seemed too small and 300 seemed too big.

0racle · Post by **0racle** » Sat Oct 30, 2010 6:08 pm

aso11 wrote:If you cap combat levels and focus on "armor and weapon workmanship", what of UA? UA is just that. UN.ARMED. No weapons.

unarmed can still have armor and strangling is nice.

and 200 comat skill in unarmed is enough to cause serious damage.

DatOneGuy · Post by **DatOneGuy** » Sat Oct 30, 2010 6:12 pm

1)No, screw you.

2)Use the search button.

0racle · Post by **0racle** » Sat Oct 30, 2010 6:18 pm

DatOneGuy wrote:1)No, screw you.

2)Use the search button.

1) thats rude

2) i did but wasnt able to find anything, may have been in the wrong section"but pretty sure not much was there."

rye130 · Post by **rye130** » Sat Oct 30, 2010 6:28 pm

0racle wrote:
Jackard wrote:
0racle wrote:i believe that marksmanship, melee, and unarmed should cap at 200.
it would make battles more realistic, and armor and weapon workmanship would be all the more important.
By what reasoning did you arrive at such a nice, round, arbitrary-sounding number?

100 seemed too small and 300 seemed too big.

The problem is your perception of size is not the same as everyone else's. A begineer will be like "100, wtf that'd take forever and is way too leet!" and a veteran will be like "Bitch please, my paving alt has 300 mm!"

No need to add numbers to this thing, just say add caps.

Combat Skill level caps.

Combat Skill level caps.

Re: Combat Skill level caps.

Re: Combat Skill level caps.

Re: Combat Skill level caps.

Re: Combat Skill level caps.

Re: Combat Skill level caps.

Re: Combat Skill level caps.

Re: Combat Skill level caps.

Re: Combat Skill level caps.

Re: Combat Skill level caps.