Prelude: World 14

[Hulex]

"CHARACTER & COMBAT

[*] Made it so that Hunger now decays by the cube root of the effect level, rather than the square of it, causing the more powerful levels (e.g. 300% modifier) to decay significantly slower, and the lower levels of effect (e.g. 50% modifier) to decay correspondingly faster. Aiming to push functional hunger levels away from guaranteed 300%.
[*] Nerfed Salt such that it works similarly to the pre-W14 hunger-level scaling: its efficacy decreases on more powerful hunger levels with the square of their power."

Related to this I would add:
1. If you stay too long at the last level of hunger (e.g. 300% modifier) there is a chance that you will die permanently.
With the possibility of death by not eating, inactive characters are also eliminated.
2. At this level, your statistics are halved, for example, you move slower, you are not as efficient.
You have 100% statistics when you are well fed, namely 0% hunger bonus.
3. Add something similar to the study desk to eat just so you don't die.
"Eat a sousage every 24h"

[ctopolon4]

1. bridges when? (slow swimming horses better than stupid crossroads "1/jump" everywhere)
2. all animal have ranged attack and can use cave entrance & house while in combat (have some brain) (regen if more than 15m in combat or cant reach target) (same for nidbanes)
3. pipe stuff Q matters? make "brandy" x10 better than wine
4. rework abandoning every curio credo quest (let us make few quests\credos at paralel)
5. stop randoming wrong season quests & show it as nearest every complited quest
6. make 27d cheeses better than 999 1d smoked sausages
7. make "minning song" double you minning str (ruin you totalFep bcause you have to mine = sucks)
8. make 21d hungry alts die (return overstuffed endless stamina)
9. separate study window for Pclaim & combat skills (not everyone have alts for everything)
10. naked alts have to long gathering rare resouces, so normal player could be on time at several places

p.s. look how bots & scout alts working and try to do someth with it https://twitch.tv/dolda2000

[ThorleifCleaver]

The PROBLEM is that PVP engagements are obnoxious under the current system. Why? As many here regularly point out, PVP engagements, especially in the context of sieges and/or raids, are largely going to be many vs. one. The system encourages this style of fight, and this style of fight then forces players into long, time-wasting chases where, rather than fighting, per se, players are required to exploit various little mechanics to gain distance and invariably flee, since many vs. one is, in this system, almost always a losing proposition.

I don't consider the running around and drinking itself to be a problem, save that the native client has no auto drink option (or has that changed?). In fact, running around seems entirely sensible to me--what fighting style doesn't encourage sticking and moving? No, the problem is not the emphasis on repositioning or gaining distance but rather being ganged up on and having no choice but to engage in long, idiotic marathons to either escape or otherwise deal with opponents.

A SOLUTION might be to add a set of "vows" to the combat tab that modify the character's own rules of engagement. Working something like the "murderous rage" state, a player may set a vow that, for instance, allows ONLY 1v1 combat with other players while also disallowing ranged, meaning that player can only engage and be engaged with one (1) other player character at a time, unable to switch targets or drop aggro until the other player ends combat. This vow would thus prevent being ganged up on but would also make the character less useful in larger brawls or as support. Conversely, a player could choose a vow that allowed for being engaged by multiple player characters at a cost of increased stamina consumption while imposing an effectiveness penalty on each opponent over 1. The idea for this vow would be to normalize the numbers difference (not stat difference), meaning that in a 2v1 fight the 2 opponents would be reduced to 75% effectiveness each, still maintaining an advantage, but at 5v1, the 5 would be at 15% or less. As opponents dropped off, the penalties would follow suit. The numbers would still have an advantage, since the survivors would renormalize, but it would make fighting groups far more viable. I can imagine quite a few vow variations that would help move combat away from the current, idiotic and boring paradigm.

A vow would be a semi-permanent state; it could only be changed, say, weekly. It would not in any way impact PVE, though similar vows might be fun there as well.

An indirect BENEFIT to this might be to encourage and develop ranged combat in PVP. Ranged had some limited uses under the old system (though a bug had something do with at least part of that), but an indirect consequence of characters who can only engage and be engaged with a single opponent in melee would be the rise of supporting archers who could snipe to assist. Again, positioning would matter, as would vows related to ranged.

A related PROBLEM is that being able to gang up and thus leading to hours-long "fights" discourages any fighting at all, especially in situations like sieging that, in another game, might result in fun, large-scale battles.

A potential SOLUTION might involve analogues to war flags that change the conditions of battle either on a vclaim or in a province/large area. These flags would need to be built on a vclaim, meaning they would be part of the defender's kit, and would designate for a window of time a set of positive and negative rules for any engagement. For instance, one flag might disallow death while allowing full, scent-free character looting (and lengthening the hearth home timer now). Another might allow only 1v1 combat while disallowing anyone engaged in combat from leaving the designated area while engaged in combat. Yet another might disallow rawhide and horse whisperer, allowing for mounted combat on the claim. Yet another might enforce 1v1 combat while on-claim, but prevent any opponent that runs off-claim during combat from reentering the claim for several days.

I find ruleset variations like this vastly more interesting that the siege chess as it stands. Giving the defender the ability to designate the rules of engagement a bit would actively encourage more direct conflict. A single defender might choose to sally forth and fight even several attackers if he or she could ensure the fights would all be duels restricted to the claim, while a group composed of many weaker, newer players might choose to sally forth if they could take outright death off the table.

It seems to me in any kind of so-called "siege chess," tools like this should be part of the standard kit. They give the players agency and choice, and, in a game where stat differences matter so much, a sense of control over a system that can seem very unfair.

I'd be interested to hear any GOOD FAITH arguments against this. I'm sure they exist, though after thinking about it for a while I couldn't come up with any that were substantially worse than the current paradigm.

[VDZ]

Jorb and Loftar, I would suggest thinking of how to stop the tedious mechanics like that by for instance capping the daily stat gain and making it so that per real day you can get lets say 50 stats and thats it, in that way the amount of time people are spending making that food for themselves would accommodate the whole village and people would have time to do other things, exploring, fighting, whatever the hell else

just run this across data from previous words and you will see how true it is that as the game progressess and villages are more and more advances, people are actually producing more and more food and then they get so tired of that shit that they leave one by one because its just boring at some stage, capping that stat gain to some daily limit would just slow down the burnout

for sure some people would be like I want 500 stats a day but should this be a point ? this limit I mentioned could be somehow between 0 and top word stat divided by weather or whatever else, you would figure.

you are nerfing salt pretty much for that very reason, if there was a cap more casual people would be able to enjoy the fun parts of the game and also stay somehow competitive in the pvp for instance

that cap could also be somehow connected to the top stats on the server, to provide somewhat catchup mechanics that you were trying to implement for farming

Arbitrarily restricting stat gains for the top players does not fix the issue that being forced to stay at 300% for efficient eating is incredibly tedious and unfun, makes most foods worthless and makes eating a feel-bad experience unless you're eating optimally. The only real solution to this would be to make 100% the typical eating level (as the system is designed around) rather than 300%. There are various ways to go about that; the easiest would be to just remove 300% and 200%, though someone else suggested earlier to just have people start at 100% and disallow hunger decay in the 150%/200%/300% range from any means other than passively waiting. Whatever the devs do, people should not start at 300% and should not be able to stay at 300%.

(If devs insist on it being a catchup mechanic for players joining later, perhaps the starting hunger could increase over time, with day 1 characters starting at 100%, people starting X time into the world starting at 150%, after Y time creating a character results in starting with 200%, etc?)

[Sevenless]

a player may set a vow that, for instance, allows ONLY 1v1 combat with other players while also disallowing ranged, meaning that player can only engage and be engaged with one (1) other player character at a time, unable to switch targets or drop aggro until the other player ends combat. This vow would thus prevent being ganged up on but would also make the character less useful in larger brawls or as support.

I'm sure that wouldn't make a titan basically immortal and capable of walking through armies to knock out high value targets.

[VDZ]

a player may set a vow that, for instance, allows ONLY 1v1 combat with other players while also disallowing ranged, meaning that player can only engage and be engaged with one (1) other player character at a time, unable to switch targets or drop aggro until the other player ends combat. This vow would thus prevent being ganged up on but would also make the character less useful in larger brawls or as support.

I'm sure that wouldn't make a titan basically immortal and capable of walking through armies to knock out high value targets.

On an unrelated note, the doomsday camera ('eye of sauron stream') just went down.

[ThorleifCleaver]

a player may set a vow that, for instance, allows ONLY 1v1 combat with other players while also disallowing ranged, meaning that player can only engage and be engaged with one (1) other player character at a time, unable to switch targets or drop aggro until the other player ends combat. This vow would thus prevent being ganged up on but would also make the character less useful in larger brawls or as support.

I'm sure that wouldn't make a titan basically immortal and capable of walking through armies to knock out high value targets.

Would it? What it would do is make said titan (the existence of which is a separate problem) capable of being effectively taken out of the fight by anyone willing to give them the runaround OR capable of being dealt with via archers. I only meant that ranged would be disallowed on the character with the vow; others could still snipe. If anything, I'd say the main issue would be gangs of archers targeting those with this particular vow, but getting ganged up on is still getting ganged up on. Since your argument is about the role of a titan in an army, I must disagree.

[Kittenykat]

CHARACTER & COMBAT
--------------

• Made it so that Hunger now decays by the cube root of the effect level, rather than the square of it, causing the more powerful levels (e.g. 300% modifier) to decay significantly slower, and the lower levels of effect (e.g. 50% modifier) to decay correspondingly faster. Aiming to push functional hunger levels away from guaranteed 300%.
• Nerfed Salt such that it works similarly to the pre-W14 hunger-level scaling: its efficacy decreases on more powerful hunger levels with the square of their power.
• Reduced armor penetration of Hirdsman's Sword from 12.5 to 7.5%. Aiming to restore a bit of the B12 combat meta.

lmao another world another hunger nerf. Hey you forgot to make pepper shittier again for no good reason while you were at it.

[Darruin]

I'm really excited for the new world. Been looking forward to this for ages.

[stickman]

MY COMBAT SUGGESTIONS

1. Make so that all attacks deal at least some damage but reduce the max damage of all attacks... so they would have a range like punch might be 2-10 so you would always start by hitting 2s
2. Alter armor so that it doesn't hard block all damage... instead you could have different armor peices reduce different color attacks... so cleave would be a blue/red attack... certain types of armor could have red/blue defense atttributes... example:

Plate Greeves... Q250
red 100
green 80
blue 50
yellow 20

Cutthroat q250
red 30
green 50
blue 60
yellow 100

stuff like that.. so cutthoat would be best against sweeping attacks maybe and plate would be best against oppressively attacks. when you get hit it would look at a factor of things... like the attack type... the opening... how much armor you have for the color of the attack.... would make certain armors more effective against certain attack types or animals. if everyones using cleave then use plate... if everyones wearing plate then use attacks that plate is not good at blocking like yellow ones or something

3. Make so that defensive maneuvers clear almost all of the opening.... I think combat would be much more interesting if you took damage on every hit (but a small amount) so it wasn't worth it to constantly spam defensive measures... instead only when you started taking significant damage would you use a defensive maneuver and that one use would reset it back to near 0. if you had multiple opponents attacking you and they were all spamming flex then you could easily counter them by just using sidestep ONCE... Im hoping this would reduce everyone having the same combat deck as 3 guys all hitting you with the same color is more easily countered.
4. remove initiative points... instead make attacks require minimum openings... like... to cleave requires X% blue X% red opened up on the opponent. all weapon based attacks would either have minimum openings required to use them or have lower damage.. like sideswipe and quick barrage would have to have their damage reduced
5. reduce the amount of hard damage taken in combat. my change would have you take damage with every attack so it would be important that you arn't taking hard damage with every attack. im thinking most unarmed attacks would deal zero hard damage unless above a certain opening threshold and only attacks that require minimum openings to perform would actually inflict hard damage regularly.



How i imagine combat would look like with 2 players... A and B

A attacks B with left hook... deals 3 damage opens up 15% blue
A attacks B with left hook... deals 5 damage opens up to 25% blue
A attacks B with left hook... deals 6 damage opens up to 30% blue
A attacks B with punch.. deals 2 damage opens up 15 % green
A attack B with punch... deals 3 damage and opens up to 20% green
A attacks B with String... which requires 30% blue and 20% green openings in order to use...
now... player B... has a decision.. if he continues just attacking A he opens himself up to being stung again and again as player A has met the minimum requirement for it... he could also use sidestep.. which in my case i want to almost completely remove of the opening.. so like maybe 80% of it? and a move like artful would in do like 40-50% each.


what do you think?