Give Unarmed Combat and Melee Combat a cap..

[novaalpha]

How do you gain stealth?

No idea.

Definitely not by making buckets or digging soil, though.

[Potjeh]

Why not with curiosities, though?

[SeanPan]

You would gain stealth by wearing your brother's Nettle Pants without him knowing.

[Jackard]

you would gain stealth by wearing your sisters

Hard capping is pointless. You have just given grinders a goal to hit, and then they will go to max out something next else; failing that, they will complain for the lack of endgame goals to accomplish. Some player types are Achievers, and there's nothing wrong with that if handled well.

Decreasing returns are by far the best idea, I feel. It should never be hard-capped, and if someone wants to put in an additional 150 hours for a marginal improvement in combat ability, then both the Achiever's need to maximize power as well as the overall balance of the game are brought in line.

Big numbers do make people feel better, but to take an example from another game...it would take approximately six months to get from basic combat skills to 80s combat skills, to which a player could consider himself to be a reasonable warrior. To get to 100s combat skills would take a player yet another six months - but two players working in tadem with 80s could be able to seriously harm the 100s player, and three would most likely kill him. And for someone to get to 110 combat skills, it would take him yet ANOTHER six months. And five players in the 80s would kill make him run for mommy.

Yet, of course, in a fair duel, the 100s would cream the 80s combat skill; the 110 player would most likely be able to count himself as winning against a 100 player. Such "uber" Champions like that end up having their role, for morale and for certain important roles, without dominating everyone. And they have adequate fear of dying, and losing all their skill and the 18 month investment. Wars end up being decided by groups, not superheroes. Groups may sometimes be led by a superhero, but the tribe always matters more to the outcome than the champion.

completely laughable. "surely increasing the power margin and investment time would discourage macroing instead of enshrining it!!"

[SeanPan]

you would gain stealth by wearing your sisters

completely laughable. "surely increasing the power margin and investment time would discourage macroing instead of enshrining it!!"

An oversimplification. It would not discourage it, and that was not my point; I did not like macroing, but I felt that something should still be permitted for Achiever/Killer players. However, if 400 hours of macroing will only improve performance by 5%, then it is essentially just letting them macro endlessly for no real point, nicely destroying their dynamic while still seducing them into the endless spiral.

I thought I had clarified this before. Thus the point of diminishing returns - the harder they grind, the less they get. It simply doesn't invalidate them completely, but does make it a very unprofitable use of time.

I also write this from the perspective of actual experience and having seen it implemented well; if you make the returns diminish enough, it /does/ work. Everyone is happy: the most OCD of the grinder gets to feel that he is still improving, while everyone else gets to feel comfortable knowing that while the "uber" might win in 1 to 1, any consistent strategy will defeat him.

[Kinky]

Hard-capping it will just result in individuals endlessly whining that there's no more 'endgame' to continue to develop in.

Mey?

Let the macroers cry watching them cry hardcore over the bucket nerf is wicked fun

[Potjeh]

Yeah, if raising numbers is the end-game, you got some serious game design issues.

[Kinky]

Yeah, if raising numbers is the end-game, you got some serious game design issues.

I agree fully.


Call me crazy there should be a cut off point. Otherwise all you are doing is encouraging marcos.

The end game should be pvp , wars and plundering... along with city building and socializing (heck even throw role play in there).

Not grinding any skill to infinity.

[dra6o0n]

Unarmed and Melee combat should determine a bit less effectiveness on Animals, but against hearthling, it is even less. They are capped at 300 for balance purposes and we can incorporate other stuff so combat doesn't turn into one hit kills and boring warfare where one side is forced to range because they don't want to be touched.

Then a new style of attack "Counter".

Counter Moves works by relating to the opponent's own moves, in similar form of martial arts.

Unarmed can counter Melee users and even have a high requirement "disarm" skill, to knock and drop a opponent's weapon on the ground.
Palm Strike enables you to damage the target's SHP without touching their defense, means it bypasses their defense, but it does have specific requirements (you need to have enemy combat advantage that is greater than yours) and 6 initiative.

Melee users against other Melee users can use "Parry" Which will stop their next attack for a short duration and enables you to strike their defense at the same time, cost 10 initiative and requires low intensity.

Shield Users can counter by using a "Shield Bash" skill, which on hit, lowers defense and may stun your opponent for a short duration if they get hit directly. This require combat advantage on your end and will drop intensity to 0.

[dra6o0n]

Yeah, if raising numbers is the end-game, you got some serious game design issues.

I agree fully.


Call me crazy there should be a cut off point. Otherwise all you are doing is encouraging marcos.

The end game should be pvp , wars and plundering... along with city building and socializing (heck even throw role play in there).

Not grinding any skill to infinity.

Combat should be intuitive and fun, not mindless slaughtering. The devs should expand combat some more and nerf damage in general, so it turns into a matter of actual player strategy and skills.

Basically, end-game being nothing but high damage and one hit kills, it's like taking WoW and removing hp and defense.