Speeds and armor

[Swift]

I don't think that, for our world and our community, it is something that needs implementing. This would not be the first time I have said this.

10 years.

10 years this community has gone through without ever being worried about this. As someone said earlier in the thread, it's only really when players are not having as much fun that we discuss topics like this.

But this I all just going in circles. I'd rather additions that increase the fun of players rather than additions that are put in for the sake of looking like we are doing something.

I do not see this idea as having any merit whatsoever, nor will it add anything at all to the game. That's it for me.

[mogonk]

I do not see this idea as having any merit whatsoever, nor will it add anything at all to the game.

Well, an attempt at balancing armor types would add balance to the game. That's evident. I think what you mean is that it doesn't add anything you care about to the game.

I don't think an objection to modifying armors that is essentially "it doesn't matter if they're balanced or not, we're all having fun" carries much weight.

our time would be far better spent brainstorming possible compensation for those broken class issue

Make a thread. I will support it. You're creating a false dichotomy by expressing it as an either/or.

There is no duration: until end of combat. Makes for an awkward implementation. Also, the combat heartbeat script fires more than once per round and at different rates for different creatures.

You can put it in the general heartbeat, but that's not guaranteed to fire once per round either.

Good points. So what if we have the check on a pseudoheartbeat as zelknolf suggested, and give the effect a duration that is likely to extend for most combats, but not last long afterward. Say, 15 round/90 seconds.

Make it a Con check, not a Fort save. That way, it doesn't penalize low lvl characters, which is a bad idea, as pointed out earlier. Perhaps even a Str check OR a Con check, whichever is higher (there is precedent for checks of that type, such as rolling to resist knockdown). Make it rly low DC. Let's say 6 for heavy, 4 for medium, for the sake of discussion. You fail one save, fatigued, 2 saves, exhausted. Sitting around for just a little while after combat would alleviate the effect, and you could move on without having to actually rest.

An alternate approach would be to make the duration shorter (5 rounds), but make the DC higher (8-ish). This would create situations where characters got a "second wind" during combat, while also making it harder for anyone to totally eliminate the risk of fatigue occurring through buffs and whatnot.

Yet another alternate approach would be to make it a Str check AND a Con check, with fatigue only occurring if you fail both. Obviously, the DC should be higher than if it were just one check. This has the advantage of rewarding characters with Str and Con, instead of those who just max one of the two attributes. I think this one is my favorite.

An interesting side effect of this system is that there would actually be an incentive for heavy armor wearers to have decent dex. Someone with a dex of 12 who becomes fatigued in full plate will lose AC, someone with 14 dex won't. Even when fatigued, they are nimble enough to take advantage of the limited mobility they possess in the armor.

I believe the described script would address the balance concerns while avoiding the problems that have been described so far in this thread. Now sharpen your pointy sticks and start poking holes.

[Dorn]

I am so proud of my little thread

[t-ice]

While designing gamesystem rules is its own fun and all, let's not drift into the domain of the 3.5 grapple rules. While I'm sure the creator of those is very proud of the balance and function of his rules, the complexity overwhelmingly produces groans rather than excitement and fun from gamers.

Second the tech work involved. If someone knowledgeable in the scripting is willing to put up his hand to devote time to a complex system as this, then perhaps it might be worth discussing something like a check after every few seconds spent running in heavy armor, and then imposing penalties for a set amount of time.

Third, computations and the stability of the game. Every pseudoheartbeat and computation added into the base game system increases the load on everyone's systems, particularly the server, and increases the odds that the marvelous piece of programming perfection we run crashes down in the heat of things yet again. Computational complexity needs to have gameplay bang for the buck invested in increased load and crash odds.

So all in all, simpler solution = overwhelmingly better. If you really must penalize heavier armors, put something like -1 to damage in medium and -1 to damage and to hit in heavy. For both melee and ranged physical attacks. It makes sense, you can't so effectively put all your strength and skill to beating the crap out of someone when covered in metal all over. Encouraging fighter-classed archers to not wear full plate is nice. It roughly balances the intent of the PnP movement rules, there you can't get to beating people quite so quickly, here you couldn't beat them up quite so hard, meaning more time all in all to beat someone to pulp. And it's simple, no gaming around it, no extra hassle for DM sessions. I don't know how simple it would be to program, though.

What SHOULD be done, is tanks should actually take the indimidate skill and make use of taunt

Actually, how does taunt work currently in the game with ACR? In NWN2 it's a skill of it's own, which according to this doesn't gather aggro:

http://nwn2.wikia.com/wiki/Taunt

And in ALFA taunt skill is removed, far as I saw. So does intimidate work like the nwn2 taunt, and if it does, how do you get to use intimidate in this manner with the player client? I couldn't drag the intimidate skill icon to the quickbar for one.

If intimidate could be used to gather aggro, it would all in all be nice enough. One for fighters and barbarians for tanking more effectively than clerics.

Arguably, till a PC starts casting a spell they shouldn't obviously be a wizard however.

Imagine a group of PCs facing off a hostile adventurer party. What are the chances they wouldn't concentrate fire on the guy in the robes first? Arguably, a cunning player or DM could take advantage of this in-world fact in PnP , but on the NWN2 engine

[Veilan]

I agree that an on heartbeat script solution is too unwieldy to fly, at least in my opinion.

Something simple and elegant would be looked for.
The direction of the penalties seems a better shot (but I for instance believe that AB is more important than damage, since AB ties to your special attacks and procs, so something like -1/-1 and -1/-0 would be better, or maybe just -2 and -1 AB as the tower shield parallel), but in my mind the idea market is wide open. I agree with Swift on one point: There is no sudden need for haste, and we can think and ponderly properly to find a good solution.

Cheers,

[Regalis]

There are at least 3 threads I can cite where Obsidian tells you not to use recursive delays (AKA pseudoheartbeats) with NWN2.

Above and beyond being monstrously inefficient, they just don't work right. When used for complex logic, they tend to execute a finite number of times before quietly aborting for no reason.

There are just too many problems with any approach along these lines. The engine isn't setup for it. The engine is going to treat it like a spell effect. The penalty will be "cured" by things it shouldn't be, resisted by things it shouldn't be, and potentially overwrite things it shouldn't. Avoiding the unintended consequences would require far too many resources both computational and human.

Placing things in PC or module heartbeat scripts is the least desirable form of implementation.

--

I don't really see the problem with modifying the speed. None of the arguments against it have been all that convincing.

The fact that other options are lost in the video game format? The engine so cruelly denies the ability of our beefy high-str/high-con/low-dex full plate wearers to engage in their well documented, natural defensive strategy of climbing trees, in full platemail with their 300lbs packs.

Oh, wait.

Actually, the absence of being able to exploit terrain is yet another handicap that disproportionately adversely affects lighter armored characters.

--

The real objection to the speed thing is it will kill characters.

ALFA's comical. In the survey about permadeath, I think every single person said they wouldn't play ALFA without permadeath.

There are no ambushes. There is no flanking. You're never cut off from escape routes. You can choose whether or not to engage foes. NPCs never actually block the roads, since you can just go back the way you came and walk down the road again without triggering an encounter next time. NPC capabilities are painfully consistent and predictable.

Oh look, it's an orc. I know exactly what it's AC, HP, and attack bonuses are. Never, oh look, it's a human brigand. I wonder if it's a level 1 fighter or a level 6 rogue.

But when confronted with a change that would heighten the realism and permadeath aspect of the server, there is no small degree of opposition. I mean, it's not really fair to make such a change. Combat can be fast paced and chaotic--highly undesirable in light of ALFA's pillars--and doesn't afford us the ability to run the numbers and min-max our options every round, like in PnP. And it would kill our characters.

But absolutely, to the last [wo]man, we can say that we would not play ALFA without permadeath.

The point of permadeath, one would think, is to make things intense and challenging. So what's the point of a permadeath server where you go out of your way to remove all challenge and intensity and replace it with painful predictability and nerf weaponry?

We fully support permadeath, as long as it's structured in such a way that the risk to our characters is negligible, outside of DM events, past level 3.

So instead why don't we add a -1 AB penalty and call it even?

Lulz.

[t-ice]

We fully support permadeath, as long as it's structured in such a way that the risk to our characters is negligible, outside of DM events, past level 3.

Exactly. DM events is the key and the gold standard. No-one wants automatic scripts to generate random death to PCs people have dedicated time and creative effort to. This isn't NetHack with a touch of RP depth. At least not for me, and this is the point the majority so sarcastically despised support, I daresay. The land isn't supposed to be unpredictable and deadly for PCs to wander, without them pursuing some worthwhile story and challenge, also known as a DM event. All other content is far secondary to how speed modifications work in a DM event. And modifying speeds will only generate stupendous AoO combat scenes with all monsters having speed above/below that of heavy/light PCs, as Zelknolf attested to with his experience. Or it will generate possibility for AI abuse in the line of the lvl1 barbarian farming giants.

If you want to modify speeds, start with the monsters. You can't outrun a dire wolf (nor the overwhelming majority of things in SRD), no matter what you wear.

[Blindhamsterman]

without them pursuing some worthwhile story and challenge, also known as a DM event.

so the PCs that rarely if ever see DM time suddenly never have a worthwhile story or challenge to pursue?

Sorry, I just think the above statement is too broad... and also agree with Regalis, that for the most part, some of the servers are too safe.

On the other hand, on the topic of speeds, I do prefer some kind of solution that doesn't effect speed, the simple penalty to AB or Damage is the easiest so far, on the other hand, it's probably enough to make most simply forgo heavy armour, which isn't the aim either

[Regalis]

No-one wants automatic scripts to generate random death to PCs people have dedicated time and creative effort to. ... The land isn't supposed to be unpredictable and deadly for PCs to wander, without them pursuing some worthwhile story and challenge, also known as a DM event.

Right.

This is the talking out of both sides of the mouth part that I get confused about.

ALFA is super serious, hardcore RP, realistic all the time.

ALFA is true to PNP.

ALFA is not true to PNP because that doesn't work in an online game.

ALFA is not hardcore all the time because that's no fun.

ALFA is a campaign server, not a persistent world, because script suck and DMs rock.

ALFA is a persistent world, not a campaign server, because not everyone can play with DMs.

You know, ALFA has a serious identity crisis.

I would prefer an environment that is implemented to serve any niche well, over one that accomplishes a little bit of everything equally poorly.

PS: So no "random death," eh? PC death should be purely the domain of DM bias? Or are we going to pretend that doesn't exist, hm?

[danielmn]

No-one wants automatic scripts to generate random death to PCs people have dedicated time and creative effort to. ... The land isn't supposed to be unpredictable and deadly for PCs to wander, without them pursuing some worthwhile story and challenge, also known as a DM event.

Right.

This is the talking out of both sides of the mouth part that I get confused about.

ALFA is super serious, hardcore RP, realistic all the time.

ALFA is true to PNP.

ALFA is not true to PNP because that doesn't work in an online game.

ALFA is not hardcore all the time because that's no fun.

ALFA is a campaign server, not a persistent world, because script suck and DMs rock.

ALFA is a persistent world, not a campaign server, because not everyone can play with DMs.

You know, ALFA has a serious identity crisis.

I would prefer an environment that is implemented to serve any niche well, over one that accomplishes a little bit of everything equally poorly.

PS: So no "random death," eh? PC death should be purely the domain of DM bias? Or are we going to pretend that doesn't exist, hm?

When you develope the PERFECT gaming platform, let me know. I'd love to take part.

[Veilan]

You know, ALFA has a serious identity crisis.

Always. We are in a marketplace of ideas.

PS: So no "random death," eh? PC death should be purely the domain of DM bias? Or are we going to pretend that doesn't exist, hm?

Not really, and you are stepping in way over your head: Soon, the flapping of the pegasus-wings of the narrativists shall be met by the will saves vs. disbelief of the simulationists, making them fall out of the sky .

[t-ice]

Ookay, slightly off the topic and on a wildly hyperbolic tangent. Sorry for feeding it.

Getting back to only moderately off-topic to tanking, would be nice if someone could answer this. Thanks.

What SHOULD be done, is tanks should actually take the indimidate skill and make use of taunt

Actually, how does taunt work currently in the game with ACR? In NWN2 it's a skill of it's own, which according to this doesn't gather aggro:

http://nwn2.wikia.com/wiki/Taunt

And in ALFA taunt skill is removed, far as I saw. So does intimidate work like the nwn2 taunt, and if it does, how do you get to use intimidate in this manner with the player client? I couldn't drag the intimidate skill icon to the quickbar for one.

If intimidate could be used to gather aggro, it would all in all be nice enough. One for fighters and barbarians for tanking more effectively than clerics.

(but I for instance believe that AB is more important than damage, since AB ties to your special attacks and procs, so something like -1/-1 and -1/-0 would be better, or maybe just -2 and -1 AB as the tower shield parallel)

I agree that AB is somewhat more important than damage in most occasions that count, i.e. the hard fights. Medium armor really is a fall-between that rarely sees action outside people who can't afford the heavies yet, so giving it clearly less penalty than heavies was actually intentional. What medium has going for it, though, is the endgame that is the mithral full plate. -2 to AB for heavy armor seems too harsh when compared against "hard nut" monsters.

[mogonk]

The points on processing load are well founded. Having to run those checks every round for every character on server would be too much. Ok. Discarded.

the simple penalty to AB or Damage is the easiest so far, on the other hand, it's probably enough to make most simply forgo heavy armour, which isn't the aim either

Agreed. I believe the following implementation would avoid that pitfall:

Medium: -1 ranged AB
Heavy: -2 ranged AB, -1 melee AB

It makes sense in real world terms, it balances without overcorrecting, it doesn't require a lot of scripting or increase server load substantially. Both medium and heavy armor should still see considerable use, but will come with trade-offs, especially for characters who used ranged combat. Archers have traditionally been lightly armored, so it enhances verisimilitude. And, in line with the points about wanting a system that is straightforward and intuitive, these penalties are very easy to understand and remember.

The key point in that set of penalties is that it's hard to argue that most players using those armor types in the status quo would switch once the change goes in. Some, but not most.

[t-ice]

Medium: -1 ranged AB
Heavy: -2 ranged AB, -1 melee AB

I think the proposal has some merit. Archers and skirmishers are lightly armored to gain mobility (disregarding historical cheapness and expendability for PCs), and since mobility is not covered in NWN2 engine, a ranged attack penalty serves to counter it.

It's an incremental change. As noted mainly by Swift, the system doesn't need an overhaul. The important property is that you gain something, if little, in terms of offensive effectiveness for opting to lighter armor, standing in for increased mobility in PnP. As opposed to purely voluntary gimping the mechanics of your character to flex your RP muscle.

Downsides:

In PnP movement rates, there is much smaller difference between heavy and medium, than between medium and light. Here it's vice versa. Time to shoot for that mithral full plate.

What about small characters? Should they likewise incur to-hit penalties for their increased speed in NWN2? Far as I'm concerned, they might as well lose their +1 to-hit, but keep the +1AC.

All in all, I think this might add a small piece to the game for the aforementioned "simulationists", but hardly a must-fix.

[Veilan]

I actually believe losing a point of AB has little to no effect in behaviour, nor do I think separating between ranged and melee AB is a good thing to do.

AC actually scales in usefulness with the number of enemies you face, while AB hardly does so (very minimally, as it means you may kill the first enemy a little quicker so you will not end up standing around taking hits as long). Hence why a tower shield is such a great choice, especially in ALFA, even though you cannot "full cover" with it.

While I appreciate the ease and the line of thought, I think this proposal has no teeth, though it might end up an okay compromise if we went, say -2/-1 general AB heavy and medium, or just -2/0 (yeah, mithril full plate, but that then isn't an adamantite full plate). Still, I cannot envision many situations where I would drop a full plate just to gain a single point of AB, and most of those I can imagine are pretty extraordinary.

I have yet to have a stroke of genius myself, though...