I've been thinking about dual wield as well. I like your idea of adding maneuvers and special attacks.

If dual wield is going to be a popular thing and worth dev time to polish, I'd love to see a setup where:

A) no arm-worn shields
B1) a "chaotic" parry chance (you parry extra good with 2 weapons or your 2 weapons get in the way of each other and your parry sucks, agility and skill reduces)
-or-
B2) a dual wield stance where you can tweak extra parry vs. extra damage (do I want to use that second sword as a blocking piece or do i want to attack with it?) Having this be a dynamic stance that changes based on last attack (like balance) would be AWESOME.
C) bonus damage

Basically, more accurate to what it's like wielding two swords.

A) Is kindof ridic. With no shield on, Gort could apoc you with a sewing needle from orbit. 'Tis the nature of the 3.0 beast, m'fraid.

I think melee and certain brawling should both be useable at once. No reason you can't knock someone off balance after the RT from swinging a blade, though it would definitely have a cooldown with it - or maybe a rechargeable pool you expend or something.

Best direct example of this would be the fight between Hector and Achilles in Troy.

IMO, weapon skills in DR are too modulated. There are natural combos that complement each other.

Just food for thought.

---

IM: Dannyboy00001111

"Fool proof system do not take into account the ingenuity of fools, nor the power of numbers."

>>There are natural combos that complement each other.

How would that work without returning to combos of the 2.0 era?

Any combo that exists would naturally be the "best" way to hunt and everyone would just cycle it over and over.

Combos also don't lend themselves to being reactionary. If you get stunned halfway through, it messes everything up. There is no way to recover via a combo.

Round time is woven into about 50,000 lines of combat code. I wouldn't be able to allow brawling while in "RT" without a major time investment and a lot of creative thinking. Even then the engine just gets in the way.

I am still pondering ways of making shield-less combat more viable. Mathematically the current combat system has drawbacks that aren't easily correctable.

---

"I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts."
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes

I'm still a fan of auto smart-defense. You have a shield and sword, you parry when needed or block when needed automatically. Like RL ya know.

Codiax.
Forged Weapons:
http://www.elanthipedia.org/wiki/User:Codiax#Codiax-Forged-Weapons

Gonna GvG QQ over Weapon prime Offense and Weapon Prime Defense.

So if we allow parry to block ranged attacks, what purpose does shield serve? Say we give parry a 20% penalty. Is it not just easier for many Guilds to train Parry up another 20% of ranks or use a parry booster? This was kind of the default for my Warrior Mage. No shield - awesome, but that doesn't make good balance sense.

What happens if someone uses a DFA spell on you? Do we let parry try to stop it?

---

"I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts."
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes

I think Hax said it best. If you give people the ability to parry missile then guilds like barbarians get the best of both worlds, prime offense and defense, while other guilds that are armor / weapon tert get screwed royally. Some of those guilds like MM's get DFA spells that are designed specifically for the purpose of exposing those weaknesses.

I don't mind the idea about smart defenses, at this point everybody uses shield, and if they are a melee using person they still most likely have a shield on their arm while holding a weapon anyway. Might actually be a good use for dual wield, actually make dual wield attack with 2 weapons with normal attack power but at the expense of locking out shield usage. For instance a barb for example would be pretty freakin spectacular granted they could get close and land a few hits, say, 3 attacks that would actually be 6 hits at full power. Obviously the second hit per would be off the offhand skill, but if you kept offhand to the same level as your main weapon or close it would be doable.

Just to add something, back in the day Evasion was king and the only defense you REALLY needed. You make parry block missile and melee attacks and it just bring things closer to that point again.

>> How would that work without returning to combos of the 2.0 era?

Weapon combos, as in - fighting with 2 weapons at once. Some weapons go together better than others. I didn't mean combat combos.

>> Say we give parry a 20% penalty. Is it not just easier for many Guilds to train Parry up another 20% of ranks or use a parry booster?

No. Gort has the highest Parry in Prime and even at a 10% Penalty, he still has more Shield ranks. It doesn't really help Barbs much because they have both in their SoI - unless they specifically did not train Shield. But that's the same for anyone who didn't(tons of Thieves)

Honestly, it's most helpful to people who are armor terts/not weapon terts - the gap between secondary-tert is much larger than primary-secondary.

---

IM: Dannyboy00001111

"Fool proof system do not take into account the ingenuity of fools, nor the power of numbers."

>> That may be true, but if it was allowed than I doubt any barbarian would slack on parry. With the new defense system btw there's no reason why a barbarian shouldn't keep parry moving along with other defenses at the same rate. In that case parry would easily surpass shield after a time.

I never slacked on Parry with Gort, it's always been his highest skill. The difference in learning rate from higher ranks prevents Parry and Shield from growing too far apart. Being that Gort has close to 30 skills over 900, I can tell you from experience that the lower skills catch up faster than the higher skills pull ahead.

But it wouldn't matter if Parry did pass Shield - it would be taking a penalty in effectiveness of probably 10% or better. You could only make effective use of no more than 90% of those ranks which would not be a substantial difference in the long run.

There's no reason someone couldn't just focus on Parry and ignore Shield, but why would one stop training Shield? Besides, Parry is a pain in the ass to train anymore. Arm worn shields are 'set it and forget it'. Parry requires that you pay attention to what's in your hand.

---

IM: Dannyboy00001111

"Fool proof system do not take into account the ingenuity of fools, nor the power of numbers."

Since I just had some random ideas pop into my head while reading this thread, here goes:

There are three basic defenses, Evasion, Shield, Parry. In any given situation, two of those defenses will be superior to the third.

My suggestion is to get rid of stances entirely. There was a time when they didn't exist, and I think it's a layer of complication we really don't need. When an attack is made against a character, let the engine determine which two defenses are the superior combination, and contest those against the attack in whichever configuration is most beneficial to the defender.

For training purposes we could retain the DODGE, PARRY and BLOCK maneuvers in order to modify it a bit, forcing the secondary of the two auto-selected defenses to always be set to that defense. This allows someone with Parry far in advance of their Shield, to train Shield by setting themselves to BLOCK in situations where Parry + Evasion might always be mechanically superior for them. There would need to be a further (fourth) command added to toggle this manual-control feature off.

This answers a few of the questions you've asked in response to others' suggestions...

>>Why ever parry if you have a shield?

A) Because it's mechanically superior to shield blocking for that attack, or B) Because you want to use it in order to train the skill.

>>How does this help people who want to avoid using a shield like ranged users and dual wielders?

In their given situations, their shield skill is likely to be penalized anyway due to the nature of their combat style, training regime, or use of a PARRY setting to avoid contesting their shield unless it's somehow still mechanically superior to Evasion vs. that attack. Obviously if someone isn't equipped with a shield either held or worn, it becomes an instant non-issue, as that defense will never be mechanically superior.

There are likely holes in my logic here since this is stream of consciousness, but I figured I'd toss it out there.

---

Ogdaro
"Take chances and see what you can get away with, it only costs you a favor or two if you mess up." -Issus

>>This has not been my experience. Workable, maybe, but definitely not awesome. And it hasn't very workable for most of the decade. My shield-eschewing war mage has always been functionally defenseless against players and those freaking wir dinegos everyone loves to use in invasions. (I hate them. I hate them so much.) Not that she isn't badly trained and I'm not awful at DR, but still...

I think you misunderstood me.

In melee combat my Warrior mage is well-served by using Parry. It is his highest defense skill.

In ranged combat my Warrior mage dies quickly even using Shield. It is his lowest defense skill.

If parry can suddenly block missiles, then I would no longer suffer at range. I'd never have a reason to use or learn shield skill again. Most players would never learn shield. Shield skill would become a handicap for Paladins and Traders to learn.



So, just tossing this out there for Combat 3.2 discussion -


Apply 100% of highest applicable defense present versus an incoming attack
Apply remaining stance points to remaining defenses, if present
If a second defense or third defense are not present, the primary defense gets a bonus equal to 70% of the defenses not present.
- eliminates getting overkilled when hit with a DFA or stowed shield
- eliminates chance of people using evasion and ignoring shield and parry skills
- makes using one defense more viable, provided the other defenses have been trained


So for a melee attack my warrior mage would still use parry, followed by evasion and shield. If I decided to stow my shield, then I'd be relying on my evasion only and do just fine provided I wasn't hit with an evasion-ignoring attack. If I was, then my parry skill would get 70% of the evasion skill added to it. This means I'd have a 15% defensive penalty when you think about it, which is sufficient for a DFx attack. If I was in parry/shield stance, the evasion-ignorer would not penalize me. If I was trying to evade the evasion-ignoring attack with no sword or shield out, then I'd effectively have a 30% defensive penalty. Which is quite large (but can still be overcome).

For a ranged attack my warrior mage would generally be using shield, followed by parry and evasion. Against ranged attacks, the parry skill cannot apply a bonus greater than 80% of shield or evasion skill. Defending skill would increase the % allowed.

- Fixes insta-death if you get hit with an arrow while your shield is dropped
- Prevents you from using only evasion/parry your entire career. You still need shield skill so your parry ranks can be utilized
- Gives Defending skill another role
- Makes DFx less intimidating
- Go dual wield (provided you train shield to some extent)

Stances would become dynamic. You would no longer allocate stance points. You would instead specify a favored defense (necessary for selective training).


This also opens the door for boosters that temporarily eliminate the reliance on shield skill to get parry ranks counted vs ranged attacks.

Any thoughts on something like this?

---

"I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts."
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes

>>Any thoughts on something like this?

I think that sounds like a great compromise on all fronts. I hope it, or something like it, comes to pass.

---

Ogdaro
"Take chances and see what you can get away with, it only costs you a favor or two if you mess up." -Issus

Sounds pretty solid Kodius

Codiax.
Forged Weapons:
http://www.elanthipedia.org/wiki/User:Codiax#Codiax-Forged-Weapons

I like the idea of evasion ignoring attacks, we already have parry ignoring attacks (which is actually a large slew of things anything ranged), and I'd be for shield ignoring attacks.

Increasing the tactical options for both defense and offense.

---
"I think anything that forces you to do something no sane adventurer would do just in order to train is ridiculous."
DR-SOCHARIS

---
Victory Over Lyras, on the 397th year and 156 days since the Victory of Lanival the Redeemer.

>Any thoughts on something like this?

That sounds like a really solid proposal. Especially because you'd no longer have the unintuitive dichotomy of >parry, >block, >dodge AND the Stance system.

Baring everything else:
>You could also move parry into the armor skillet. Then rename it defense.
Merging parry into Defending opens up a database slot for some more interesting skill down the road!

I'm probably weirdly biased, though, since parry hasn't even been my War Mage's highest defense, ever.

---

Because Necromancers.
-TEVESHSZAT