> -----Original Message-----
> From: kim@... [mailto:kim@...]
> Sent: Friday, February 04, 2000 10:19 AM
> To: eqbards@onelist.com
> Subject: RE: [eqbards] Song Taunt
>
>
> From: <kim@...>
>
> On Fri, 4 Feb 2000, Benjamin Jerrad Segal wrote:
> >
> > A warrior in my guild complains nonstop about the taunt cap
> being too low,
> > and how he is unable to taunt off clerics/enchanters/bards
> at all when it
> > counts most.
>
> This is actually a gripe of mine too with nearly all the RPGs
> I've seen. The way the rules work, the best strategy is for
> everyone to concentrate on one opponent at a time, while the
> extras beat on you. In real combat, that'll get you killed
> real quick since the extras will be getting free shots at your
> backside. I'd really like to see a CRPG with some sort of
> engagement/disengagement system. Then the warrior wouldn't
> have to taunt, he'd just step between the cleric and mob and
> engage the mob in combat. If the mob turned to attack the
> cleric, the warrior would get a free shot in for max or
> critical damage. Yes this would require mobs to have better
> AI, which IMHO is always a good thing.
I think that for entertainment's sake, we wouldn't really want it. I see the
point you are making, which is that it would require more strategy if they
were to fight and take damage in a more realistic fashion.
Potentially, if we wanted realism, 1 good stick in the gut should disable
any mob or player then, which kind of ruins any suspense.
It's the same reason that Hollywood sword fights are not anything like a
real life sword fight would probably be.
For mob AI, if the "GM" wanted to really spoil one's fun, then he'd have the
mobs adopt the same strategies as the players. At the beginning of a battle,
they'd kill the casters first at all costs and keep them from casting. (Of
course, then I'd agree with Verant's "binding" justifications.)
For real medieval combat, the winner would generally go to "majority rules".
2 vs 1 would usually means that the 2 would win. The single person might
have a better chance to survive depending on their skills, but it would be a
small chance if the 2 know what they're doing.
We also wouldn't have "levels". Realistically, Muhammad Ali in his prime
would still get knocked out by 1 person hitting him from behind with a pipe.
In EQ a naked level 50 could stand around indefinitely while a
staff-wielding decaying skeleton whacked him over the head. It can be
argued, though, which would be more fun, so I'll get back to the point
(sorry I digressed).
-------------
I'm not necessarily sure that the engagement/disengagement system would
really be an improvement. The example given is the warrior and cleric vs. 1
mob.
Mob attacks cleric and is considered "engaged"
Warrior gets massive bonuses against mob since mob is "engaged".
Wouldn't this essentially give everyone a "backstab" ability and change our
tactics accordingly? This would also encourage just groups of 2, just like
the 2 rogues with backstab.
Pick a mob, 2 players take him down fast as the mob is always engaged. This
is, of course, much more realistic, but for play balance and fun of the game
I would think it'd become boring.
Also, this should work the other way around, 2 mobs vs 1 player, the player
wouldn't stand a chance. That'd be no fun either.
---------------
Upon reviewing this, I'd have to say that I've taken a very Verant view of
combat. It'd be interesting to see whether a MUD with more "realistic"
combat would sell well, and it would depend on how far you'd want to take
that realism.
I remember my days playing "hack" which required a solo player to crawl
through a dungeon. You'd gain experience and equipment along the way, and
most of the time you'd end up dying and creating a new character. I thought
it hilarious that you could later come across some other adventurer's body
and if you could keep his ghost occupied, you could loot his corpse.
Ah well. I ramble. Time to get back to work. :-P
---Windleaf