BattleMaster Community
BattleMaster => Development => Topic started by: Norrel on December 06, 2011, 03:48:53 AM
-
As I see it (and as many others see it, looking at the "BM culture" post), duels are oftentimes not used because of the over-reliance on the academy for skill. Some other really cool ideas are shot down out of necessity because of this as well, like the Tourney that Luria would have had to determine the Emperor, but which was ultimately defeated because of the impracticality of having boatloads of people burning through gold like nobody's business.
A solution: nerf the crap out of the academy.
Putting a cap of one training session per week would serve both to limit the usage of the academy, as well as change its focus- rather than being something which you use to increase your skills, it would be something you use to keep them sharp and to test your skill level, which seems to be what the flavor text for the academy hints at.
To compensate: double (quadruple? I dunno) the amount of skill gain from actual infantry combat. Giving archers and cavalry some small amount of SF skill gain from watching combat would also be cool, but not necessary.
This would serve to not only change the playstyle of individual characters, make duels and tournaments more legit (so the battle-scarred vet matters), but also encourage warfare, as well as to discourage unfair, boring and stupid methods of play.
Thoughts?
-
People could get past the idea of only issuing/accepting duels if they think they can win. That would work also.
-
People could get past the idea of only issuing/accepting duels if they think they can win. That would work also.
That is hardly a realistic solution
-
I rather see people gain a skill level more often from fighting something.
-
It seems to me that a few days in the academy with a personal instructor would teach you much more about dueling than an hour or two on the battlefield. Getting to be a top-notch fighter would probably take much longer if all you did was fight battles than if you spent all your time with a private instructor.
Not that I don't think that a bit faster gain fro fighting battles might not be worthwhile.
But having trained swordfighting for one character to the limits of the academy, I have to say that it takes LONG time, and a LOT of money. The number of people actually have the time and money to do that is probably pretty limited.
-
It seems to me that a few days in the academy with a personal instructor would teach you much more about dueling than an hour or two on the battlefield. Getting to be a top-notch fighter would probably take much longer if all you did was fight battles than if you spent all your time with a private instructor.
In this case, I think that realism might have to take a backseat to a more balanced game. Also, you could assume that nobles would train with their men quite often, so it wouldn't just be "an hour or two". Adding a slight skill gain for training a unit would be realistic, but it would also encourage peacetime skillwhoring.
But having trained swordfighting for one character to the limits of the academy, I have to say that it takes LONG time, and a LOT of money. The number of people actually have the time and money to do that is probably pretty limited.
The fact that it takes so much time and money is the root of the problem.
-
That is hardly a realistic solution
Depends on your point of view. In mine the idea is for people to play as medieval nobles. Largely nobles were so entranced with their concept of honour (largely because it actually did translate into power) that they were pressured to accept duels regardless of their respective ability. This is lacking in the game right now, and making so its simply easier to ignore this an ensure you have the higher ability doesn't fix anything in my mind. Maybe we will see more duels, but will the atmosphere benefit in any real way? I don't see how it would.
Further I don't see how this would really fix the issue of people not accepting duels. The real issue to my mind is not that the academy is needed, it is that people will shy away from duels they don't think they can win. Changing how skill is gained would maybe see more people with high skill levels, but unless someone knows with reasonable accuracy that they have a significant advantage the won't accept the duel.
Case in point is my character Juan. He has spent most his life claiming to be an excellent swordsman, a tournament champion and claims to have won several death duels. In actual fact he has attended two tournaments and never got past the first round, and never had a single duel. But based solely on the lies he has spun people refuse to duel him, even when I offer duels to first blood. I've even had OOC messages from people telling me I'm power gamming by using a ex advy (Juan was never an advy) and ex-infiltrator (also never one of those) to issue duels because its not fair to other characters.
-
Depends on your point of view. In mine the idea is for people to play as medieval nobles. Largely nobles were so entranced with their concept of honour (largely because it actually did translate into power) that they were pressured to accept duels regardless of their respective ability. This is lacking in the game right now, and making so its simply easier to ignore this an ensure you have the higher ability doesn't fix anything in my mind. Maybe we will see more duels, but will the atmosphere benefit in any real way? I don't see how it would.
While people should (and many do, including myself) play that way, there is still an underlying root to the problem and just telling people to behave differently without backing it up with game mechanics changes will do nothing.
Nonetheless, my suggestion was not specifically to encourage duels (though that was one of the reasons), it was more to encourage more useful and fun behavior for everyone.
-
While people should (and many do, including myself) play that way, there is still an underlying root to the problem and just telling people to behave differently without backing it up with game mechanics changes will do nothing.
Nonetheless, my suggestion was not specifically to encourage duels (though that was one of the reasons), it was more to encourage more useful and fun behavior for everyone.
That is my point, in my opinion the underlying problem isn't going to be addressed by changing how skills are gained.
-
That is my point, in my opinion the underlying problem isn't going to be addressed by changing how skills are gained.
Considering how the underlying problem I was addressing is "people waste time and money on the academy", actually, it will.
-
Keep the academy the way it is, but make gaining skill through battle -much- more viable. I don't remember the last time I've got any improvement that way.
-
I say we get rid of the numerical system on skills. People won't accept duels if they know they have only 20% in swordfighting while their opponents have something like 50%.
And about a person trained in academy being better than someone hardened on the battlefield, I say the trainee might be able to beat a soldier in a duel to surrender but doubt he can defeat the other person in a death duel.
-
As I see it (and as many others see it, looking at the "BM culture" post), duels are oftentimes not used because of the over-reliance on the academy for skill. Some other really cool ideas are shot down out of necessity because of this as well, like the Tourney that Luria would have had to determine the Emperor, but which was ultimately defeated because of the impracticality of having boatloads of people burning through gold like nobody's business.
A solution: nerf the crap out of the academy.
Putting a cap of one training session per week would serve both to limit the usage of the academy, as well as change its focus- rather than being something which you use to increase your skills, it would be something you use to keep them sharp and to test your skill level, which seems to be what the flavor text for the academy hints at.
To compensate: double (quadruple? I dunno) the amount of skill gain from actual infantry combat. Giving archers and cavalry some small amount of SF skill gain from watching combat would also be cool, but not necessary.
This would serve to not only change the playstyle of individual characters, make duels and tournaments more legit (so the battle-scarred vet matters), but also encourage warfare, as well as to discourage unfair, boring and stupid methods of play.
Thoughts?
So instead of people who train too much and ex-advies being able to own everyone, now it'll only be ex-advies?
Academies are already rather bad, as you need quite a while to get good, and a ton load of gold.
I'd rather see your second suggestion implemented, boosting the gains through combat, but without the first.
-
So instead of people who train too much and ex-advies being able to own everyone, now it'll only be ex-advies?
Academies are already rather bad, as you need quite a while to get good, and a ton load of gold.
I'd rather see your second suggestion implemented, boosting the gains through combat, but without the first.
If we're going to only do the second, then, it should be more than doubled.
-
Considering how the underlying problem I was addressing is "people waste time and money on the academy", actually, it will.
It is their time, their gold and their choice. People choosing to spend time at the academy is not a real problem.
-
It is their time, their gold and their choice. People choosing to spend time at the academy is not a real problem.
It's not fun for them, though, nor is it fun for you when they finish their deed, because you know the only way you can compete with them is to go through the same grueling training.
-
It may not be fun for them, but the result for them must be fun else they would not bother to go through it. Its not fun for me when my tiny 1 Duchy realm is beset by 3 larger neighbours (hypothetical) , we certainly can't compete with them, should we change that too? If you can't compete with them with the sword, bring them down using other methods. If you character fails to excel at any of the areas that would provide a means to do this, then just like in RL grit, bear it and plan revenge.
-
It may not be fun for them, but the result for them must be fun else they would not bother to go through it. Its not fun for me when my tiny 1 Duchy realm is beset by 3 larger neighbours (hypothetical) , we certainly can't compete with them, should we change that too? If you can't compete with them with the sword, bring them down using other methods. If you character fails to excel at any of the areas that would provide a means to do this, then just like in RL grit, bear it and plan revenge.
Except dueling only uses swordfighting.
That training is so long and grueling is one of the reasons why people either don't do any at all, or do quite a lot of it. The result is that people either have around 5% swordfighting, or around 90%, with relatively few in-between.
And therefore, dueling is always full of scandals and whining, because the ones with 90% will go around challenging everyone 'till death, and the ones with 5% will never accept any challenges. Or pretty near.
-
Except dueling only uses swordfighting.
That training is so long and grueling is one of the reasons why people either don't do any at all, or do quite a lot of it. The result is that people either have around 5% swordfighting, or around 90%, with relatively few in-between.
And therefore, dueling is always full of scandals and whining, because the ones with 90% will go around challenging everyone 'till death, and the ones with 5% will never accept any challenges. Or pretty near.
And? I don't know how much history people bother to read, but this did happen in the medieval age. Depending on the exact age and the culture it was either tolerated, or the challenging noble was actually shamed by his actions. Just as realms should make some effort to shame those that always try to avoid duels, they should likewise shun those of renown skill whom use it as constant threat. In society people will tend to do what they can get away with, if you allow the best swordsmen to profit from that skill, then it makes total RP IG sense that at least some of them will.
-
And? I don't know how much history people bother to read, but this did happen in the medieval age. Depending on the exact age and the culture it was either tolerated, or the challenging noble was actually shamed by his actions. Just as realms should make some effort to shame those that always try to avoid duels, they should likewise shun those of renown skill whom use it as constant threat. In society people will tend to do what they can get away with, if you allow the best swordsmen to profit from that skill, then it makes total RP IG sense that at least some of them will.
Wouldn't it be more fun if duels actually had some element of risk and weren't ENTIRELY predetermined because of an enormous skill disparity?
-
And? I don't know how much history people bother to read, but this did happen in the medieval age. Depending on the exact age and the culture it was either tolerated, or the challenging noble was actually shamed by his actions. Just as realms should make some effort to shame those that always try to avoid duels, they should likewise shun those of renown skill whom use it as constant threat. In society people will tend to do what they can get away with, if you allow the best swordsmen to profit from that skill, then it makes total RP IG sense that at least some of them will.
Regardless, I don't find that fun. I would fun duels to be a lot more interesting if most people had comparable swordfighting skills.
-
Most the people in a realm DO have comparable swordsman skills. So perhaps the question is, why do duels always end up being between such disparate skill levels? The answer is probably because those of us with mediocre skills are too damn timid to offer duels against anyone, whether we know they have higher skills or not.
Wouldn't it be more fun if duels actually had some element of risk and weren't ENTIRELY predetermined because of an enormous skill disparity?
They do have a pretty good element of risk. Obviously the risk decreases as the difference between skills increase, but their is always a chance :) Personally no I wouldn't find it so. Duels don't have to be to the death to start with, and losing a duel is still an honourable option. Then again my characters are often slightly odd, so in general a death duel against impossible odds appeals to them.
-
Most the people in a realm DO have comparable swordsman skills. So perhaps the question is, why do duels always end up being between such disparate skill levels? The answer is probably because those of us with mediocre skills are too damn timid to offer duels against anyone, whether we know they have higher skills or not.
Or rather, because you usually don't know what everyone else's skill with a sword is. All you know is that yours sucks, so others' either sucks just as much, or is so much higher than you so that you don't stand a chance. So you either get a 50% loss chance or a 95% loss chance. Most people would not gamble such things (death or, alternatively, a time-out that may last few a few days) over such odds.
-
Or rather, because you usually don't know what everyone else's skill with a sword is. All you know is that yours sucks, so others' either sucks just as much, or is so much higher than you so that you don't stand a chance. So you either get a 50% loss chance or a 95% loss chance. Most people would not gamble such things (death or, alternatively, a time-out that may last few a few days) over such odds.
In the modern age, maybe not. When honour is at stake as medieval noble? sure they would.
-
Or rather, because you usually don't know what everyone else's skill with a sword is. All you know is that yours sucks, so others' either sucks just as much, or is so much higher than you so that you don't stand a chance. So you either get a 50% loss chance or a 95% loss chance. Most people would not gamble such things (death or, alternatively, a time-out that may last few a few days) over such odds.
That goes back to the original problem - it's not supposed to be "gambling", it's supposed to be a matter of honor. You're not supposed to sit and calculate your odds of winning, you're supposed to roleplay a reaction of a medieval knight to an insult.
I think the issue here is almost entirely a role playing/player behavior one, and like it has been said, you can't really govern that. But you CAN start by setting the tone with your own characters.
As for the 5%/90%, those numbers are a terrible exaggeration in both directions.
-
That goes back to the original problem - it's not supposed to be "gambling", it's supposed to be a matter of honor. You're not supposed to sit and calculate your odds of winning, you're supposed to roleplay a reaction of a medieval knight to an insult.
I think the issue here is almost entirely a role playing/player behavior one, and like it has been said, you can't really govern that. But you CAN start by setting the tone with your own characters.
As for the 5%/90%, those numbers are a terrible exaggeration in both directions.
I agree with Jens, the world is surely coming to an end.
-
I've always wanted to see an option for nobles leading units...
Lead from the front, or lead from the back. Take the risks and pain and gain morale bonuses and sword skill, or stay safe and increase leadership.
-
I've always wanted to see an option for nobles leading units...
Lead from the front, or lead from the back. Take the risks and pain and gain morale bonuses and sword skill, or stay safe and increase leadership.
Isn't that called being a hero?
-
That goes back to the original problem - it's not supposed to be "gambling", it's supposed to be a matter of honor. You're not supposed to sit and calculate your odds of winning, you're supposed to roleplay a reaction of a medieval knight to an insult.
I think the issue here is almost entirely a role playing/player behavior one, and like it has been said, you can't really govern that. But you CAN start by setting the tone with your own characters.
As for the 5%/90%, those numbers are a terrible exaggeration in both directions.
People with poor swordfighting wouldn't sit and calculate their odds if they weren't so bad. Most people know they've never done anything to increase their swordfighting skills, which means that basically everyone is likely to be better than they are. If the increases were greater due to fighting, then things wouldn't be the same, because at least everyone would know they are far better than they were when the character was created.
As for 5/90, sure it's an exageration, but even with 15/50, what are your odds? I would find it interesting, however, if someone with access to the dbase could give some stats on everyone's swordfighting skills.
Isn't that called being a hero?
Yes, except that being a hero doesn't seem to change much about the things we are talking about.
-
Yes, except that being a hero doesn't seem to change much about the things we are talking about.
Boost all hero's SF gain from combat?
-
People with poor swordfighting wouldn't sit and calculate their odds if they weren't so bad. Most people know they've never done anything to increase their swordfighting skills, which means that basically everyone is likely to be better than they are. If the increases were greater due to fighting, then things wouldn't be the same, because at least everyone would know they are far better than they were when the character was created.
As for 5/90, sure it's an exageration, but even with 15/50, what are your odds? I would find it interesting, however, if someone with access to the dbase could give some stats on everyone's swordfighting skills.
Yes, except that being a hero doesn't seem to change much about the things we are talking about.
And they would also know that it would be relatively the same as anyone else that fights for the realm. Thus in terms of relative skill it might as well be at the starting level, since they will still know that anyone that has put even the slightest effort in will be above them. The thing is though, the majority of NOBLES wouldn't even care. We are talking about the same kind of crazy mindset that see honour killings in some cultures. We are talking about the same sort of irrational thinking that leads to Maniots families each having a fortified tower to lock themselves into when Vendetta's were declared, the common goal of the Vendetta's being to wipe out the other family, every man women and child.
Sure some nobles will be made of different stuff, rational and logical but the majority should feel their blood boil when their honour is stained. Its not about WINNING the duel, honour is generally satisfied by the simple act of defending it, win or lose.
Finally the percentages that skills are expressed in are also relative. Even the lowest skilled sword figther noble in the game should be regarded as a decent swordsmen. Sure they haven't reached the pinnacle of the craft, but they would know the basic movements and stances, and which end is the pointy one.
-
Then even a low skilled fighter should have at least 20% chance to beat a skillful fighter in a death duel :)
-
Then even a low skilled fighter should have at least 20% chance to beat a skillful fighter in a death duel :)
More randomness, or more reliance on chosen stances, would be cool.
-
Then even a low skilled fighter should have at least 20% chance to beat a skillful fighter in a death duel :)
Can anyone say this isn't already the case :)
-
Then even a low skilled fighter should have at least 20% chance to beat a skillful fighter in a death duel :)
I'm pretty sure you do. I haven't looked at the code, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's just a d100 roll with the skill percentage modifiers tossed in and the modifiers based on your duel style choice.
-
I'm guessing the details are probably something that Tom doesn't want known, but perhaps if we were to throw ballpark figures out there? Course if people actually bothered to duel to start with, you would possibly have a data set to work these things out IG.
-
Once all the secession crap ends, I will take my guy for a walk around Dwilight and challenge everyone to a duel! I wonder how long he will last before he loses his head ;D
-
I say we get rid of the numerical system on skills. People won't accept duels if they know they have only 20% in swordfighting while their opponents have something like 50%.
And about a person trained in academy being better than someone hardened on the battlefield, I say the trainee might be able to beat a soldier in a duel to surrender but doubt he can defeat the other person in a death duel.
I agree partially with the first statement. I would not remove the numerical system, but I would hide it from the players. Maybe it could be generalized more? Perhaps simply: A good fighter, an average fighter, and a poor fighter. This leaves room for interpretation, second guessing, uncertainty, investigation, and perhaps a more "realistic" approach to dueling; yet behind the classes are the actual numbers.
One could RP the situation being: "Well I heard Sir Gron is a fairly decent fighter, but his competitor, Sir Heskalis, is also familiar with the blade. It should be a good match up, I'm truly uncertain at who will win." The part I like most about this idea is even the players dueling wouldn't know, until the end of the duel. If an average fighter were to face a good fighter for instance, then the good fighter would probably win. This keeps a distinction, adding fighters to "classes" instead of letting the world know they're exactly 80% efficient at sword fighting.
In terms of medieval atmosphere, as mentioned earlier, this would be the most realistic approach - having grand tales of one's triumphs/honor, over the fledgling experiences of another. They could be told through the streets, in courts, and always rumored about because the people only know you're good, not exactly how good. This would also present a gamble, as criticized earlier, but essentially that is what dueling to the death was - a gamble of life in the name of honor. You are trying to win your honor, or regain your honor, over the competitor's. You are taking a chance in believing your sword arm is superior than the other.
I'm not familiar with the coding, but at first glance, I would guess it would only be patch work with this idea. You would keep the system, but only publish different wording to the player. Again, I'm unsure, and I could be completely wrong.
-
I agree partially with the first statement. I would not remove the numerical system, but I would hide it from the players. Maybe it could be generalized more? Perhaps simply: A good fighter, an average fighter, and a poor fighter. This leaves room for interpretation, second guessing, uncertainty, investigation, and perhaps a more "realistic" approach to dueling; yet behind the classes are the actual numbers.
One could RP the situation being: "Well I heard Sir Gron is a fairly decent fighter, but his competitor, Sir Heskalis, is also familiar with the blade. It should be a good match up, I'm truly uncertain at who will win." The part I like most about this idea is even the players dueling wouldn't know, until the end of the duel. If an average fighter were to face a good fighter for instance, then the good fighter would probably win. This keeps a distinction, adding fighters to "classes" instead of letting the world know they're exactly 80% efficient at sword fighting.
In terms of medieval atmosphere, as mentioned earlier, this would be the most realistic approach - having grand tales of one's triumphs/honor, over the fledgling experiences of another. They could be told through the streets, in courts, and always rumored about because the people only know you're good, not exactly how good. This would also present a gamble, as criticized earlier, but essentially that is what dueling to the death was - a gamble of life in the name of honor. You are trying to win your honor, or regain your honor, over the competitor's. You are taking a chance in believing your sword arm is superior than the other.
I'm not familiar with the coding, but at first glance, I would guess it would only be patch work with this idea. You would keep the system, but only publish different wording to the player. Again, I'm unsure, and I could be completely wrong.
Okay a different skill system was tested on BT years ago. It had the cool little graph thing and instead of telling you what your skill level was, it told you how you faired in four categories relative to each other. So basically you could tell "I'm a much better sword fighter then I am a courtier". Not sure what happened with that, I think Tom wasn't completely happy with it.
The obfuscation of the stats is similar to what we did with region stats. It certainly could work quite well.
-
Yeah. When you train in the academy instead of getting your mentor judged your skill level to be at 5%,
we should get something more uncertain like "You have noticed a child beside you scoffed at your pathetic swings and asked if you are a clown.".
Once you reach somewhat high level, "Your enemies wouldn't dare to stand in your way. Only someone of renown can hope to stop you".
-
Yeah. When you train in the academy instead of getting your mentor judged your skill level to be at 5%,
we should get something more uncertain like "You have noticed a child beside you scoffed at your pathetic swings and asked if you are a clown.".
Once you reach somewhat high level, "Your enemies wouldn't dare to stand in your way. Only someone of renown can hope to stop you".
So pretty much just what Arundel said.
-
Would this making things subtle work for the armies as well? Instead of showing solid numbers like 10 000 CS, maybe change that to A Lot? I doubt people will like this but wouldn't this make people think a bit?
-
Would this making things subtle work for the armies as well? Instead of showing solid numbers like 10 000 CS, maybe change that to A Lot? I doubt people will like this but wouldn't this make people think a bit?
I'll give you a hint, the CS numbers aren't solid. Two 10 000 CS armies are not necessarily equal, or even close to being equal. Arcaea has shown that in the past when our extremely heavily armoured infantry armies completely destroyed archer based armies with higher CS. I've seen armies of similar CS on the battlefield, at the end of the battle one side has lost maybe 10-20% of their CS while the other is down to 70-80%. Not what I would call solid.
-
Would this making things subtle work for the armies as well? Instead of showing solid numbers like 10 000 CS, maybe change that to A Lot? I doubt people will like this but wouldn't this make people think a bit?
Well numbers can already be "estimated" but they can be far off, as De-Legro said.
Perhaps you're looking for something along the lines of, "The enemy's equipment appears to be more advanced." or "Their armor is made of tougher steel and their horses well fed and able (Symbolizing better to equal CS, respectively?)" etc... I won't talk about it to much, perhaps making a separate thread?
Yeah. When you train in the academy instead of getting your mentor judged your skill level to be at 5%,
we should get something more uncertain like "You have noticed a child beside you scoffed at your pathetic swings and asked if you are a clown.".
Once you reach somewhat high level, "Your enemies wouldn't dare to stand in your way. Only someone of renown can hope to stop you".
As De-Legro said, that is basically what I stated, but perhaps we could merge the two dialogues?
"You train and toil for 8 hours, and you learn much. Albeit, children are seen laughing at your clumsiness, as you trip over the master's blade and bruise your arm.
You're not a very well trained fighter, but with more effort, perhaps that could change."
or
"You spend an hour dueling with the beginner's sword-master. You find it mildly challenging, yet you parry his strikes as if all to familiar. The other fighters have stopped to watch you, seeing their former master beaten in battle is more than entertaining.
You're decent with the blade, no one will contest, but you could be better."
-
stuff
This is a good idea. People shouldn't know who the best swordfighter in the realm/continent is just by math- it should be hotly contested in tournaments and stuff like that. This could serve as an interesting venue for conflict.
-
I'm pretty sure you do. I haven't looked at the code, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's just a d100 roll with the skill percentage modifiers tossed in and the modifiers based on your duel style choice.
Thinking back to this, I will assume that tournaments use a subset or similar code to duels. Anyone that watches tournaments closely will have seen that characters of lesser skill frequently beat characters of higher skill, even of much higher skill.
-
Yeah I can back this up. Lost to someone of 40% when I had 75%. Call that a BS! joking :)
-
Stances make a good difference, but you profit more from them when you have the skill to exploit the advantage.
Knowing the numbers, if I had 50% in swordfighting, I wouldn't feel comfortable going into a duel with someone I know to have 90%. But I certainly wouldn't hesitate against anyone +/- 20% or so.
Also I know that with luck I can win against that 90% guy. If the stance choices are on my side, my chance wouldn't even be half bad. Still well below 50:50, but still high enough that if the guy goes around challenging people like me to death duels, he'll end up dead himself sooner rather than later.
-
Nonetheless, my suggestion was not specifically to encourage duels (though that was one of the reasons), it was more to encourage more useful and fun behavior for everyone.
Assuming that everyone agrees to your definition of "useful and fun".
-
That training is so long and grueling is one of the reasons why people either don't do any at all, or do quite a lot of it. The result is that people either have around 5% swordfighting, or around 90%, with relatively few in-between.
Well, that's just not true at all. A random sampling of 25 random characters on Atamara reveals a average sword fighting skill of 29%, with a median of 25%. Only three had >50%, and only two <10%. I'm sure Tim or Tom, with uber-SQL-Fu could do much better at it than I could.
And besides, doesn't that really make sense? Most people are passable skilled enough to not hurt themselves. Some barely know which end is the pointy end. And a relatively few are experts.
And therefore, dueling is always full of scandals and whining, because the ones with 90% will go around challenging everyone 'till death, and the ones with 5% will never accept any challenges. Or pretty near.
Pardon my coarseness, but, umm... Duh. That's why trial by combat isn't very popular with those who don't have much skill at it. The purpose of dueling isn't to prove who is right, or whose cause is just. It's to enforce a politeness and circumspection to people's behavior, because they know that to be impolite or rude could cause them to have to back up their words with their life. We have that reasonably well modeled in game mechanics. What we don't have is the player culture to fulfill society's part of the equation.
-
Thinking back to this, I will assume that tournaments use a subset or similar code to duels. Anyone that watches tournaments closely will have seen that characters of lesser skill frequently beat characters of higher skill, even of much higher skill.
I remember when Alex Davies trained one of his characters to about 98% swordfighting, then got knocked out in the very first round of the tournament. I'm fairly certain that the guy who beat him was a relatively unskilled character.
-
A solution: nerf the crap out of the academy.
Good way to kill off the infiltrator class completely.
And have you actually tried to gain skills by training at the academy? It's not exactly fast as is. They're closed quite often and getting improvements in skill aren't exactly guaranteed. Heck, constant battles will probably get your skills up faster even now.
Further more skill in sword fighting isn't what's stopping duels from happening. It's people not caring about the consequences of refusing a duel.
-
Good way to kill off the infiltrator class completely.
And have you actually tried to gain skills by training at the academy? It's not exactly fast as is. They're closed quite often and getting improvements in skill aren't exactly guaranteed. Heck, constant battles will probably get your skills up faster even now.
Further more skill in sword fighting isn't what's stopping duels from happening. It's people not caring about the consequences of refusing a duel.
Improve the skill gains from performing various infiltrator actions or otherwise lower the probability of getting caught?
-
Improve the skill gains from performing various infiltrator actions or otherwise lower the probability of getting caught?
There's already an infiltrator thread about doing it, but really, the academy isn't any sot of a problem that needs nerfing in my opinion.
-
When de Legro, Indirik, Lil wolf, and myself all agree that the issue with swordfighting skills/dueling is one of culture, not mechanics, then I would go out on a limb say we have a disparate enough set of people to say we have the root of the problem.
I think it is time to change this topic to one of, "How can we influence the BM culture to get more realms/players to think this way"
I will start the ball rolling by saying, "get rid of the law about dueling - making it clear it is a matter between characters, and not something for the Judge to be involved in"
It doesn't eliminate things like the king saying "no dueling" and the Judge handing out fines, but it sets the tone for the direction the game should be going.
-
I agree. I mean why is duels bannable? Were duels banned during the medieval ages?
-
I agree. I mean why is duels bannable? Were duels banned during the medieval ages?
Yes, depending on the exact age we are talking. But that ignores the reality of the game, EVERYTHING is bannable, the trick is maintaining your position after you ban people. As a Judge I could ban people for using a word I don't like, for sending too many consecutive messages etc. So the answer is dueling is bannable because the noble population in general won't protest out a judge for issuing the bans.
When de Legro, Indirik, Lil wolf, and myself all agree that the issue with swordfighting skills/dueling is one of culture, not mechanics, then I would go out on a limb say we have a disparate enough set of people to say we have the root of the problem.
I think it is time to change this topic to one of, "How can we influence the BM culture to get more realms/players to think this way"
I will start the ball rolling by saying, "get rid of the law about dueling - making it clear it is a matter between characters, and not something for the Judge to be involved in"
It doesn't eliminate things like the king saying "no dueling" and the Judge handing out fines, but it sets the tone for the direction the game should be going.
I think the whole "law" mechanic that Judges have needs to be revised. They cover such a narrow spectrum of offences and I've seen multiple times people argue that a Judge can't issue a certain ban because it isn't one of the 4 things you can make "illegal" by game mechanics. Already we use the Judge Bulletin and Wiki to extend a realms laws, so apart from notifying the Judge of a breach, which so far as I can tell in most cases the breach will give a similar message to the entire realm, what purpose does this feature serve now?
-
Boost all hero's SF gain from combat?
Would indeed help. I've never noticed a hero to increase his swordfighting skills through combat alone as it stands.
-
I think the whole "law" mechanic that Judges have needs to be revised. They cover such a narrow spectrum of offences and I've seen multiple times people argue that a Judge can't issue a certain ban because it isn't one of the 4 things you can make "illegal" by game mechanics. Already we use the Judge Bulletin and Wiki to extend a realms laws, so apart from notifying the Judge of a breach, which so far as I can tell in most cases the breach will give a similar message to the entire realm, what purpose does this feature serve now?
I would prefer to dump the whole GM laws part, and will make a case (that I've made many times before) in another thread arguing that rulers and Judges need to RP their positions more and not let mechanics do everything for them.
But for this thread, let's just focus on improving the culture of dueling in the game, so we don't get another infamous 50page thread that never turns into anything solid.
-
There's been a lot of good points in this thread, so maybe nerfing the academy isn't actually such a great idea. I dunno.
But what about boosting skill gain from combat? Any opposition to that idea?
-
When de Legro, Indirik, Lil wolf, and myself all agree that the issue with swordfighting skills/dueling is one of culture, not mechanics, then I would go out on a limb say we have a disparate enough set of people to say we have the root of the problem.
I think it is time to change this topic to one of, "How can we influence the BM culture to get more realms/players to think this way"
I will start the ball rolling by saying, "get rid of the law about dueling - making it clear it is a matter between characters, and not something for the Judge to be involved in"
It doesn't eliminate things like the king saying "no dueling" and the Judge handing out fines, but it sets the tone for the direction the game should be going.
I agree to some extent that the culture needs to change (and I like the idea of removing the law on dueling completely and make it kind of like a sacred right) however I think it's still important to address this problem and monotonous and boring training at the academy.
Perhaps we could make the academy more expensive but only available once every three days or something and it is triple as effective as current training. Maybe through reducing the dedication required to become a great swordsman we'll see the playing field even out. Of course those who can't be !@#$ed still won't be able to get ahead.
And yeah obviously that isn't a "good" solution but I think it's important to address the current mechanics as well.
-
I agree to some extent that the culture needs to change (and I like the idea of removing the law on dueling completely and make it kind of like a sacred right) however I think it's still important to address this problem and monotonous and boring training at the academy.
Perhaps we could make the academy more expensive but only available once every three days or something and it is triple as effective as current training. Maybe through reducing the dedication required to become a great swordsman we'll see the playing field even out. Of course those who can't be !@#$ed still won't be able to get ahead.
And yeah obviously that isn't a "good" solution but I think it's important to address the current mechanics as well.
I think just straight-up buffing infantry combat is a better solution.
-
We could come up with a training system that requires more then just pushing a button and paying gold? There are many possibilities, mini games being the most immediate that comes to mind.
-
There are many possibilities, mini games being the most immediate that comes to mind.
God no.
I have another suggestion, which would influence the stance-choosing metagame. How about, people trained through actual combat get extra boosts to the overrun and aggressive styles, academy gets boosts to the defensive and trick moves styles, and both get boosts to the neutral style? It would be a more realistic portrayal of combat, and could lead to some interesting game theory dilemmas when choosing a style.
-
God no.
I have another suggestion, which would influence the stance-choosing metagame. How about, people trained through actual combat get extra boosts to the overrun and aggressive styles, academy gets boosts to the defensive and trick moves styles, and both get boosts to the neutral style? It would be a more realistic portrayal of combat, and could lead to some interesting game theory dilemmas when choosing a style.
Would it? Think about how a roman legion generally engaged the enemy, shields in front, making short thrusts when the enemy gave an opening. Sounds like a pretty defense stance to me. There are of course particulars and exceptions, but in general when engaging a enemy force that has any sort of training, overly aggressive sword play is only likely to leave you open to getting stabbed from multiple directions at once. Dueling sword play is very different to the sword techniques used in formation fighting. They would be slightly more applicable once formations have broken down into general melee, but then your main concern is trying to watch all directions at once so you don't get stabbed in the back while trying to stab the guy in front of you.
The other question would be how do we store this. Are we changing SF skill from one stat to five? Or are we storing whatever "training" technique your characters has used most and giving a fixed boost? Regardless we need to start tracking new values in the database.
-
Would it?
Probably not. Maybe defensive/aggressive for infantry, trick/overrun for academy users? The specifics don't really matter, but it would create an interesting metagame. You could say that people in infantry would have more stamina and discipline from long marches and grueling combat, while academy-trained duellists would have a better reaction time and skill. defensive and aggressive strategies require sheer strength and stamina, since they simply want to outlast the opponent, while super-aggressive and tricky styles require fast reflexes and a keen eye, since they want to end the duel quickly in a flourish of blows. I guess that makes sense?
The other question would be how do we store this. Are we changing SF skill from one stat to five? Or are we storing whatever "training" technique your characters has used most and giving a fixed boost? Regardless we need to start tracking new values in the database.
I have no idea. A fixed, binary boost doesn't seem like a good idea though. You could just include either a single variable, which is kept on a sliding scale and is shifted right or left whenever the character does something, or just two different variables representing their "stamina/discipline" and "reflexes", which go up and down with use/disuse.
I don't code or anything like that, so IDK if this is actually feasible.
-
Probably not. Maybe defensive/aggressive for infantry, trick/overrun for academy users? The specifics don't really matter, but it would create an interesting metagame. You could say that people in infantry would have more stamina and discipline from long marches and grueling combat, while academy-trained duellists would have a better reaction time and skill. defensive and aggressive strategies require sheer strength and stamina, since they simply want to outlast the opponent, while super-aggressive and tricky styles require fast reflexes and a keen eye, since they want to end the duel quickly in a flourish of blows. I guess that makes sense?
I have no idea. A fixed, binary boost doesn't seem like a good idea though. You could just include either a single variable, which is kept on a sliding scale and is shifted right or left whenever the character does something, or just two different variables representing their "stamina/discipline" and "reflexes", which go up and down with use/disuse.
I don't code or anything like that, so IDK if this is actually feasible.
Even if I lead infantry, you can be damn sure as a noble I'm riding a horse from battlefield to battlefield. Training in the academy or on the battlefield is likely to require heavy armour, requiring great stamina. This isn't the age of rapier dueling really. We are talking Trial by Combat, in full battle armour.
-
Even if I lead infantry, you can be damn sure as a noble I'm riding a horse from battlefield to battlefield. Training in the academy or on the battlefield is likely to require heavy armour, requiring great stamina. This isn't the age of rapier dueling really. We are talking Trial by Combat, in full battle armour.
Nonetheless, the typical battle lasts for several hours, and isn't based so much on accuracy or quickness as on discipline, bravery and being able to keep fighting, in said full battle armor, for several hours. Sure, the average academy duelist also has quite a bit of stamina, but they would focus more on quickness and accuracy. The average spat in an academy would probably last around the length of a duel, as in like 10 minutes at maximum, punctuated by discussions on theory or breaks for water. One could also assume that, since nobles who actively fight in battles are still nobles, they've been trained as a child and would still have some level of finesse. Nonetheless, it's a matter of degrees, and they focus more on that aspect of a fight.
-
Nonetheless, the typical battle lasts for several hours, and isn't based so much on accuracy or quickness as on discipline, bravery and being able to keep fighting, in said full battle armor, for several hours. Sure, the average academy duelist also has quite a bit of stamina, but they would focus more on quickness and accuracy. The average spat in an academy would probably last around the length of a duel, as in like 10 minutes at maximum, punctuated by discussions on theory or breaks for water. One could also assume that, since nobles who actively fight in battles are still nobles, they've been trained as a child and would still have some level of finesse. Nonetheless, it's a matter of degrees, and they focus more on that aspect of a fight.
You know that in many countries the defender was said to win the duel if they survived until nightfall? Duels of heavily armoured men can last for hours. You have a large sword and they have armour. You aren't looking for some tiny patch of exposed skin, that is fantasy stuff. You are battering at each other, denting each others armour if we have reached the age of plate mail, trying to damage and pierce chain in earlier ages. Most dueling styles included graples, trips and the like. Every part of the sword was used as a weapon, hits and pommels were great for delivering a sharp blow. The idea was to wear down your opponent until they made mistakes as much as it was to overpower them with your skill.
-
You know that in many countries the defender was said to win the duel if they survived until nightfall? Duels of heavily armoured men can last for hours. You have a large sword and they have armour. You aren't looking for some tiny patch of exposed skin, that is fantasy stuff. You are battering at each other, denting each others armour if we have reached the age of plate mail, trying to damage and pierce chain in earlier ages. Most dueling styles included graples, trips and the like. Every part of the sword was used as a weapon, hits and pommels were great for delivering a sharp blow. The idea was to wear down your opponent until they made mistakes as much as it was to overpower them with your skill.
Discipline, then. A warrior used to the battlefield would be less likely to flinch during the fight, to stand his ground, to take a wound and keep fighting.
-
Plate mails.. They lasted for what like one and a half centuries? Two at most? Guess it was that inefficient or did something happen after two centuries? Like early pistols?
-
Plate mails.. They lasted for what like one and a half centuries? Two at most? Guess it was that inefficient or did something happen after two centuries? Like early pistols?
The earlist partial suits of plate mail where the Greek and Roman use of cuirass and the infamous Lorica Segmentata. By the 13th single plates where used again to protect some parts of the body. The full set of plate mail was sometime in the late 14th century. Plate in some form was still extremely popular in the 17th century, such as that seen used by cuirassiers and dragoons. Rifled Firearms in the 18th century finally made high quality plate armour obsolete.
And interesting aside is that the Australian Bush Ranger Ned Kelley used plate armour to great effect when engaging in gun battles with police, that is until they realised he didn't have any armour on his legs.
It also saw limited use in World War 1 and 2
-
Interesting. So the history of a FULL plate armour is short but partial plate armours were pretty long huh. But the sheer weight of a full plate armour must have been deadly. Falling off a horse while charging would have got a knight killed pretty easily... And crossbows... maces...
-
Interesting. So the history of a FULL plate armour is short but partial plate armours were pretty long huh. But the sheer weight of a full plate armour must have been deadly. Falling off a horse while charging would have got a knight killed pretty easily... And crossbows... maces...
if you consider 300-400 years of a weapon technology to be short, sure why not. Plate Armour wasn't that heavy, the battle load carried by modern infantry is heavier. Falling off a horse while charging when you AREN'T in armour is going to kill you pretty easily as well.
-
A full Plate armour (the ones knights wore) was developed at the end of 14th century and peaked around 15-16 centuries.
Before that people wore chainmails and partial plates but monglian arrows could penetrate chainmails so they wore plate armours on top of chainmails.
Funny thing is crossbows were banned by the church because it was too cowardly. England used it however. That must made them cowards but who cares when you can win a war.
-
A full Plate armour (the ones knights wore) was developed at the end of 14th century and peaked around 15-16 centuries.
Before that people wore chainmails and partial plates but monglian arrows could penetrate chainmails so they wore plate armours on top of chainmails.
Funny thing is crossbows were banned by the church because it was too cowardly. England used it however. That must made them cowards but who cares when you can win a war.
England was famous for the LONG BOW. The French made heavy use of crossbows, as they required relatively little training to become proficient in. For instance in the battle of Crécy 1346 the French were said to have 20,000 crossbow men. Edward the III army was equipped with long bows.
Full plate armour was still used by cavalry units well into the 17th and 18th century. Like I said only the advent of rifled firearms saw the death of high quality full plate armour. Common infantry abandoned plate mail early, since they relied on mass produced armour of a lower quality.
-
WTF was I reading? MY book is !@#$ing retarded. So longbows were still working fine against knights? It must have been sad days for French knights. Dying before reaching their targets.
-
WTF was I reading? MY book is !@#$ing retarded. So longbows were still working fine against knights? It must have been sad days for French knights. Dying before reaching their targets.
Long bows generate less kinetic energy, but have a higher rate of fire. One of the big problems with long bows and other hand bows in comparison to the crossbow was training time. It took years to become proficient with the long bow, a solider could be trained in the use a crossbow in 1 week. The Long Bow was unlikely to penetrate high quality steel armour unless at very close range. It was effective against the lesser quality armour of standard infantry.
Against French Calvary the English used volley shots, so thousands of arrows in volleys against the enemy. This allowed a reasonable chance for some arrows to pierce weak joints etc in the armour, but more importantly it brought down the knights horses in droves.
-
Also, "plate mail" went through a lot of developmental stages. Earliest forms - usually called "plate armor", if my vague recollection of something I read once is accurate - were extremely heavy, very limited mobility, if you fell down you might very well not be able to climb to your feet. Got better progressively.
So can't really make generalizations - good to keep that in mind and clarify what you are describing as best you can.
-
Also, "plate mail" went through a lot of developmental stages. Earliest forms - usually called "plate armor", if my vague recollection of something I read once is accurate - were extremely heavy, very limited mobility, if you fell down you might very well not be able to climb to your feet. Got better progressively.
So can't really make generalizations - good to keep that in mind and clarify what you are describing as best you can.
They were never quite that unwieldy, much like the myth about knights needing special platforms to mount their horses. But certainly as steel smiting techniques improved they were able to gain equivalent protection with thinner steel, and they improved the joint mobility as well. This was offset a bit by needing to increase the level of protection as things like crossbows became more powerful.
-
Long bows generate less kinetic energy, but have a higher rate of fire. One of the big problems with long bows and other hand bows in comparison to the crossbow was training time. It took years to become proficient with the long bow, a solider could be trained in the use a crossbow in 1 week. The Long Bow was unlikely to penetrate high quality steel armour unless at very close range. It was effective against the lesser quality armour of standard infantry.
As someone who has hunted with both a traditional recurve, compound, and crossbow, I can agree. Crossbows are stupid easy to use (and really fun).
-
Crossbows have the advantage of a stable base, easier sights (Although that could be due to familiarity with firearm sights), less strength required to maintain tension, etc. Which basically equalled less skill. Oh hey, ain't that why the crossbow replaced the traditional bows by sometime in the Medieval period. And then came the firearms which just opened a whole new game to the field. Wait...let me try that again...
-
Crossbows have the advantage of a stable base, easier sights (Although that could be due to familiarity with firearm sights), less strength required to maintain tension, etc. Which basically equalled less skill. Oh hey, ain't that why the crossbow replaced the traditional bows by sometime in the Medieval period. And then came the firearms which just opened a whole new game to the field. Wait...let me try that again...
Looking down a sight is indeed pretty damn easy. All you have to do is train a bit to gage projectile drop.
When I went out target shooting with my shotgun for the first time, I thought I'd miss and it was obvious my grandpa wasn't convinced I'd hit it on the first shots (at least, didn't look like it). Didn't miss a single shot, and I really can't understand what would be so difficult about it if you grasp the concept of the iron sights. Just line 'em up. Hell, I hit my first shots while closing the wrong eye! That did give me a good kick on the nose, though. XD
The only "difficulty" is getting enough pellets precisely where you want them, but that's just random once you know what the scatter is like. Crossbows, using the same sights, should be the same I would expect. Bows, on the other hand, require much more skill.
Easy to train people to use them, and devastating penetration power. No wonder people switched to crossbows despite the church being against it, and then to firearms as soon as it was possible.
-
Looking down a sight is indeed pretty damn easy. All you have to do is train a bit to gage projectile drop.
When I went out target shooting with my shotgun for the first time, I thought I'd miss and it was obvious my grandpa wasn't convinced I'd hit it on the first shots (at least, didn't look like it). Didn't miss a single shot, and I really can't understand what would be so difficult about it if you grasp the concept of the iron sights. Just line 'em up. Hell, I hit my first shots while closing the wrong eye! That did give me a good kick on the nose, though. XD
The only "difficulty" is getting enough pellets precisely where you want them, but that's just random once you know what the scatter is like. Crossbows, using the same sights, should be the same I would expect. Bows, on the other hand, require much more skill.
Easy to train people to use them, and devastating penetration power. No wonder people switched to crossbows despite the church being against it, and then to firearms as soon as it was possible.
And a great example of just how weak a Church Edict was if the bulk of the nobility decided to ignore it.
-
And a great example of just how weak a Church Edict was if the bulk of the nobility decided to ignore it.
Haha, indeed.
Did the church oppose the firearms when they came? Or did they learn their lessons from opposing the crossbows? Or had they just gotten used to it by then?
-
Can't stop technology...?
-
Can't stop technology...?
But you can try. :P
-
Sorry if this has been brought up already.
The problem as I see it is real medieval nobles didn't have to travel all the way to the nearest city to get a good training session in. They'd have private instructors and sparing partners as part of their entourage. We don't role-play the expenses of scribes and other servants, we just assume they're negligible compared to the wealth of a noble or that they're serfs anyway.
I can see how the academy might have "the best swordsmen in the lands" to get a noble the best training money can buy, but it should be possible to gain something by training with your personal instructor as well.
I think a minor skill boost when you train with your men is a great idea. That way people can improve their sword fighting and jousting skills without having to mill around a city for months on end.
Also why don't they ad an archery skill?
-
Sorry if this has been brought up already.
The problem as I see it is real medieval nobles didn't have to travel all the way to the nearest city to get a good training session in. They'd have private instructors and sparing partners as part of their entourage. We don't role-play the expenses of scribes and other servants, we just assume they're negligible compared to the wealth of a noble or that they're serfs anyway.
Hm, what about academies providing paraphernalia in the form of personal instructors rather than just training? They'd of course be expensive to maintain but it wouldn't lock people who want to train to the cities anymore. So it'd be more realistic and more fun. :)
-
Hm, what about academies providing paraphernalia in the form of personal instructors rather than just training? They'd of course be expensive to maintain but it wouldn't lock people who want to train to the cities anymore. So it'd be more realistic and more fun. :)
...and nobles with hours left over (in excess of the 4 they get to roll over) will be automatically have those hours used with the trainer.
-
Hm, what about academies providing paraphernalia in the form of personal instructors rather than just training? They'd of course be expensive to maintain but it wouldn't lock people who want to train to the cities anymore. So it'd be more realistic and more fun. :)
There's an interesting idea.
-
Hm, what about academies providing paraphernalia in the form of personal instructors rather than just training? They'd of course be expensive to maintain but it wouldn't lock people who want to train to the cities anymore. So it'd be more realistic and more fun. :)
I like it.
-
I'd like to bump this topic so it keeps the attention of the developers.
-
I'd like to bump this topic so it keeps the attention of the developers.
It hasn't the first time around. What makes you think it will just because someone bumps it? All you're getting is that it'll be locked because apparently everything of importance has been said and bumping with nothing new to add is just hassling the devs.