Previous Thread
Previous
Expand All
Collapse All
Ignore Author
Reply
>don't assume your play style is the only way to play the game.
I agree.
Instead, you should assume your play style is the only correct one. Everyone else is just doing it wrong.
Weapons for Sale:
http://www.elanthipedia.org/wiki/User:Caraamon#Wares
Hunta Talna Kortok, built by Gor'Togs, for Gor'Togs
http://www.angelfire.com/rpg2/caraamon/home.html
Combat Balance List:
http://tinyurl.com/DRBalance
>(b) attempting to attack while repeatedly retreating is going to become much less effective
Treat it something like a combat "move", albeit RT-less? Instead of hindering defensive power, make it hinder offensive force for a few seconds?
Kaeta Airtag
>>Actually an opinion cannot be changed or corrected. Nice try back of line.-VERATHOR
>>But it can be wrong.-Starlear
Treat it something like a combat "move", albeit RT-less? Instead of hindering defensive power, make it hinder offensive force for a few seconds?
Kaeta Airtag
>>Actually an opinion cannot be changed or corrected. Nice try back of line.-VERATHOR
>>But it can be wrong.-Starlear
>>Because you would never get to melee.<<
All I had meant with that is that it's a RT-less combat move. If you're retreating to fire a bow, you'd be backpedaling, but while advancing you'd be taking full strides. It may take 6 seconds to go from missile to melee but would take 8-10 to fully retreat.
All I had meant with that is that it's a RT-less combat move. If you're retreating to fire a bow, you'd be backpedaling, but while advancing you'd be taking full strides. It may take 6 seconds to go from missile to melee but would take 8-10 to fully retreat.
> >>Historically if you had a battle
>>> And not really relevant.
Relevant or not, there's a much more basic reason this argument doesn't work.
Historically (or "in real life", if you prefer), you can only get so many shots off before the people you are shooting at reach your location, at least using the typical weapons of the genre we are talking about. The ability to repeatedly load and accurately fire a bow or crossbow while OUTRUNNING A CHARGING BARBARIAN who is bent on nothing but reaching you falls somewhere between virtually impossible and utterly impossible, tending well towards the latter. Yes, you can probably get a couple of good shots off depending on starting situation and weapon, but there's no way you are going to maintain fire that kind of fire while running away as fast as the enemy is charging. I mean...seriously. Sure, if you hurt them bad enough, you could make some arguments about the ability to maintain range while also maintaining the offensive, but aside from that, if they want to reach you, they will if you are taking any kind of time at all to turn and launch attacks against them.
If we want to talk about things in the historic context, we see the same thing. Ranged units DID fight from range, often from behind cover, as you said. However, they didn't fire and run to range and somehow manage to maintain their long range against charging enemy hordes. Typically foot units were placed in positions to protect the ranged units -- pikemen were often used for this purpose, for example. Even with this protection, cavalry was often specifically used to flank protecting units and run down ranged units. In short, trying to talk about real world ranged attacks is fine, but its a lot more complicated than just saying, "They are ranged users and therefore are intended to attack from range." and use that as justification for auto-retreat. Yes, the ideal goal is to used ranged weapons from ranged. That's a no-brainer. But melee weapons are meant to be used at melee -- and they should have just as much chance to get to melee to use their weapons, using that same line of argument. "They are melee users, so they should be able to be at melee all the time." Yes? Obviously both can't be true, so we need to find a middle ground somewhere
- GM Dartenian
Though my soul may set in darkness it will rise in perfect light. I have loved the stars too fondly to be fearful of the night! - Sarah Williams
>>> And not really relevant.
Relevant or not, there's a much more basic reason this argument doesn't work.
Historically (or "in real life", if you prefer), you can only get so many shots off before the people you are shooting at reach your location, at least using the typical weapons of the genre we are talking about. The ability to repeatedly load and accurately fire a bow or crossbow while OUTRUNNING A CHARGING BARBARIAN who is bent on nothing but reaching you falls somewhere between virtually impossible and utterly impossible, tending well towards the latter. Yes, you can probably get a couple of good shots off depending on starting situation and weapon, but there's no way you are going to maintain fire that kind of fire while running away as fast as the enemy is charging. I mean...seriously. Sure, if you hurt them bad enough, you could make some arguments about the ability to maintain range while also maintaining the offensive, but aside from that, if they want to reach you, they will if you are taking any kind of time at all to turn and launch attacks against them.
If we want to talk about things in the historic context, we see the same thing. Ranged units DID fight from range, often from behind cover, as you said. However, they didn't fire and run to range and somehow manage to maintain their long range against charging enemy hordes. Typically foot units were placed in positions to protect the ranged units -- pikemen were often used for this purpose, for example. Even with this protection, cavalry was often specifically used to flank protecting units and run down ranged units. In short, trying to talk about real world ranged attacks is fine, but its a lot more complicated than just saying, "They are ranged users and therefore are intended to attack from range." and use that as justification for auto-retreat. Yes, the ideal goal is to used ranged weapons from ranged. That's a no-brainer. But melee weapons are meant to be used at melee -- and they should have just as much chance to get to melee to use their weapons, using that same line of argument. "They are melee users, so they should be able to be at melee all the time." Yes? Obviously both can't be true, so we need to find a middle ground somewhere
- GM Dartenian
Though my soul may set in darkness it will rise in perfect light. I have loved the stars too fondly to be fearful of the night! - Sarah Williams
> >I'm actually a bit baffled as to why that option wasn't even mentioned. That seems the most balanced to me.
> So far the biggest argument against it so far is related to travel through areas where critters start at pole range.
That's one. The other is that if retreat and advance use the same mechs, we'd be stuck in a state of where nobody would ever reach the other if one advanced and one retreated, which leaves us where we are now, more or less. We could put in some sort of skill contest, but that still creates a situation where one person will either always get to the enemy no matter how hard they try to run, or the reverse, where someone can never reach their enemy. Neither is really good for balanced combat.
The other option is just to make ranged combat more viable AT melee, and make it harder to maintain the ranged position. That still gives the ranged user the advantage of getting a few attacks off while a melee fighter advances, but then switches the advantage slightly towards the melee without totally rendering the ranged nearly as defenseless as the current system (not that there's anything preventing him/her from putting away the bow and drawing steel). All in all, probably the most fair approach.
- GM Dartenian
Though my soul may set in darkness it will rise in perfect light. I have loved the stars too fondly to be fearful of the night! - Sarah Williams
> So far the biggest argument against it so far is related to travel through areas where critters start at pole range.
That's one. The other is that if retreat and advance use the same mechs, we'd be stuck in a state of where nobody would ever reach the other if one advanced and one retreated, which leaves us where we are now, more or less. We could put in some sort of skill contest, but that still creates a situation where one person will either always get to the enemy no matter how hard they try to run, or the reverse, where someone can never reach their enemy. Neither is really good for balanced combat.
The other option is just to make ranged combat more viable AT melee, and make it harder to maintain the ranged position. That still gives the ranged user the advantage of getting a few attacks off while a melee fighter advances, but then switches the advantage slightly towards the melee without totally rendering the ranged nearly as defenseless as the current system (not that there's anything preventing him/her from putting away the bow and drawing steel). All in all, probably the most fair approach.
- GM Dartenian
Though my soul may set in darkness it will rise in perfect light. I have loved the stars too fondly to be fearful of the night! - Sarah Williams
