Reducing Holds on the Field

I think you're inferring premeditation where I mean none. I'm not referring to a planned out "You know, we should make him say lots of things!"-type scenario. I'm saying that as a natural function of play, people are going to capitalize on the fact that the target simply is not able to counter.
 
And what I am saying is that we should, as good players, find a way to negate or lessen that overwhelming effect. When all an NPC can do is call defenses for 10 seconds then fall down, that isn't fun. I honestly can't see how it's fun for the people attacking either. I have gotten to the point of not even engaging an NPC when there are 3 people or more already there.
 
It's a bit Metagamy but I think the fun would be a lot more for all involved if there was an unofficial/official 3 person cap on a single opponent.
 
I once considered formally suggesting that we implement a rule that a marshal is permitted to start randomly calling out damage (perhaps equal to at least the highest weapon damage swung by the attackers) when more than 3 people are attacking one person, indicating that the attackers are invariably hitting each other IG from simply being too close to each other, while attacking the same foe, without suffering friendly fire.

Maybe I should get on that...
 
Deadlands said:
I once considered formally suggesting that we implement a rule that a marshal is permitted to start randomly calling out damage (perhaps equal to at least the highest weapon damage swung by the attackers) when more than 3 people are attacking one person, indicating that the attackers are invariably hitting each other IG from simply being too close to each other, while attacking the same foe, without suffering friendly fire.

Maybe I should get on that...
Click to expand...

Or start encouraging your fighter types to just start laying into people who get in their way... :whistle:
 
Inaryn said:
Deadlands said:
I once considered formally suggesting that we implement a rule that a marshal is permitted to start randomly calling out damage (perhaps equal to at least the highest weapon damage swung by the attackers) when more than 3 people are attacking one person, indicating that the attackers are invariably hitting each other IG from simply being too close to each other, while attacking the same foe, without suffering friendly fire.

Maybe I should get on that...
Click to expand...

Or start encouraging your fighter types to just start laying into people who get in their way... :whistle:
Click to expand...

Let's call that Plan B.
 
Perhaps off topic- if others think so I will move it.

I think it comes down to is how Alliance Combat is balanced between a Narratavist and Sport approach. To understand this consider this question- "Do I win an Alliance combat when I defeat my foe or when the coolest possible story/things happen?" This is NOT to say that the coolest thing cannot be a PC putting paid to a dreaded NPC foe- just maybe (to me) the coolest thing is not to Circle Beat Down one foe.

I have played it both ways, and enjoyed both ways. it is my believe that a Sport approach to combat causes more holds as the focus is competition, which means it is MORE important that used spells/abilities/etc. land or get taken.

Thoughts?
 
Perhaps a wording similar to this as part of attack speed / good sportsmanship. "If you, or the group of players with you, have a rate of attack where it would become impossible for the other player to call defenses properly, you're attacking too fast and too often. A good guideline is that as you have two seconds to call defenses, if from the time the first attack is swung there are two solid seconds of attacks alongside it, then it is attacking too often."

The wording would have to be worked on, but it's a possible core idea.
 
I personally like the idea of a cultural shift toward retaining your abilities if the person you attack fails to acknowledge your attack/ defense or whatever. It seems to be a common frustration that I have seen on both sides of the stick. When I have NPC'd in Seattle I found that I would commonly hear other NPCs complain about PC's not taking their effects and as a PC archer I often felt the sting of having a legally landed slay go unnoticed during combat by an NPC for whatever reason. Sure that type of mindset could potentially be taken advantage of by someone but then again anyone that would take advantage of an honor system based rule is probably already doing something similar without the rule in place.

In general I feel like it is a good sportsmanship issue that can be fixed by a change in attitude toward fighting and an emphasis on having clean fights over an emphasis on taking every advantage possible against that BBG.
 
Yames said:
I personally like the idea of a cultural shift toward retaining your abilities if the person you attack fails to acknowledge your attack/ defense or whatever. It seems to be a common frustration that I have seen on both sides of the stick. When I have NPC'd in Seattle I found that I would commonly hear other NPCs complain about PC's not taking their effects and as a PC archer I often felt the sting of having a legally landed slay go unnoticed during combat by an NPC for whatever reason. Sure that type of mindset could potentially be taken advantage of by someone but then again anyone that would take advantage of an honor system based rule is probably already doing something similar without the rule in place.

In general I feel like it is a good sportsmanship issue that can be fixed by a change in attitude toward fighting and an emphasis on having clean fights over an emphasis on taking every advantage possible against that BBG.
Click to expand...

If somebody told me, after a battle, "Hey, I hit you with like six prisons but you never reacted or called a defensive so I just took them back," my response would be "well, I can't officially condone that since it is technically against the rules, but otherwise thank you for just being cool and not calling a hold."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top