Possible NPC tanking fix?

Submit and discuss your ideas for the MUD.
Pheten
Sojourner
Posts: 209
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2001 6:01 am

Possible NPC tanking fix?

Postby Pheten » Thu Nov 20, 2003 2:59 pm

Very rough but basic idea:

The basic idea is a skill that all tanking classes have (warrior, paladin, anti, ranger). Lets call this skill for now defensive mastery.
Basically what this skill does is, you are in a group, 2 warriors and a anti for instance. fight starts against 5 demons. One of the tank classes pops the skill off, gets message:
You take on a defensive stance, joining with your fellows in arms!
What this does is opens the door for the other tank classes to do the same if they choose. Nothing has changed at this point in the fight or the defensive abilities of anyone in the group. But next the AP pops his skill off:
You position yourself in a defensive stance next to thanuk!
At this point the 2 tank classes are joined, result:
increased defensive skills, high damage mitigation.
If you flee or leave the room you break the stance for everyone.
Possible to "loose" the defensive stance you have taken up if skill is not high enough, have to re-enter it if this happens.
When the third tank joins the above happens again increasing the abilities of all.

More thoughts: increased returns by having mixxed classes in this stance IE 3 warriors would not get as much benefit as a warrior back to back with a anti or paly (fighting style on these is the same hence they are lumped together) and a ranger. Makes it so groups might actually take some other tanks than warriors.

As well this skill could be limited to say 3 maybe 4 tanks to assure it is not abused.

Again very rough Idea but I think it increases the ability of NPC tanks to do zones, opens the door for downgrades on NPC tank spells (which after dgrades would still be sufficient for single mob fights) and makes the fight overall more interesting on the whole for tank classes.

So whaddya think? agree disagree if ya want, but what i'm looking for the most is more experienced players to build on my idea and maybe make it fit the way it should.

-phet
Gurns
Sojourner
Posts: 554
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2001 5:01 am

Re: Possible NPC tanking fix?

Postby Gurns » Thu Nov 20, 2003 3:47 pm

Pheten wrote:You position yourself in a defensive stance next to thanuk!

Already, anytime I find myself near Nukkie, I take a defensive stance.

Interesting idea. It would give warriors something else to do, requiring player skills. Two thoughts:

(1) I think players of the same class should do better. Two warriors have similar training, have trained with other warriors, so their defense together is co-ordinated. A warrior with a ranger? The styles are different enough to be harder to co-ordindate. Warrior and paladin/antis also have problems, because pally/anti train so their good with horses. Not impossible, but harder. But similarly, two rangers would do well together, two pallys do well together. I would think that -- even though most align restrictions have been eliminated -- pallys and antis might not be able to co-ordinate with each other at all.

A way to balance this so warriors don't get all the goodies is let increasing numbers of other classes join together, with better results. So maybe only 2 warriors can do this, but 3 pallys, and 4 rangers. *shrug* Not really a big concern, because the whole idea needs some work, because of:

(2) The key problem with this skill is that it would seem to preclude rescues. If 3 warriors are forming a defensive line, phalanx, whatever, if they rescue someone, they break that formation. So a warrior could be in "rescue mode" or "defense mode" (or "bash mode"). So, when would this skill be useful? I rather think all the clerics, mages, etc. want the tanks to rescue them, top priority, and any other/different defense will be frowned upon.

And if you make defensive mode somehow "auto rescue", or that it prevents switches (the line of warriors gets in the way of any switching -- i.e., it's a way of effectively doing formations), then warriors shouldn't be in any other mode. Yes? No?

I like the idea, generally, just see some problems with trying to fit it into the current combat scheme. Other folks probably have ideas on tweaks, changes, that may make it fit.
mynazzaraxxsyn
Sojourner
Posts: 479
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2003 10:00 pm
Location: Ixarkon
Contact:

Postby mynazzaraxxsyn » Thu Nov 20, 2003 4:21 pm

I understand the idea, but all I could think of while reading it was "red rover".
Lilithelle stops using a softly throbbing piece of flesh.
Gura group-says 'ill go solo the biznatch, just don't tell Stamm'
Kossuth responds to your petition with 'is it bad that the two words i think of when i see yer title are hottub and cthulhu? :('
Gurns
Sojourner
Posts: 554
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Gurns » Thu Nov 20, 2003 4:36 pm

mynazzaraxxsyn wrote:I understand the idea, but all I could think of while reading it was "red rover".

Yeah, but you'd never get called on, 'cause who can pronounce yer name?

I had a "warrior skills" thought, partially inspired by Pheten's thing here. Posted it http://www.torilmud.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=12690
Pheten
Sojourner
Posts: 209
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Possible NPC tanking fix?

Postby Pheten » Thu Nov 20, 2003 5:01 pm

Gurns wrote:
Pheten wrote:(2) The key problem with this skill is that it would seem to preclude rescues. If 3 warriors are forming a defensive line, phalanx, whatever, if they rescue someone, they break that formation. So a warrior could be in "rescue mode" or "defense mode" (or "bash mode"). So, when would this skill be useful? I rather think all the clerics, mages, etc. want the tanks to rescue them, top priority, and any other/different defense will be frowned upon.


The way I pictured was actually more of a group of tanks working together aka watching each others back and assisting in defense of one another while in the midst of a fight, which then would not make it so they cannot do such things as bash, rescue, ect, now if they leave the room via flee or dragon roar ya, they are gonna loose their formation with each other.

Could also tack some lag onto this ability so it can't be used on the spur of the moment and there of course would be some hit and run type fights where it wouldnt work well on, I think it would balance out well.

-phet

-phet
Ashiwi
Sojourner
Posts: 4161
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Ashiwi » Thu Nov 20, 2003 5:23 pm

mynazzaraxxsyn wrote:I understand the idea, but all I could think of while reading it was "red rover".


Red rover, red rover, let Thanuk roll over...

Damn, if he weren't so easy, it wouldn't be so much fun. Shame on me. Okay, it's out of my system, I swear!
Mitharx
Sojourner
Posts: 475
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:01 am
Location: St. Louis, MO, 63129

Postby Mitharx » Thu Nov 20, 2003 5:55 pm

Could bards link hands and sing? I'll bring the marshmellows.
thanuk
Sojourner
Posts: 1902
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 5:01 am
Contact:

Postby thanuk » Thu Nov 20, 2003 6:44 pm

Ashiwi wrote:


Damn, if he weren't so easy, it wouldn't be so much fun.


That's what Gurns said....ABOUT YOUR MOM!

Cheer me
Mysrel tells you 'have my babies'
You tell Mysrel 'u want me to be ur baby daddy?'
Mysrel tells you 'daddy? No, I think you have the terminology wrong'
You tell Mysrel 'comeon now we both know i would be the top'
Mysrel tells you 'can be where ever you want to be, yer still getting ****** like a drunken cheerleader'
Gurns
Sojourner
Posts: 554
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Gurns » Thu Nov 20, 2003 6:53 pm

Mitharx wrote:Could bards link hands and sing? I'll bring the marshmellows.

*sing* We are the world....
Gromikazer
Sojourner
Posts: 244
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2002 5:01 am

Postby Gromikazer » Fri Nov 21, 2003 2:15 am

Bards already have accompany, and this Idea is similar to that. The funny thing, is how long people have known that warriors are lacking, and generally not as fun as other classes. Yet the imms, despite MANY posts with literally hundreds of ideas have decided that warriors don't really need anything, because they are the stools of the mud, everyone gets thier turn at abusing them.
Sesexe
Sojourner
Posts: 879
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2003 5:13 am

Re: Possible NPC tanking fix?

Postby Sesexe » Fri Nov 21, 2003 3:38 am

Pheten wrote:Very rough but basic idea:

The basic idea is a skill that all tanking classes have (warrior, paladin, anti, ranger). Lets call this skill for now defensive mastery.
Basically what this skill does is, you are in a group, 2 warriors and a anti for instance. fight starts against 5 demons. One of the tank classes pops the skill off, gets message:
You take on a defensive stance, joining with your fellows in arms!
What this does is opens the door for the other tank classes to do the same if they choose. Nothing has changed at this point in the fight or the defensive abilities of anyone in the group. But next the AP pops his skill off:
You position yourself in a defensive stance next to thanuk!
At this point the 2 tank classes are joined, result:
increased defensive skills, high damage mitigation.
If you flee or leave the room you break the stance for everyone.
Possible to "loose" the defensive stance you have taken up if skill is not high enough, have to re-enter it if this happens.
When the third tank joins the above happens again increasing the abilities of all.

More thoughts: increased returns by having mixxed classes in this stance IE 3 warriors would not get as much benefit as a warrior back to back with a anti or paly (fighting style on these is the same hence they are lumped together) and a ranger. Makes it so groups might actually take some other tanks than warriors.

As well this skill could be limited to say 3 maybe 4 tanks to assure it is not abused.

Again very rough Idea but I think it increases the ability of NPC tanks to do zones, opens the door for downgrades on NPC tank spells (which after dgrades would still be sufficient for single mob fights) and makes the fight overall more interesting on the whole for tank classes.

So whaddya think? agree disagree if ya want, but what i'm looking for the most is more experienced players to build on my idea and maybe make it fit the way it should.

-phet


Pheten, did you um... read this thread by chance?

http://www.torilmud.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=12504
Asup group-says 'who needs sex ed when you got sesexe.'
Targsk group-says 'sexedse'
mount dragon
You climb on and ride Tocx'enth'orix, the elder black dragon.
You have learned something new about mount!
Ashiwi
Sojourner
Posts: 4161
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Ashiwi » Fri Nov 21, 2003 2:30 pm

Gurns wrote:
Mitharx wrote:Could bards link hands and sing? I'll bring the marshmellows.

*sing* We are the world....


I heard Thanuk say he wants in on this action, but only if he gets to play Michael Jackson's part.
thanuk
Sojourner
Posts: 1902
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 5:01 am
Contact:

Postby thanuk » Fri Nov 21, 2003 3:30 pm

Gromikazer wrote:Bards already have accompany, and this Idea is similar to that. The funny thing, is how long people have known that warriors are lacking, and generally not as fun as other classes. Yet the imms, despite MANY posts with literally hundreds of ideas have decided that warriors don't really need anything, because they are the stools of the mud, everyone gets thier turn at abusing them.


Actually dude, Shev's been doing alot to try and help warriors out. He changed headbutt to actually be useful, he messed with hitall so the lag doesnt absolutely destroy you, he played with the combat system and added partial blocks and stuff(even though i think he screwed up the degrading skills rate, but hey nobody's perfect). So it's pretty unfair to say they aren't trying, because it's obvious that they are. Warriors are probably the hardest class to tweak, because their abilities are so limited, and so much of the game is based upon how they work. You upgrade their defensive skills too much, and all of melee gets screwed by super defensive skill mobs. You up their damage, and people start getting killed by ripostes. It's tricky, particularly since EVERY FRIGGIN MOB IN THE GAME IS FLAGGED A WARRIOR which might have something to do with the problem.
Mysrel tells you 'have my babies'

You tell Mysrel 'u want me to be ur baby daddy?'

Mysrel tells you 'daddy? No, I think you have the terminology wrong'

You tell Mysrel 'comeon now we both know i would be the top'

Mysrel tells you 'can be where ever you want to be, yer still getting ****** like a drunken cheerleader'

Return to “T2 Ideas Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests