Defensive Stance/Attack toggle

[Arastorin]

Firstly, let me apologize for the rather obtuse post title. A cursory read might suggest that I'm proposing some new skill, while in fact I'm suggesting something that I believe is more mechanical (related to general combat, and not class-specific in nature).

With that out of the way, I now place the following idea on the chopping block...

I've often wished that a tank could somehow toggle off his attacks while in melee, such that he wouldn't even attempt to hit the mob he's fighting. I foresee such a toggle being useful in a situation where the tank is stoned and battling a mob that is fire/cold shielded -- every hit that the tank scores on the shield (globe of invulnerability or no) degrades the integrity of the stoneskin on top of what the opponent's own attacks are doing.

Consider the following scenario -- a warrior averaging 1.5 attacks per round is battling a shielded mob that gets 2.5 attacks per round. Say the warrior's enchanter friend casts a stoneskin on the warrior that lasts 3 rounds, assuming that all described attacks are successful each round; the stoneskin can therefore absorb 12 hits before dissipating. Now say that the warrior can toggle off his attacks, so that 1.5 stoneskin hits/round are removed from the equation. The stoneskin then lasts (12/2.5) 4.8 rounds, a ((4.8 - 3.0)/3.0) 60% increase in duration. True, the warrior isn't doing anything but absorbing damage over those 3 rounds, but if his party's main damage comes from rogues and invokers, he probably doesn't care too much.

A semi-workaround for the involuntary attack syndrome is to leave the tank unhasted and have him unwield his weapon(s), but sometimes even these precautions permit the warrior to sneak in a few naked hits.

Pro:
From a 'realism' standpoint, I think my suggestion is perfectly reasonable -- after all, one should be able to determine whether he wants to actually swing his weapon at something.

Con:
Implementation of this suggestion might impact game balance, as current stoneskin durations might have been set with "shieldburn" already in mind.

Please forgive me if similar suggestions have been offered in the past.

Thanks,
Arastorin Firedawn

[Aderon]

Excuse me, damage comes from us Rangers too. Plus we look better in green tights!

Aderon

[Arastorin]

I purposefully excluded mention of the word 'ranger' because of the Pavlovian response its appearance seems to evoke, wherein some individuals feel compelled to opine on their abilities relative to other classes. I see that the word's omission produces a similar effect.

In any case, I offer my insincere apologies to any rangers whose feelings I hurt when I didn't officially designate them as a "damage source."

How about actually commenting on the point of the post?

Anyone have any relevant thoughts?

Throw me a bone here, people .

Arastorin

[Sarvis]

It's just not realistic. If you're in a fight against several people and one of them isn't bothering to attack you you can safely just ignore him. "Tanking" would require you making attacks and doing things to keep the opponent engaged, anything else is just standing there watching the battle.

Sarvis

[Arastorin]

Thanks for the response, Sarvis.

You have an interesting point, but I think the realism of such a toggle depends entirely on one's interpretation of the mud's combat abstraction.

In my opinion, just because one doesn't receive constant messages (e.g. Arastorin steps to the right, Arastorin flies above you, etc.) indicating that fighting PCs/mobs are moving around in a room, doesn't mean it isn't happening. Melee combat is a fluid, chaotic event, and in an effort to mold this chaos into something that can be represented conveniently in a text-based game, mud designers have opted to eliminate spatial considerations within rooms. Because no concept of object position within a room exists, the appearance of everyone standing in the same spots throughout a combat is created. I assert that this isn't 'really' (granted, it's hard to argue about reality when we're already talking about a somewhat dubious abstraction, but bear with me ) what is happening; instead, I imagine the tank to be interposed between the attacking mob and the rest of his comrades, moving with the mob so that he continues to absorb the mob's attacks. Should his friends be participating in the combat, they are likewise in constant motion, shifting position so that the mob can only attack the tank. This reasoning explains why 'switch opponents' isn't a guaranteed action -- the 'switcher' has to brush aside or fake out the current tank and his fellows so he can move to attacking a different target; if everyone was truly standing still (neither the tank nor his companions bother to move or react), a switch would be automatic. Taking all this into consideration, I think an attack toggle in the context of this abstraction would translate to the tank interposing himself as above, but without striking back.

Now let's apply the above rationale to your example of a fight in real life. One person is trying to get past me to attack a friend of mine. He can either 1.) Run me over (equivalent to killing me in mud terms), or 2.) Juke me (a successful switch) and get past me. Of course, my friend will also probably be adjusting his position so that I stay between him and the attacker. If the attacker could not get past me, I could choose to simply block and not actively assault him.

Incidentally, the above explanation does suggest a need for the existence of a 'guard' skill, that approaches the target-switching action from the opposite viewpoint (offense vs. defense). I would certainly think that just as some opponents would be better at getting past the tank to the softer meat, some tanks would be better at protecting their wards. I believe another poster has already proposed this.

Thanks,
Arastorin

[Sylvos]

I've thought about this since you suggested it, and remembered a similar request made by Kobei(I think) years ago, as pertaining to bards. His request was a toggle that allowed bards to not auto-assist when they get aread. Something about the lunacy of beating on a dragon with the Lyre of Amberyl and stuff like that.

I thought it was a great idea that made sense - you should be able to choose to not engage when somebody assaults you. Turn the other cheeck, etc etc.

The aggressive/defensive stance seems a bit trickier. Yes, you can choose not to strike back at someone who is attacking you, but that implies a very passive role in the combat. I.e. if you are standing there and not countering at all, then why would the mob bother with you. Some kind of contact or interaction is required rather than being hit in order to be involved in a combat.

I understand your example, but unless you physically menace or hinder an opponent, I imagine they could quite conceivably ignore you to beat on the mushy spellcasters.

From one other point of view as well, with this toggle there is absolutely nothing preventing people with high level, ungrouped warrior friends from defensive-toggle tanking mobs that their power-leveling, grouped characters could then kill safely. It would almost be like having a lvl50 pet because the tank wouldn't need to be grouped, because there'd be no risk of them getting the kill.

Your example of the stone is a good one, and I agree that in those cases I would have loved to just stand there until the fire/cold shield abated. But I think there's possibly too much room for abuse/twinkage for such a toggle to be practical.

-Sylvos, who has double windsong proc'd on a coldshield w/o globe. OUCH OUCH OUCH OUCH YIKES RIP

[This message has been edited by Sylvos (edited 08-17-2001).]

[Kuurg]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Sylvos:
<B>
I understand your example, but unless you physically menace or hinder an opponent, I imagine they could quite conceivably ignore you to beat on the mushy spellcasters.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree. I would posit that a warrior interposing himself between an angry monster and a caster is not only viable, but probable. (I had to use posit because astorin already opined.) If someone could propose a method of preventing pleveling twinking (as mentioned by sylvos) this would be perfect.



------------------
·Kuurg·

[gordex]

This is a tricky one. I agree and disagree here. It makes sense that the tank would say OUCH, OUCH, OUCH... "HEY, I better stop swinging my blade cause its starting to hurt me". It would make an enchanters life a little easier cause he wouldn't HAVE to globe the tank, EVER, (which is the part a agree/disagree with all at once hehe).
Maybe if the mob sees the tank is not swinging, he'll automatically switch thinking "screw this guy, he aint hurting me while all his comrades are"

Gordex - Gordex Travel Agency

[Trewe]

I could see a toggle offence sitution working if it was done right.

For instance: tanks would still take shield damage on mob hits/parries/shieldblocks(maybe)(maybe even mounts should take shield damage for flankblocks just to be annoying) as they are still coming in contact with the mobs shield in these cases..

But.. I think a tank should have the option of toggling offence off and just becoming the guy in front that bats away the attacks and manouvers in front of the mob to keep it off the rest of the group..

This way the tank would still require globes and stones..

well thats my 23.5 coppers worth..
I'll go back to sleep now..

Azder

[rylan]

Yeah, I think this is a pretty cool idea, to be able to stop attacking and just focus on defending against the mob. Also, if you're just focusing on defense, you would probably get some bonus to ac or something like that.

Now, while it all sounds really nice, I think it might throw the balance of things way off. Wouldn't have to worry about a mob getting shield up, since the group could just tog offense off. And the point sylvos said about potential twinking.. I think while this would be a nice skill/feature, it presented a lot of issues that have to be somehow worked out first.

[Baldorak]

It definitely looks like some kind of compromise can be made here so that a warrior can defend himself without being obtuse enough to kill himself on a spellshield. How about taking away all but one attack (assuming the warrior has multiple) and trading that in for an extra parry, dodge or shieldblock. The warrior would still have to poke the mob to keep him interested and put in the possibility of stealing the kill in an exp group.

[kiryan]

Not a bad idea.

Biggest problem i can see with it is using it for twinking. Let me use my level 50 warrior tog his defensive stance and your twink can chew him up.

Other things can be explained away like why would a mob attack something thats not fighting back? Maybe defensive stance could result in a higher chance of the mob switching, could be a check based on mob intelligence (best) or level (not so cool) or race, ect.... Mobs are already somewhat sensitive to who hits them the hardest (double backstab backstab ect...)

Everquest has a "hate list" which describes how much a mob hates each particular person based on activities. A mob is really going to hate that invoker after that second set of force missles slammed into his cahunas. Having said that, boy is that system annoying. people are always bitching about how much "hate" they get from casting x spell or wielding x weapon ect... It probably a advances mob intelligence a notch or two.