Ground Combat

I had seen a few snippets in other threads about ground combat (Non-Jedi/Lightsaber)

For those interested, check out the Lightsaber thread regarding ground combat because there were a few interesting ideas floating there about one-shot kills and the like. But this thread I was more of wanting to see what precisely was slated for the following aspects of ground combat:

Blaster vs Blaster - Should we expect many changes here?

Melee vs Blaster - Is there going to be an expanded role for unarmed and bladed weapons with blasters?

Melee vs Melee - Any changes here?

Sniper Mechanics - Any changes here?


Vehicles - These I always felt were a very underused aspect of DH1, will they be coming over, modified, how will they factor in with other things?

Artillery - Same line as vehicles

And the biggest question, what is the non-FS role regarding Armies going to look like? Are there going to be major changes to Armies that will fit better with individuals, what can we expect to see in DH2 here?


Suggestions section:

A few suggestions I have regarding the above topics. Personally I think the continual quickshotting is ridiculous and needs to have a diminishing return aspect to it. In addition a larger role for unarmed I think would be nice. One thing that I always thought would be good was if unarmed had a much higher likelihood of disarming people, bringing them to their level of combat. Perhaps a better chance of hitting targetted areas or some such. Make it so that the negative of being in melee range and doing less damage is offset by a bonus of being a bit more effective.

The big one for me, I'd love to see vehicles make a much larger impact. In the builders thread I had put up a suggestion regarding traveltimes between zones on worlds. Those could be reduced by speederbikes. So if you're crossing from one zone to another and you are on a speeder bike, instead of 10 rounds it takes 5 rounds to get there, awesome! I know that it is a poorer future, but I'd also like to know if AT-ATs will see use, if there'll be anti-army technology. That's another aspect of ground combat, will there be more anti-army aspects in it. I know most people seemed to feel that the emphasis on Armies was to the detriment of the game, what's being done to address this besides simply making them 'expensive'.

I have an opinion that we need to change how sniping works. It seems too removed from RP... but I have no ideas just yet.

Vehicles need changes. Big changes.

They are a big part of Star Wars... and they are on my list (i've got a list that includes "races" but I can count vehicle interactions as well.)

What sort of things should vehicles do, OTHER than traveltime type things?

How sniping works:

When snipers settle in to snipe a spot, they don't look at 27 different buildings around them, they focus in on their spot. My suggestion would be when someone sets up to snipe, they type +snipe and that /locks/ them into that location. Poses from that location go to the sniper, and the sniper can pose to that location as well. ALSO, when a sniper locks in, if someone has high awareness or some such, maybe they'll notice a glint or what not, a warning of some kind. AND zomg, you could even have it so 'the shot comes from the north' or what not to have a clue where snipering is happening. That would be my pitch for fixing sniping.


Vehicles:

Vehicles are used to transport goods and people. Well we all walk on the MUSH so that's not really needed that much. Goods, we use spaceships. So really the only thing left for vehicles is military use. So they just need to have a solid military use.

I actually recommend this very action before for snipers. That once they +sight # that is where they will see and they get the poses and what not to them. This brings the sniper into the play. I also like it that maybe, just maybe, based on the snipers stealth (or how ever it is going to be called and played on the new game) be evaluated to the perception of the others in the +sight room to be seen or not.

Re: sniping--what about watchtower-style sniping? Standing on a tower and looking around for any sign of trouble. How would that be represented? They aren't going to be just locked in to a single region (or maybe they will once they've spotted something.)

I do like that mechanic you suggested.

Easy: You can only +snipe/lock once every 15 minutes.

So you can stand on the top of the tower and sight around but once you decide on a target, you decide on a target.

I can take a stab at a few of the changes we have planned.

1) Ranged weapons have ammunition. Some are reloadable and thus will only tend to fire one round out of two; you'll basically get one shot. Some are clip-based and will allow you to keep shooting for quite some time. Some have power cells, so they'll shoot forever--unless they burn out (gasp!).
2) Expect some kind of limitation on the power of quickshot. It's supposed to give you a nasty advantage in a quick, short gunfight, not enable you to perform suppressing fire on an entire room. But at the same time, it won't suck.
3) Kinetic ranged weapons can send you into shock. So can energy weapons, but not as easily; they do more damage but are a lot less painful. Shock is a form of stun effect. Stun effects last multiple rounds.
4) Melee weapons can knock you down, deal shock effects, or disarm you more easily. So can unarmed attacks. If you want to fight dirty, punch someone in the face. If you're fighting a blaster-wielder, hit his hands and the blaster will go flying.
5) Melee weapons can shatter.
6) Clutter can be used as a melee or thrown weapon. I'd love to see someone beating people up with a bar stool ... or a statue of Luke Skywalker.
7) If we use a limit break system, the behavior of melee vs melee will resemble the dramatized role of lightsaber combat.

Sniper mechanics are currently undecided. We may scrap long-distance auto-sniping in favor of "assassination attempt" rules which would let you use planning, cunning, diversions, etcetera, to set up a favorable attack on your target.

Vehicles will be more useful in combat. In melee combat, open vehicles (like speeders) impart momentum to your attacks, allowing you to swoop in and smash your foes. In ranged combat, being in something like an AT-AT is kind of handy for not getting blasted; you get a large cover bonus.

I will shortly post a summary of how armies and battles will work.

You can change where you are +sigh'n. Just like now. I +sight 1, that locks me in on that path. Then I have to +unsight and then +sight 2 to change to the next path. In a watch tower, you do have paths that you can +sight. If there is a crowd on the Spaceport and you +sight 1 (the path to the spaceport) you then can "see" what is going on there. What the actions of the players in the spaceport are.

Once you change +unsight and thento +sight 2 the street action comes into play, you loose what is going on in the spaceport.

But till you change +sight # you are locked on to that room. To clear all of it just move to another room or +unsight. +Unsight leaves you as you are, standing in a room oblivious to anything that is going on in the +sight paths.

I for one would really hate to see sniping go away. Snipers are not just long distance shooters, they are intel gatherers. They see what is going on, tell the forces what they see...they have a vital role in any combat group.

Snipers are definitely important and here to stay. The only question is whether the current +snipe mechanic or something like it is the best system for them, or if we can do better.

Hmmm.

Very interesting ideas about changing sniping to "lock in"

But if we go to more GMed-type use of a sniper...

It's tough. I like snipers, but I also don't like that they are so hard to do anything to. It'd be nice to have an immediate way to counter them.

MAYBE instead of separate rooms for snipers, there can be "perches" built into rooms? These perches allow snipe into the current room (and can be shot against at high penalty) and allow +sight into other rooms (for recon, but not sniping into other rooms)

Perches could give bonuses to defense and stealth and maybe even escaping... but only if you had high enough skills to be a good sniper.

I think that'd be kinda cool.

I suppose I can understand this from an easier to RP sort of standpoint, but that's really not how a sniper works only a dumb sniper would setup where they couldnt get away afterwards, and I am betting you'd find people checking those posts at the begining of the scene and attacking the one in there.

Exactly...all snipers pick a postion where they can get away more than likely. That is why you don't climb trees, etc....you are spotted, you are dead.

Fun is more important than realism. It is simply not fun for snipers to be impossible to detect, stop, or interact with.

Notice I added to the "perches" a bit about having an "advantage to escape"

Not to +escape, but to new system of getting out of a scene without actually burning through an auto-escape thing.

You'd be hard to hit, hard to spot (until you started shooting, then it becomes easier to spot you) and have an easier time getting away.

Another reason why I like the "lock on" with +sight...if a sniper is in a place to oversee a spaceport (as and example but it works anywhere), waiting to see who and what lands, or he/she is waiting for the target it saves having to type +sight # over and over and over again. While typing the command is not that big of an issue, it would make sense that if that was the job of the sniper to observe the spaceport he/she would see the ships land or take off and would see who or what gets on or off the ships.

Another big aspect of ground combat and special ops is the Sneak code. Will there be any major changes to Sneak/Track and other type of skills? I know that sneak is frowned on by a lot of people but adored by others, it has a lot of pros and cons for it. I was just curious if this had been looked at.

It is my understanding sneak will undergo some changes. When I asked Gulp (and bearing in mind he could have changed his mind), I think the plan was something like this:

Rather than the static "if your stealth is better than their tracking, you are hidden, forever," it is a random check. Furthermore, it will continue to check at certain intervals throughout your hide attempt. This means that everyone has a /chance/ at spotting eavesdroppers, and if you hide long enough they are likely to spot you, without completely ruining it for the stealthy people. I think it balances it rather well.

Yeah, rcrantz has about the right idea. Nothing is settled exactly. So someone can still come up with an AWESOME idea for sneaking and hiding...

I really do get a good chuckle when I read about sniping, sneaking and hiding.
When I had a character that wasn't good at these I hated them, when I had a character that was good at it I loved it.

It really depends on what side of the fence you are on. No one likes sneaky/hidey players...no one really likes snipers.....that is until you are playing one.

I used to want the reduction of +hide, used to want to make sniping harder. What I was told way back when by many members of the staff then "Take some tracking skills, be aware of your surroundings for snipers. There are skills and equipment that helps you. If you rather not take these skills then that is your choice.

Then after I had a character that was good at it....everyone wanted all these skills reduced.

My point...After seeing both sides of the fence...leave them alone for the most part. Add the lock on to the room for +snipe, if you shoot or spotted then that is when you the sniper will face the music. For Tracking...the closer you get to your target, the better you should be able to pinpoint them. But...as I said, leave them alone is my opinion.

Quickshot....yea it is pretty awesome...you are a great gunslinger you are pretty awesome. Some one with a good quickshot is someone not to mess with....

But that is small...really. When folks travel around with super duper retinues, buy 10 man level 50 armies and use them to attack a player, then they get to attack a player, that is basicly using two attacks on one player. But when that one player uses quickshot that gives him two attacks...how unfair it is for a player to do that!

And this scenario that I just outlined happens, has happened, and when there was unlimited armies attacking the gunslingers that two attacks multiplied many times over.

Balance...limit one, limit the other. We took one step in limiting one army to attack, but still, when you have a level 50 army shooting at you there is little chance you will survive.

What ever is done, please look at the balance, what can be done, what will be done.

We're interested in hearing ways of balancing army vs. PC combat. While the morale code helps, it's still very jarring for low-level PCs getting owned by high-level armies that only took a little bit of effort on the army owner's part to buy (granted they have the money).

Expect a dramatic decrease of armies and general "stuff" in the incarnation. The economy will be much more tight, and your average PC won't even have access to buying armies. That is, to say, they won't be technically allowed to own armies by IC mandate. The Republic is at war, and the Sith Prince certainly doesn't want stray armies out of his control running everywhere.

Ahh, so glad you asked....

Here is my opinions and why:
1. Player verses player only. No player & army against player. - Example...I had a level 30 character. A level 12 character bought two 10 man army that was level 50. Kept after my character, Now, I shot the level 12 character, he never attacked me, kept posing his hit and trying to hide, used his two armies to incap my player. Trust me, two level 50 armies will wipe out a level 30 character long before you can stop a level 12 character. - eliminate the use of armies to attack a PC.
2. Wnat to take down that uber level 45 gunslinger, only a level 15....get some buddy PCs, go get the fellow. RP for many, not just two. And the RP can be great, curses, threats, you did this to my momma....then the shooting and the running and the great escape.
3. Armies verse armies only. Keep it simple. Coded objects like armies fight coded object armies.
4. Get rid of retinues. You are a big powerful politician...hire a couple of PCs to be your body guards when you go out in public. Yea, I know, the PCs may not be on every time that you go out in public. But...I say...this is part of the role the high level politician chose.

I agree one hundred and fifty percent with Stalker1.

Armies cannot stop PCs... plain and simple.

I think we might want to allow some sort of compensation for attempted "capture" or the like. ie: if there are 500 men, the PCs can't just ignore the armies and run around shooting whoever they want. But there should be a capture process that can be initiated and the PC being targeted has to avoid.

But using +checks rather than +shoot to incap.

Sure, I can see that...capture or a command that allows an army to protect the VIP...but no matter what, when there is any coded Army action that goes against a PC the PC should always have the upper hand. It may be slight at the lower levels, it would might be huge as higher levels be attained...but what do we want, a PC with armies or an army of PCs?

The more you eliminate the need of PCs the more you will eliminate PCs.

Within reason. I think it's important not to make the stormtrooper types so insignificant that they can be totally ignored. Han and Luke and Leia and Chewie often blew through the stormies, but never totally ignored 'em.

When Vader shows up with 500 men to take you captive, he's bound to have a much better chance than if he shows up alone, no? It's something to think about. How can we avoid overcompensating in the other direction?