A couple of Q&As ago the topic came up that it was "too easy" for
people with lowish dex (40-) to flee by spamming "flee". Can't say
that I liked any of the proposed fixes very much cause it all seemed
to be taking too much away from one type of fighting to
But! I fink I may have thought of a way around this! (Course whether
it's codable or not is a whole different story.)
Instead of putting a lag on flee, making people fall over on failed
flees, increasing the scale which allows for successful fleeing (the
presumably dex + exit scale) etc etc...
Why not make it so that every _failed_ attempt at fleeing reduces
the flee-er's chance of successfully fleeing within a certain time
E.g. Current situation: Mr_Two_left_Feet spams fleefleefleefleeFLEE!
He fails the first four and runs away on the fifth, and sausages
away to taunt the person he was fleeing from with his, 'HA! I have
30 dex! HAHAHAHAHA!'
Proposed Situation: Mr_Two_left_Feet spams fleefleefleefleeFLEE!
Let's say that at Flee_1 he has a 30 percent chance of running away.
(I do NOT know the numbers btw, this is just an eggzample.)
So at Flee_2 (having failed Flee_1) he now has a 20 percent chance
of successfully running away.
Failing Flee_2, he then has a 10 percent chance of successfully
Failing Flee_3 he has...whee NO chance of running away anymore,
at least for that tick! (Or whatever time frame is assigned, me used
ticks for convenience.)
The 'realism' principle behind all this (for those of you who
think it's a good thing...realism, that is) is that the more
you fail to run away from a big mean psycho who wants to eat your
nose deep-fried, the more likely you are to panic even _further_
thus making your attempts to run away (AAAAHHHH) even _less_
effective and thus less likely to succeed.
However, no chance reduction should be applied to _successful_
fleeing attempts, since (by the same logic) if you manage to
get further away from the nose-eating psycho, you'll feel safer
and calm down a bit and be more cool and collected and all that.
From the balance point of view, this would also work by penalising
people it's _supposed_ to penalise (i.e. LeftFootTortoises who
think they're Hares) while not actually penalising the people who
have easy fleeing (ya lily-livered yellow-bellied...) as an er...
legitimate stat-backed combat option.
Okie spammy post done!
Sunday, September 21 2003, 09:43AM
All this fleeing fixed that has been proposed is just
in the end hurt lowbies, who don't have enough rent
to get eqs that raise up their dex... and well.. I guess
we will start seeing more death info from lowbies...
Sunday, September 21 2003, 11:06AM
This was a solution suggested in the Q&A:
Cheyla says, 'soemthing that stacks against you like praise type stuff'
Kaige says, 'to make it less likely to succeed the more times you spam it in?
with consequences like falling down, disoriented, etc?'
Cheyla says, 'the more you try to flee, the more likely you're going to be
frantic and more careless or something'
Kaige nods her agreement with Cheyla.
Some conversation not related to this solution
trimmed out from the copy/paste from the log.
Sunday, September 21 2003, 11:09AM
There was also a suggestion at QnA that instead of lag on failed flees
while you are still in combat because you failed your flee (thus ensuring
no lowbies would ever live pretty much) that you get lag on a successful
flee, after you flee. I think this one is best. Lowbies can escape the
dreaded killer mice, and con cause mages with 7 healing scrolls sit there
for a while and cool thier heals after fleeing.
Not to target any con mage in particular...well I did...but I didn't mean to!
Sunday, September 21 2003, 01:16PM
Sounds like an excellent Idea. That way when you catch them in the same tic,
From: tick, they are in for some pain. I'd also say that something along berek
's post is a good idea too. as once people sucessfully fled they could stil
From: still jet far away.
And Cheyla, what was the point of your post? I'm sorry if I do not understand.
understand. Oh how i hate this posting system.
Sunday, September 21 2003, 06:04PM
i think Cheyla was suggesting that she had suggested
essentially the same thing in teh QnA that Wren read
and was making a suggestion about. I doubt that there
was much more meaning that "it's been suggested and
atleast one imm already think's it's a good idea."
Wren's post seemed to me to be written as "i had this great
Idea and I think she may very well have but the
QnA she was responding to also covered that same idea.
Still worth discussing. I think the idea has merit.
Sunday, September 21 2003, 06:45PM
Er ya, I musta missed it since I did read that q&a.
Sorry if I stepped on anyone's virtual toes, didn't see that
From: Don't care whose idea anything is anyway, someone thought
of it earlier, me remiss for not seeing.