Post by OT on Jun 1, 2018 5:05:20 GMT -5
From gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,52143.msg1012964.html#msg1012964
Seidhr:
If Seidhr is right, there's no bonus/penalty from knowing or not knowing your opponent's weapon skill. However, the codedump contains this:
According to that, having a weapon skill gives you bonuses against users of that weapon type. As such, possessing a weapon skill that virtually nobody else has gives you an advantage in combat. While there may not be a literal penalty for not having the skill, there's an absence of the bonuses that you'd frequently face when using a basic weapon skill. If the above code is in use, that gives a considerable advantage to wielders of branched weapon skills.
So either Seidhr is wrong or 15 years worth of player observations, now verified by the codedump, are false. Since I haven't actually used advanced weapon skills myself or personally witnessed someone with a particularly high knife/trident/whatever in action, I can't swear by it. But it's certainly a bold claim from Seidhr.
Sounds like a disingenuous statement made to justify the removal of advanced weapon skills. "Oh don't worry, there's no penalty involved in defending against a weapon skill you don't have, so those skills were useless!" Yeah, you just have none of the bonuses that you might have against basic weapon skills. Since their reason for removing those skills was that they supposedly aren't even beneficial, I'd say that pretty much counts as a lie.
Since we have very experienced players who have talked in great detail about the significant advantages of being skilled in your opponent's weapon type - an observation backed by weapon helpfiles and the cited code - it's hard to take Seidhr's claim at face value. On one hand, staff are the only ones who can know for certain. On the other, they have a long history of shamelessly lying to the playerbase, or being so inexperienced with the code that they inadvertently spread misinformation disguised as authority. Here they're trying to con players into thinking that advanced weapon skills didn't even have advantages.
Another amusing reason for removing these skills was that there weren't enough weapons built for them. Really? That's a reason for removing five skills? Now, I'm not totally against their removal--I've never used them myself, and almost nobody ever gets the skills high enough to matter. But the reasoning is laughable. "We haven't bothered to create enough items to support this entire subset of skills, so instead of doing that, we're just removing them!"
It's the way they keep bullshitting the playerbase and telling half-truths to justify actions motivated by something entirely different. Instead of addressing the flawed code that makes these skills nearly unusable, and requires twinking in order to even obtain, they just do away with the whole thing. And players are still left with the fact that to get through the second half of a character's combat progression, you basically have to do things that you'll get punished for.
A cynical player might perceive that staff doesn't want you to strive for anything combat-related, because getting good at combat means you'll be able to do things that require staff to pay attention, like murder people. There has always been this crazy stigma against caring about combat, and a thinly-veiled accusation that you're a bad roleplayer if you want your character to be good at fighting. Because God forbid you do something with it that might affect the world.
Seidhr:
This is actually not true. There was a side effect of razor weapons that was not intended, that they could destroy armor. That was actually not a design decision and was because they weren't coded into some lookup table. I think it may have even been fixed now. None of the other weapon types did anything. There is lots of conjecture out there that claims not-having-a-skill makes you worse at defending against that weapon type, but as Brokkr just said.... ^^
There is no advantage to any of them other than: Hurrrrr durrrr I am very skilled warrior, I use "kniiiiiiife" weapons.
...so people OOCly may conclude that you are not to be trifled with - which is 100% silly.
There is no advantage to any of them other than: Hurrrrr durrrr I am very skilled warrior, I use "kniiiiiiife" weapons.
...so people OOCly may conclude that you are not to be trifled with - which is 100% silly.
If Seidhr is right, there's no bonus/penalty from knowing or not knowing your opponent's weapon skill. However, the codedump contains this:
/* knowledge bonuses based on how much each combatant understands their
* opponent's weapon type. -- Tiernan 12/2/2003
*/
#define ALLOW_OPP_BONUS
#ifdef ALLOW_OPP_BONUS
if (proficiency_bonus(ch, v_wtype))
off += number(0, proficiency_bonus(ch, v_wtype));
if (proficiency_bonus(victim, c_wtype))
def += number(0, proficiency_bonus(victim, c_wtype));
if( diffport && (prev_off != off || prev_def != def )) {
qroomlogf(QUIET_COMBAT, ch->in_room,
"Opp's weapon know: off = %d, def = %d", off, def);
}
prev_off = off;
prev_def = def;
#endif
According to that, having a weapon skill gives you bonuses against users of that weapon type. As such, possessing a weapon skill that virtually nobody else has gives you an advantage in combat. While there may not be a literal penalty for not having the skill, there's an absence of the bonuses that you'd frequently face when using a basic weapon skill. If the above code is in use, that gives a considerable advantage to wielders of branched weapon skills.
So either Seidhr is wrong or 15 years worth of player observations, now verified by the codedump, are false. Since I haven't actually used advanced weapon skills myself or personally witnessed someone with a particularly high knife/trident/whatever in action, I can't swear by it. But it's certainly a bold claim from Seidhr.
Sounds like a disingenuous statement made to justify the removal of advanced weapon skills. "Oh don't worry, there's no penalty involved in defending against a weapon skill you don't have, so those skills were useless!" Yeah, you just have none of the bonuses that you might have against basic weapon skills. Since their reason for removing those skills was that they supposedly aren't even beneficial, I'd say that pretty much counts as a lie.
Since we have very experienced players who have talked in great detail about the significant advantages of being skilled in your opponent's weapon type - an observation backed by weapon helpfiles and the cited code - it's hard to take Seidhr's claim at face value. On one hand, staff are the only ones who can know for certain. On the other, they have a long history of shamelessly lying to the playerbase, or being so inexperienced with the code that they inadvertently spread misinformation disguised as authority. Here they're trying to con players into thinking that advanced weapon skills didn't even have advantages.
Another amusing reason for removing these skills was that there weren't enough weapons built for them. Really? That's a reason for removing five skills? Now, I'm not totally against their removal--I've never used them myself, and almost nobody ever gets the skills high enough to matter. But the reasoning is laughable. "We haven't bothered to create enough items to support this entire subset of skills, so instead of doing that, we're just removing them!"
It's the way they keep bullshitting the playerbase and telling half-truths to justify actions motivated by something entirely different. Instead of addressing the flawed code that makes these skills nearly unusable, and requires twinking in order to even obtain, they just do away with the whole thing. And players are still left with the fact that to get through the second half of a character's combat progression, you basically have to do things that you'll get punished for.
A cynical player might perceive that staff doesn't want you to strive for anything combat-related, because getting good at combat means you'll be able to do things that require staff to pay attention, like murder people. There has always been this crazy stigma against caring about combat, and a thinly-veiled accusation that you're a bad roleplayer if you want your character to be good at fighting. Because God forbid you do something with it that might affect the world.