Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Roran Hawkins

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 53
Conduct & Design Discussion / Re: Equipment Overhaul
« on: June 16, 2017, 09:25:38 PM »
I like the idea, definitely. How will you differentiate between weapons specifically? Will there be a difference between weapon damage and chance to hit, or will things remain at the same flat melee bonus? Will the presence or absence of a shield change a unit's offensive abilities with certain weapons ...? The more we know, the better we can tailor our suggestions to the theme.

What I personally would try to include somehow is that shields would fall out of use at higher grades of armour in favour of more offensive ability while shields would become more of a necessity with lower grades of armour for survival. Perhaps daggers as an off-hand could give more bonuses the better your armour is?

I'd also like to know what you had in mind for differences between the different mount types? Obviously chargers/destriers'd give the ultimate attack and defence bonus amongst them, but how would a courser or a saddle horse come into play here? Is there a planned difference in movement speed for them? Maybe saddle horses could serve primarily as a strategic movement bonus and a bonus for units to suffer less overcrowded bonus/penalties in battle as they have an easier time manoeuvering across the field, but don't necessarily fight on horseback?

Maybe you could even do something with formation weapons. By themselves their bonuses might not be as impressive as smaller weapons like swords, maces or broadswords, but perhaps pikes, spears and halberds should get an increased bonus if at least X friendly units using the same weapons (weapon group even?) are in combat and not routing? This value could be relative to enemy numbers or allied numbers, and should perhaps best be different for each type of formation weapon.

TO be fair, these are just some random ideas I'm putting out there. If there's anything more specific, please do specify.

Realms Chat / Re: The Kingdom of Ascalon
« on: January 29, 2017, 05:07:34 PM »
War with the Hawks was essentially chasing ghosts. Ghosts with bigger, bigger sticks that is.

Realms Chat / Re: The Kingdom of Ascalon
« on: January 20, 2017, 01:47:59 PM »
Rage return!

Sounds funny. The idea of it amuses me as well. We'll see. For now, watching is amusing enough.

Helpline / Recovering a publication
« on: January 10, 2017, 07:51:48 PM »
So I had a publication passed on over generations of my characters, the Ascalonian Book of Laws. I wanted to check it recently but discovered that my slumbered characters don't have acces to it. Is there a way to recover it somehow? I'm now travelling to my old power hub to see if it's still there, as over four versions were published there.


Either way, dice is probably a good idea if you add modifiers based on the weapons, tactics, experience and traits the duelists have. As Vintroth said, make sure your players are aware and accept said modifiers.

 I suggest adding modifiers to the roll based on the number of battles fought, soldiers killed, nobles captured or slain relative to eachother (choosing general cut-off points is arbitrary and will lead to frustrations if you fall just below one) along with traits and perhaps an RP factor, where the player character can decide to add a negative modifier if he feels his character should have one based off roleplay or other factors. Perhaps also add negative modifiers dependant on character health.

You could even devise combat options for characters like in Battlemaster, a la defensive beats neutral, offensive beats defensive, neutral beats offensive, giving additional modifiers. Additionally, dependant on the style of combat or the rules you could allow best out of three contesting rolls for real duels or sudden death for a duel to see who achieves the first strike or draws first blood. Equals could be re-rolled as equal performance, difference between rolls would point at how easy or tough the victory was. You could even have them roll against a mean number + the defender's modifiers instead of contesting rolls to see who scores hits when if you'd like.

Example with modifiers I devised on the spot;

Baron John Doe with 50+ battles fought, 11 mortals slain, 3 nobles captured and 1 noble slain versus Ser Roderick Mortimmer with 12 battles fought, 1 mortal slain and no nobles defeated but with the duelist trait. Baron John Doe'd get +3 for having far more experience in war and having personally defeated more ordinary men and first ones, while Ser Roderick Mortimmer would get +2 from being a duelist. Since Baron John chose to fight offensively while Ser Roderick is fighting neutrally John Doe gets an additional +1 to his roll. Because the player of Baron John decided he'd take a -1 due to a roleplayed permanent injury he gains said modifier. They are dueling until submission, so they get three contesting rolls.

Baron John Doe total: 1d20+2
Ser Roderick Mortimmer total: 1d20+3

Round 1:
Baron John rolls 11+2 versus Roderick rolling 6+3 => Baron John wins
Round 2:
Baron John rolls 2+2 versus Roderick rolling 9+3 => Roderick wins
Round 3:
Baron John rolls 17+2 versus Roderick rolling 20+3 => Roderick wins the duel

You have caught a Roro! How shall you name him?

Don't spread our smut!  ;D  The world mustn't know!

Realms Chat / Re: The Kingdom of Ascalon
« on: October 17, 2016, 12:20:26 AM »
I'm proud that Ascalon's thread is keeping up the tradition of lively OOC discussions.

I'll just add that I played Richard as a manipulative, honour-seeking man of the commons who first aimed to please Endymia through unwavering loyalty and support and then once he'd grow powerful enough, depose her once her image started cracking.

To whom should I abdicate for better flow of the game?
E: Nevermind, I can't. Good luck I guess.

Realms Chat / Re: The Kingdom of Ascalon
« on: September 08, 2016, 02:18:06 AM »
Well, I'm out. Anyone else interested in ruling Ascalon can try to breathe life into the realm. I simply can't be bothered. The game simply doesn't bring me any joy anymore and I don't feel that there's any improvement of core problems coming anytime soon. I had a nice time, everything considered.

Some good forum drama too. Bye.

Dungeons / Re: Update feedback
« on: August 15, 2016, 12:05:42 PM »
Thank you.

So, from my researching these are Symfony and/or PHP complaining that things aren't exactly what it expects, rather than saying that something is preventing something else from happening.

If chat, card selection, and target selection still work, I'm lead to believe this is probably not so much a bug as it is over zealous reporting. I've a couple ideas on this, but none of them really make sense. The common denominator for those three Forms is the translation file and the OptionsResolver itself. It's also of note that these (the forms) are the same files the game has used since before the code went public.

Roran, do the dungeons otherwise still run correctly?

Yes, they do work for the most part. A suggestion from me would be to give the party more information on how and when they advance to the next level and perhaps give the party the choice to decide WHEN they go to the next level, making 'wait' a free action with unlimited uses and the standard action AFK players use when there's no monsters or safe treasure around.

This way you can actually have one character detrap some plunder and allow othersto loot it before you go to the next level, or allow players to go to the next level if there's only trapped plunder left which noone can detrap without having to sacrifice someone to it to advance.

Dungeons / Re: Update feedback
« on: August 10, 2016, 05:33:42 PM »
Strict Standards: Declaration of BM2\DungeonBundle\Form\ChatType::configureOptions() should be compatible with Symfony\Component\Form\AbstractType::configureOptions(Symfony\Component\OptionsResolver\OptionsResolver $resolver) in /home/maf/symfony/src/BM2/DungeonBundle/Form/ChatType.php on line 11

Strict Standards: Declaration of BM2\DungeonBundle\Form\CardSelectType::configureOptions() should be compatible with Symfony\Component\Form\AbstractType::configureOptions(Symfony\Component\OptionsResolver\OptionsResolver $resolver) in /home/maf/symfony/src/BM2/DungeonBundle/Form/CardSelectType.php on line 30

Strict Standards: Declaration of BM2\DungeonBundle\Form\TargetSelectType::configureOptions() should be compatible with Symfony\Component\Form\AbstractType::configureOptions(Symfony\Component\OptionsResolver\OptionsResolver $resolver) in /home/maf/symfony/src/BM2/DungeonBundle/Form/TargetSelectType.php on line 47

Dungeons / Re: Update feedback
« on: August 09, 2016, 02:33:21 PM »
Ah, excuses. It's all I can select to copy. That's the end of the message but a whole bunch precedes it. It's covered by other UI though and I can't copypasta that section.

Dungeons / Update feedback
« on: August 08, 2016, 12:59:36 PM »
So far I've noticed nothing new yet, but we're only in round one. First problem is that there's a massive amount of script in the background of the page that's cluttering UI.

...Strict Standards: Declaration of BM2\DungeonBundle\Form\TargetSelectType::configureOptions() should be compatible with Symfony\Component\Form\AbstractType::configureOptions(Symfony\Component\OptionsResolver\OptionsResolver $resolver) in /home/maf/symfony/src/BM2/DungeonBundle/Form/TargetSelectType.php on line 47...

Rage Zone / Re: Sin Li/Sack/whatever
« on: August 08, 2016, 12:55:41 PM »
It recently looted the mercenaries' lands I heard. Fun times!

Rage Zone / Re: Aggression without Interaction
« on: July 29, 2016, 03:40:48 AM »
If that happened it was after I left.

Exactly. Complaining about a lack of communication in hostilities when you assume the legacy of the realm you're reviving is the same as when you left it ages ago is rather useless.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 53