Construction Ahead...

[SilverDragon]

Well, first off I'd like to thank all the members here who decided to join at all. I have never done a website, let alone an RP site. But that's not quite what this is about.

I have discovered that it is one thing to have a "clever" idea, but an entirely different thing to have it in practice. I have discovered that quite a few of my rules and ideas were better on paper. So I am going to re-read and re-examine all the rules, tips, everything and anything.

One of the things I am changing right now concerns character combat, weapons and equipment. As of right now, until further notice, you can choose your character's weapon when you create their profile. I Have no particular plans to make a character weapon shop, so if you want a flame sword, you got it. You want a magic boomerang? You'll start with it. The only thing, you can only pick one, because you I don't think you can function carrying around 100 rare swords.

Until I can figure out a working "How characters will grow" chart, I highly recommend getting a Pokemon for fighting against other characters. I thought it would be a cool idea to have the whole "no Pokemon thing" but it turns out it was very poorly thought out. I may ultimately take out that concept just because it makes life easier.

I sincerely apologize to everyone. I was in a bit of a rush in excitement to get this place open, yet at the same time, terrified that something would go wrong anyway. In the future you can expect many rule modifications, and tweaks, nothing too drastic, that I will let you all know as soon as they occur.

[foreverchanging]

Does that mean that my custom-class, Mystics, can only wield a staff or a dagger (rather than both)?

[SilverDragon]

Since a dagger is so small I suppose you can have them both. I probably should have just said don't go overboard. So just don't have like 15 different weapons. You can have two or three swords or a seemingly limitless supply of grenades or smoke bombs, but if you use broad swords, you probably haven't studied long range weaponry so guns or bows would be useless to you.

[shrew]

Well pokemon are kinda living weapons. So how about instead of having the character level up have their weapon level up instead. That way you don't weaken the characters that are trainers and at the same time the characters that are warriors have a way to improve and become stronger. So then that would mean that you can have up two six weapons or six pokemon. Or a mixture of both but only up to six.

[foreverchanging]

Yays ^^ Thanks SD

-----

I understand where your coming from, but if your weapon levels up (becomes stronger), and your character doesn't (AKA remaining with 50 Hp), wouldn't that mean that if you have a high level weapon, and your hit is accurate, that you deliver a 1-hit k.o.?

[shrew]

No the characters won't have hp. The weapons however would. So you can break a weapon (which would be like a pokemon fainting) but that doesn't mean your character would die or get injured. Unless one wants that to happen of course. I imagine most people would have their character's block an attack with their own weapons instead of their own bodies.

If we have trainer having hp and then have warriors running around with hp obviously the warriors would utterly destroy the trainers no contest. As a trainers rely purely on their pokemon meanwhile the warriors rely on themselves. All the warrior would have to do would be to rush the trainer and kill them before they could draw a pokemon. It's not fair to the trainers of the game to have them have hp and run around with warriors who also have hp. At the same time if the warrior meets a trainer who released all six pokemon on them they have no fair chance of surviving unless they also have pokemon. As it would be six (even seven if the trainer joins in) against one. No matter how strong the warrior is the chances are stacked way against him. It'd be almost impossible for him to win.

Really the only way I can think to solve the problem is to have weapons and pokemon have the same strength. That way a warrior who can wield a sword and dagger could take down a trainers pokemon in a double battle. Or something like that. Perhaps the weapons would be how the characters cast magic too. So the warrior wouldn't have to physically touch the weapon for it to work. It would even the playing field immensely.

[SilverDragon]

That's is an intresting idea and similar to a system used in Muramasa (or dark cloud even) where if you use one of your weapons too long it breaks and looses all it's power untill it repairs itself. That could definately be something to consider and then if the weapon "breaks" in a battle/looses all it's HP you can't use it untill it gets repaired.

However I have a feeling that it will be a requirement to have Pokemon. The way I had initially envisioned it would be everyone would be a trainer, but they could still get into fist fights which would be where the weapons and magic would come in. But those fights would be like "friendly" fights (and I use that term VERY loosly) where there would be no stats, but a winner would be determined based upon how well you RP.

What does everyone think about that?
I also didn't think that other people would be out for blood either. That's my fault though.

[shrew]

Jan 7, 2010 23:02:15 GMT -5 SilverDragon said:

a winner would be determined based upon how well you RP.

...Well most likely the better rper would be the losing character. XD As they were the ones that were willing to take the loss or saw the benefits to take the loss for character development. Trust me on this. I think anyone whose been on a warrior cats rpg or any rpg where there isn't stats to determine fights know that they'll be one newer rper that just has to have the best fighter or whatever and will create and play them as super characters. Or attempt to until a mod kicks them in their face or the other players just don't let them. More likely most fights will end up as draws. Which isn't a bad thing. ^^

I don't mind either way honestly as I have me trainer already and don't plan on making a warrior type character anytime soon. So I'm fine with however the game is tinkered with.

[SilverDragon]

Bah, whatever. I mean a seasoned RPer won't loose to a newb which would mean that the fighting character would have little fighting experience and would loose even with stats. I hate it when you lose to one with little to no skill just cuz they have higher stats. That's why Pokemon online sucks, all you ever see is legendaries.

Mayhaps we shall try it this way untill an agreeable weapon stat thing is determined.

[foreverchanging]

Maybe, in response to Shrew's idea, we could change the rules about fighting, where people can't do 6 on 1's, and should have the same, or roughly the same, amount of pokemon.

I don't think that weapons should have hp, however. I think that they should have durability, yes, but other than that, just be weapons. A warrior must always carry atleast 1 pokemon aswell as trainers, but maybe have a limit of 5 pokemon instead of 6, because the warrior themself is a fighting machine, a basic definition of what pokemon are.

So then, including both sudgestions, there could be fair fights between trainers and warriors.

[SilverDragon]

I'll work on the Weapon durability concept.

I don't intend to change the idea of more than one against eachoter though. Trust me, not too many people seem to bother doing it at the other forum I go to.

[foreverchanging]

I know, but if its a whole team of 20's vs a 80, the 80's gonna win 100%. If its a team of 80's against a 20, the 20 is toast. The odds are that the outcome of the battle will practically be screamed out before its even starte.

[shrew]

Jan 7, 2010 23:18:09 GMT -5 SilverDragon said:

Bah, whatever. I mean a seasoned RPer won't loose to a newb which would mean that the fighting character would have little fighting experience and would loose even with stats. I hate it when you lose to one with little to no skill just cuz they have higher stats. That's why Pokemon online sucks, all you ever see is legendaries.

I'm telling you its more likely that the experienced rper would want to take the loss. Mainly because they are more likely to have created weaker characters. You can't really out 'role play' anyone. XD A newbie at rping could just write a sentence that their character threw a punch and the an 'advanced' rper could write two pages describing the motive, thought process, weather conditions, and details about how and when their character threw a punch and the results are the same. A character threw a punch. Mind you I dislike so called advanced rpgs for that very reason. Both posts had the same content yet for some reason the one sentence poster might get mocked or even banned from the site. I disagree with it. Course I like both styles I just don't think anyone should be teased because they didn't have time or just didn't write a long post.

Unfortunately I have to disagree with ForeverChanging on his suggestion about limiting a battles to one on one or just so they're evenly matched. That limits characters. By a lot. Cause it might in a characters nature to be a bully and send out their whole team against a single fighter. Is it fair? HECK no! But that character obviously doesn't care about fairness. If you force people to only have battles on a one on one basis to keep them evenly matched you stop having nasty cheating characters altogether. That means villains, bad guys, and anti-heros to bounce off the good guys have pretty much been banned. It'll make a bland game full of goody two shoes if you ask me. It also limits fighting styles to a smaller degree too.

And yes I've been on the end of having my character being ganged up against 5 and up enemies. (used to be in every battle on Warrior Cats forum that'd happen). It can be irritating but at the same time my character can always escape and run away instead of being forced to die or faint. And I had to have my character react on how to handle a dangerous situation. And it showed the true colors of the opposing parties. Everyone has fun. But by limiting how a battle can be engaged...I'm against it.

[SilverDragon]

What about this, weapon will have 100 Whp (Weapon HP) and every time you use it (in a fight, pratical uses are exempt) to damage or block, you loose some Whp. When it looses all it basicaly can not block further attacks, and it's damage will be virtualy non existant, IE, you loose.

[foreverchanging]

Unless Whp loss was no more than 3, or so, for each block or attack, i'd say no. If a weapon breaks after a small amount of attacks, then whats the point in having a weapon? Not only would it mean that the weapon was made by a terrible blacksmith, but it would also mean that a weapon is not much of a defence if it breaks often. I'd say that each weapon has a different amount of Whp/damage taken, based on size and description.

Take a rusty dagger and an enchanted longsword, for example.

Rusty dagger:
Small weapon = 50 whp
Small AKA stabler = +1 dmg resistance
Rusted/old = -1 dmg resistance
---
WHP: 50
Protection from damage recieved: 0 (3+0 = 3)
Protection from damage dealt: 0 (1+0 = 1)

--------------------------

Enchanted Longsword
Large weapon = 150 whp
An easy target = -1 dmg resistance
Enchanted = +1 dmg resistant
Spreadout design (less stability) = -1 dmg resistant
---
Whp:150
Protection from damage recieved: -1 (3+1 = 4)
Protection from damage dealt: -1 (1+1 = 2)

The default stats for:
Damage recieved is 3 (3whp removed per block)
Damage dealt is 1 (1whp removed per attack)

See where i'm heading?

----------------

If we have trainer having hp and then have warriors running around with hp obviously the warriors would utterly destroy the trainers no contest. As a trainers rely purely on their pokemon meanwhile the warriors rely on themselves. All the warrior would have to do would be to rush the trainer and kill them before they could draw a pokemon. It's not fair to the trainers of the game to have them have hp and run around with warriors who also have hp. At the same time if the warrior meets a trainer who released all six pokemon on them they have no fair chance of surviving unless they also have pokemon. As it would be six (even seven if the trainer joins in) against one. No matter how strong the warrior is the chances are stacked way against him. It'd be almost impossible for him to win.

Thats where i came from with the 'change the rule about who can Vs who' thing - I only sudgested it because i thought you were saying something about it being a problem.