Reset Password
Existing players used to logging in with their character name and moo password must signup for a website account.
- eggeggegg 7s
a Neon 5m
- deskoft 4m
- Shieldman 26s @invis is the biz! ...wait.
- RedProtokoll 7m
- JMo 23m Nothin' to see here.
- AdamBlue9000 5m Rolling 526d6 damage against both of us.
- zxq 22m
- BelladonnaRP 32s
a Mench 9h Doing a bit of everything.
And 30 more hiding and/or disguised

Issues with evading combat initiation

As is there is that people with certain builds can avoid "attack" dragging them into combat altogether. I think that's great, but also suffers from two major problems:

1. The opponent can just spam "attack X". There is no downside to doing so, as even if you spam a few times past successfully dragging a person into combat, nothing happens - just a message that you already are attacking them. Maybe after failing combat initiation, there should be a cooldown before it can be issued again? Would make attacking those shifty people a bit harder, and more relying on IC skills, rather than OOC command spamming.

2. Aim at X seems to always succeed. Another way is to first aim at a person, and then attack them, and that seems to work around the evasion. I think Aim at X should go through the same checks as Attack X to see whether you were successful in stopping the said person, though maybe a slightly lower difficulty, and making the "flee" from aim a bit easier than "flee" from attack.

Let me know what you think! I just love the evasion idea, and think whether someone succeeds in attacking you, or not, should depend on Character sheets, not command spamming/using them in aim/attack chain.

This isn't necessarily about builds or UE, it has to do mainly with movement of your target.

Hence why the aim works, because it stops further movement.

Preeeeety sure it relies on IC stats/skills based on what I've seen so far. And as it is, there is very little downside to going aim->attack over the just attack, and not having to worry about this at all, which just doesn't seem right.
Not necessarily.

I've tries attacking characters way below my skill level and it didn't work because they were moving rooms at the time. If they're moving rooms what you say happens.

And that is relevant to the point of this post how? It links that this can be completely nulled up, with 100% success rate by using an aim and then attack. While going with just attack has a chance of failing, but then can be spammed endlessly. Both are pretty bad from mechanics POV, one is meta (using aim before attack) and other is just "how fast can you spam".

How is arguing if it relies on stats, or not, relate?

I'm not going to discuss mechanics any further because aim doesn't always work and stop movement. I suggest you just experiment.
I will just say the aim command being there is so that if you're laying in ambush your opponent can't just 'go w w w w s' and avoid your ambush entirely by spamming movement commands.
Adding on, attacking someone should never rely on stats. Getting out of a fight should rely on stats which it does.

It's a PvP game and giving people with UE the ability to evade being attacked by anyone who's worse than them would just seperate the playerbase. If I'm an immy and I want to go attack the max ue solo, I should be able to. Even if I'm going to fail.

In a game where the first attack matters a lot in combat giving people the ability to decide that depending on who has better stats or skills would be just entirely pointless.

Just to chime in here, in my experience, certain stats and skills can let you slip away from people even if you are being aimed at.

This of course depends on your build vs theirs (and perhaps their weapon). If they massively outstat you, yah gonna have a bad time. Personally I've had pretty good luck being a grease-weasel and am having fun with it. I don't think I have taken it as far as it can go though.

That's all good floored, the issue is strictly that spamming "attack" or even "aim at" overocomes those stat/build differences due to lack of any sort of cooldown.
As things are right now it's possible to completely fail to attack someone because they're on a go command. I think putting attack/kill on a cooldown would just frustrate people even more. It is especially irritating when you're trying to shadow someone, then you aim at them but you don't really aim at them so now you're made and fucked.
Then probably this should be redesigned if putting it on cooldown would be frustrating, as I can't imagine that spamming attack/aim is a game design, especially as it puts some players waaay above others.
Just as a note, the first item posted here mentioned "The opponent can spam 'attack x'." to make it clear, that is cheating:

Rules Sec.1 - Cheating

1.E. Circumventing In Game Code

The game is not perfect and due to either code constraints or database

constraints, we can not always prevent things that would normally be

prevented in the real world. Exploiting these gaps is forbidden. One

example of this would be to spam door codes in order to get access to

a room or area that your character does not know the access code to,

this type of behavior is strictly forbidden. If you have a question

or are unsure what this section covers, please ask an admin for

clarification before attempting.

This goes for spamming of anything which, when spammed, lets you do something that shouldn't happen.

That's fair Dreamer, thanks for the clarification. But then what is not spamming? If I type in quickly "Attack X" after the ever failed attack, is that okay? That seems like a very big gray area, which people who enter get rewarded.
Sounds like if you get the message that someone ducked you, you shouldn't try again for at least several seconds.
If that is teh case, seems like cooldown, shared between aim and attack, is just fit. Removes the gray area, possibility of spamming (accidental or not).
I don't think it's a huge issue and there are a lot of use cases where such a cooldown would cause players in other situations to run into frustrating problems.
I can't think of any such case. You try to attack someone, you fail, you are put on cooldown from doing just that again. Still can move, guard an exit, anything else instead.

I play a combat character and people spamming attack to get around a bad die roll while I'm moving and evade their attacks is pretty much a daily staple. It happens all the time. A coded solution would solve it.

I know very little about combat here, so a lot of this is probably conjecture. If my conjecture happens to be right and I'm inadvertently exposing game mechanics, I apologize.

The sense I have is that combat works in rounds. Depending on stats and skills, some people might attack more quickly than others. But more or less it is a one for one exchange. PC A attacks, PC B attacks, PC A attacks, PC B attacks, ....

Does spamming 'attack PC B' some how circumvent the concept of rounds? Is that in some way different than what happens when a PC is moving through a room as part of a go string (go n n n e e e e n n) and a creature attacks them?

My experience has been that if you are moving, attackers will get one chance to hit you. They either miss, and you keep moving. Or they succeed, and you stop moving.

It doesn't use the round system.
Unrelated to OP, but the amount of conjecture (often incorrect) on game mechanics needs to be toned down on the BGBB. Especially in combat threads.
The way aiming always works, and basically automatically hems you up is absolutely stupid, especially when not using a firearm. Think of a street corner, like times square. 1 in game "screen" or "block" IC'ly speaking encapsulates hundreds, if not thousands of people, at least 1 street with a sidewalk on each side, or 2 streets and 4 corners in most public areas. You're telling me with your pocketknife, or bo you can immeadately shove your way across the street and through dozens of people and somehow stop me and then not let me move without any checks at all? Even if you are nowhere nearly as fast or strong. Furthermore even if you do have a firearm imagine the same situation. I say maybe you could get off a couple shots, but if you are busy shooting at me, and I'm not actually engaging you, running should be pretty easy, especially if you miss, kinda like sniping. I know I know, game balance... Just my 2chy
@jotun Sounds like something for a new topic!
@villa, @dreamer

I want to +1 Villa here.

This is literally a daily occurrence. I've seen brand new characters do it, and characters who've been in the dome for years do it. If this is indeed against the rules, then this rule is seemingly not enforced at all currently.

I'd like to get a rules clarification on this, please.

Types attack X,

'Player Y swiftly flees your attack'

We're supposed to let them go as the attacker, or if the victim and the attacker continues to attack, we xhelp?

I'd also like to say that seemingly by default, all the NPC's do this to some extent. It's very common to get multiple successful flee procs from an opening attack by an NPC.

Just a recent observation, I don't know if this is supposed to be how the system is intended to work or if it's against the spirit of the rules, but in the span of less than five or so seconds I saw:

Player Y swiftly flees Player X's attack

Player Y swiftly flees Player X's attack

Player Y swiftly flees Player X's attack

Player Y swiftly flees Player X's attack

Player Y swiftly flees Player X's attack

Some clarification on this would be nice. Is it spamming if you make multiple attack attempts in a row, or only if you send them way faster than should be possible, using macros or something?

Like others in the thread I see 2-3 attack attempts in a row while someone's moving all the time.

Even without luck this really needs a code solution, as spamming, accidental or not, happens and that takes away of that players build/IC actions.
I still think a coded solution against this may be a bit overkill. As someone that plays a combat character I have people do this to me all the time and it doesn't annoy me nearly as much as the thought of what happens when this cooldown goes wrong.

It would have to be coded so that if you try to attack someone and you don't actually get an attempt on their life because you were moving or something, the cooldown doesn't activate. And even then because of the way things go sometimes the attacker might still end up with a lot of problems because something puts them into the cooldown that wasn't supposed to.

If you make the cooldown conditions narrow to just: attack a person and then evaded the attack (so essentially apply the cooldown only when that message pops up) then it should only proc for this specific situation.
It seems like a 0.5 or 1.0 second delay on "attack / kill" would address the issue.

That would be easier from a code standpoint and not require a secondary check where you're setting a timer, doing string searches and pattern matching.

I'm bumping this back up and asking if we can get more staff feedback into this and possible code correction if it's deemed not kosher.

I did this to someone today a few times without even thinking about it, just during adrenaline and in the moment. And afterwards something was tickling my brain that this wasn't right and I remembered this thread. I didn't want to do someone dirty like this at all and I feel awful about it. So anymore clarity or solution from staff/maybe solutions to prevent it, I'd be really grateful to hear.

Thank you.

There was a penalty added last year.


"I have added a penalty multiplier to the existing evade attack penalty (where an attacker chasing a victim might spam the kill command to repeatedly roll against the victim who is already moving through an exit) such that if you spam 'attack' or 'kill' too much, it will multiply the victims awareness more (the penalty basically multiplies each time you get busted for doing this). The new penalty shows up in your @stats with a flashing red @ and notifies GMs when you've earned the penalty. It will go away after 24 hours. It will only affect your ability to succeed at spamming attack when the victim is 'swiftly fleeing'.

Oh wow, thank you Ox1mm. I didn't realize. Thank you. It'd still be nice to have some type of coded cooldown limitation potentially for when people aren't even thinking about it and are so used to being told you need to wait a moment like happens with other commands.