Test-mume feedback on scout changes

Old MUME discussions.

Moderator: Builders

Forum rules
The posts in this forum should be related to MUME.
Rogon
Posts: 158
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 4:49 pm

Test-mume feedback on scout changes

Post by Rogon » Sun Mar 16, 2008 12:54 am

A thread for feedback on the changes on testmume from news 2287.

Please test it before coming with any input or opinions.

Rogon
Posts: 158
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 4:49 pm

Re: Test-mume feedback on scout changes

Post by Rogon » Sun Mar 16, 2008 1:02 am

These were the changes:

o Panic duration has been reduced
o Escape now takes HALF as long as it used to
o Flee (manual, wimpy & fear spell) cancels sneak
- This means: flee direction is seen
o Moving out of a room when hidden takes a little more time, during this
time you're more vulnerable to seek/flush

Rogon
Posts: 158
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 4:49 pm

Re: Test-mume feedback on scout changes

Post by Rogon » Sun Mar 16, 2008 1:43 am

Rogon wrote: o Panic duration has been reduced
Panic still last a bit long imho. About one minute. it would not hurt to cut it down to 30-45 seconds. An hour (gametime) of panic after a short fight feels long. Not game breaking though if escape was tweaked (see below).
Rogon wrote: o Escape now takes HALF as long as it used to
It's very fast. Very very fast. But it's not good enough for this change to flee and panic. The problem is the amount of fails vs multiple targets.

Against one target, I fail alot less escape than flees. Against two targets, about the same. But against 3+ targets escape is just not a viable option. I maxed escape as a fairly pure orc scout (106%) but have 30% failed escapes when engaged with 3 opponents.

I would raise the chance for fail alittle when engaged with only one target, but reduce it by alot when engaged with three or more targets. Reduce it by alot, really.
Rogon wrote: o Moving out of a room when hidden takes a little more time, during this
time you're more vulnerable to seek/flush
Was this really implemented? I get no delay when moving out of hiding, no matter if I was hidden quick or thorough.

Elemmakil
Posts: 88
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 10:03 pm
Location: Massachusetts, United States of America

Re: Test-mume feedback on scout changes

Post by Elemmakil » Sun Mar 16, 2008 2:05 am

Mage > Thief if thief flees once.

sabish
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 2:08 am

Re: Test-mume feedback on scout changes

Post by sabish » Sun Mar 16, 2008 2:28 am

I fooled around some and have some things to point out:
1. Sneak wears off, while panic is in effect, but once panic is over you have to manually retype sneak - it would be nice, if sneak automatically reappeares once panic mood is over.
2. Moving out of the room while hidden - very slight delay, so slight that being extra vulnerable at that time is really irrelevant (maybe if you are really unlucky
and someone searces during that split second).
3. Escape is faster, but is it fast enough? Let's say you are escaping from three hitters, who shatter you each time they hit you. It is possible, that after 2 escapes each one has hit you at least once and third escape attempt brings two more hits. You can always sacrifice sneak and just run, but if you are surrounded by agressive mobs (like some brave orc sneaking around in Tharbad, any scout in Moria, who gets attacked by fast patrols) it can be really bad prospect. Solo in Moria or quick runs into enemy towns are a lot harder that way.
4. Exping will be a lot harder, no doubt about that... (shoot-escape especially)

Can we just keep that faster escape? And maybe get that leaving-room-while-hidden-delay from bad side to keep things balanced?

sabish
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 2:08 am

Re: Test-mume feedback on scout changes

Post by sabish » Sun Mar 16, 2008 2:50 am

Some more things:
Managing your autowimpy gets harder.

I managed to escape from Glorfindel + 1 with escape, I feared worse.

Snarp
Posts: 39
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 12:09 am

Re: Test-mume feedback on scout changes

Post by Snarp » Sun Mar 16, 2008 3:22 am

My observations:

I think you have less defence when trying to escape (free hit basically?).

Escape vs multiple targets is bad. I failed 3 escapes in a row against the commanding patrol in moria near hwains/shaghosh zone before having to flee.

I don't like how when you escape your enemy can see which way you leave. I'd prefer it if it was like the orc assassin's escape in noc/wnoc where he escapes and you have no clue which way.

This forces thieves to get escape which is 16 pracs that arn't spent elsewhere...

Top 3 observations above should be changed imo.

heysus
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 3:19 am

Re: Test-mume feedback on scout changes

Post by heysus » Sun Mar 16, 2008 3:24 am

I don't understand why the flee making sneak impossible was decided, it seems to overly limit thieves in particular meanwhile the other maluses are reduced making it non-consequently for non thieves. In moria for example where you are often stabbing with multiple mobs you are prevented from doing this very effectively if you are forced to fail slower escapes. Furthermore this negates the attack bonus thieves get when fleeing which is a huge bonus as a thief because it no longer serves to flee either in xp or pk...

Elemmakil
Posts: 88
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 10:03 pm
Location: Massachusetts, United States of America

Re: Test-mume feedback on scout changes

Post by Elemmakil » Sun Mar 16, 2008 5:38 am

Escape is nice 1v1

Escape sucks against more than 1 especially if you're in a one room closeable (one is spam closing etc.)

Snarp
Posts: 39
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 12:09 am

Re: Test-mume feedback on scout changes

Post by Snarp » Sun Mar 16, 2008 5:58 am

Not being able to use commands while escape goes through is unavoidable i guess.
Last edited by Snarp on Sun Mar 16, 2008 10:24 am, edited 6 times in total.

Razoor
Posts: 77
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 10:20 am

Re: Test-mume feedback on scout changes

Post by Razoor » Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:25 am

No sneak while paniced is a really really bad idea. All it does it forcing thieves to use
backstab and run tactics, effectively killing all possibilities to fight in a more
normal way. Please do not implement this, it will be devastating for all of those who like to do actual
*fighting* with their thieves, rather than backstabbing. We all know no one appreciates a purely backstabbing thief :)

Other than that, change to escape is good...but make it in line with the suggestions above. Make it VERY fast, and
preferably very low chance to fail and also no defense maluses while doing it. Also dont show the dir in which you leave.
This way it could be useful for a number of occasions.

A delay when leaving the room isn't really that nice either. I can understand the purpose of it, but again it's devastating
for those who like to play their thieves in a more aggressive way. After all, that's the kind of thieves we want on MUME right? ;)

Rik
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 8:45 pm
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Test-mume feedback on scout changes

Post by Rik » Sun Mar 16, 2008 9:06 am

old tactic: sneak and flee
new tactic: sneak and escape (and hide when you have to flee once)

escape: I can escape fast enough to not eat a bolt from a battlemage without a staff.

exping: arrrghhhh :(

Gwendolyn
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2008 12:59 pm

Re: Test-mume feedback on scout changes

Post by Gwendolyn » Sun Mar 16, 2008 9:19 am

Unless the flee/sneakon/sneakoff and escape procedure gets automatted in some way, i strongly vote against it. People with slower links for example will have high chance eating a bash versus high dex warriors, and autowimpy needs to be set to zero in fights since one autoflee will kill you anyway in close combat.
As Elemmakil pointed out, fights involving closeables will be hazardous for thief class (byebye sewers)

Wobbler
Posts: 393
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 10:02 pm

Re: Test-mume feedback on scout changes

Post by Wobbler » Sun Mar 16, 2008 10:16 am

I can't say much as I have not tested anything yet, but after a glance at this thread I have two opinions:
1. Forcing sneak off when one is affected by panic may be a bit too harsh (although the actual fleeing should not include sneaking, i.e. anyone in the new room should see the sneaking fleer enter).
2. I see no reason why escaping should not tell whomever one escapes from in which direction one flees. It is neither a magical teleport not sneaking away from an unaware enemy, it is outmanouvering/outrunning one or more opponents in melee combat while he/they are trying to hit the escaper with weapons.
Politicians are wise and benevolent and will gladly sacrifice themselves for the common good. Anyone who implies that there might exist dishonest politicians is obviously a terrorist who should be locked up indefinitely without a trial.

Snarp
Posts: 39
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 12:09 am

Re: Test-mume feedback on scout changes

Post by Snarp » Sun Mar 16, 2008 10:24 am

Whats the reasoning behind the change? What are we trying to fix here? I don't really see what this is going to fix.

Wimpy is a big problem, if you eat a bash while trying to escape you might die as a thief because wimpy isn't maxed and it won't help reduce bash duration.

This change would drastically increase the likelyhood of a thief eating a bash.

Not to mention that once you've fled and are being spammed down without being a warscout (absorb eq) you're going to take damage (no armour spell, no absorb, and same defence as a warrior on wimpy). It's going to turn thieves from being one of the better classes for slower linked players, to being one of the worst purely because you can't use sneak to get away from spam. Having to use escape to get away is stupid for slower linked players because you have to wait till you've been hit to type escape <direction>, it removes the ability to just spam. Without introducing a version of escape that doesn't show which direction the thief escape's to is going to cripple the slower linked thieves because faster players will see the direction they move and follow it before the thief can move again. I already anticipate far more shit than I should have to in this game and now you're gonna make me anticipate when to type escape while spamming away from a group of 3 50ms power pukes?

If the management is set on making a big change, lets make it so whenever someone types 'link' ingame it comes back with 500ms.

I'd like all thieves to get a full reroll if this was implemented because it's a big change and I'd seriously consider changing classes.

Razoor
Posts: 77
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 10:20 am

Re: Test-mume feedback on scout changes

Post by Razoor » Sun Mar 16, 2008 11:13 am

I agree with Snarp on all accounts.

Wobbler, you already see the thief if he flees into your room.

Wobbler
Posts: 393
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 10:02 pm

Re: Test-mume feedback on scout changes

Post by Wobbler » Sun Mar 16, 2008 11:34 am

Snarp wrote:Having to use escape to get away is stupid for slower linked players because you have to wait till you've been hit to type escape <direction>, it removes the ability to just spam.
Not at all, escaping works just fine while unengaged.

The delay with 106% escape is perhaps a little longer than I would like, but I have trouble finding another player to combat in a controlled environment.
Politicians are wise and benevolent and will gladly sacrifice themselves for the common good. Anyone who implies that there might exist dishonest politicians is obviously a terrorist who should be locked up indefinitely without a trial.

Azazello
Posts: 119
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 12:09 pm

Re: Test-mume feedback on scout changes

Post by Azazello » Sun Mar 16, 2008 11:50 am

Well, imho thieves used to be too powerful in multiple rooms. The fix is required. I really don't think cases of for example Rasta's Tbad rambling 1 vs 5 etc show a good balance of the class.

I thought that xping with escape is perfectly fine, though i had no failed escapes :-/

I think if we must (as in management really wants to) imp this panin-nosneaking thing, then we should do something like this:

a) panic duration should be about 10-20 seconds. Even this is already enough to decide the fight. May be even 5 seconds.
b) there should be some management for panic flag wearing off. Probably automatic turning on sneak again.
c) probably if thief manages to hide quickly, or do any other delayed cold-minded action his panic flag should go down. (may be we should rename the flag for thieves?)

missile is still a very powerful weapon. (1 room fighting)
backstabbing is the same.

using doors is a much harder task.

the sneak delay is good for slowing down thieves.

generally fighting (given everything is balanced) would take more skill and this is good.

Wobbler
Posts: 393
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 10:02 pm

Re: Test-mume feedback on scout changes

Post by Wobbler » Sun Mar 16, 2008 12:16 pm

I have to agree with what the previous posters have said about the escape success chance scaling when fighting multiple opponents.

I have noticed no delay whatsoever when sneaking out of a room after hiding myself. In fact, I noticed no move delay at all when sneaking through multiple rooms of various terrain, although the delay is noticeable when practicing or eating with sneak on.

Edit: The move-from-hiding delay is slightly less than one second after a bugfix.
Politicians are wise and benevolent and will gladly sacrifice themselves for the common good. Anyone who implies that there might exist dishonest politicians is obviously a terrorist who should be locked up indefinitely without a trial.

Wobbler
Posts: 393
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 10:02 pm

Re: Test-mume feedback on scout changes

Post by Wobbler » Sun Mar 16, 2008 12:46 pm

I finally found a warrior and can now say that I think the escape delay is not too slow to use in pk.
On the other hand, hiding in a forest still seems quite easy; I was able to hide with said warrior in my room and remain hidden until I revealed myself manually.
* tt: *orc* d: exit. S HP:Fine>n
It is pitch black...
You are in a forest.

o tt: *orc* d: exitf S HP:Fine>
A huge, black wolf has arrived from the east.
A black wolf has arrived from the east.

o tt: *orc* d: exitf S HP:Fine>hid th
You attempt to hide yourself.

A huge, black wolf leaves north.
A black wolf leaves north.

Kaka has arrived from the east.

Kaka leaves north.

Kaka has arrived from the north.

Ok.

! tt: *orc* d: exitf S HP:Fine>
Kaka leaves north.

o tt: *orc* d: exitf S HP:Fine>
Kaka has arrived from the north.

! tt: *orc* d: exitf S HP:Fine>
Kaka leaves east.

o tt: *orc* d: exitf S HP:Fine>
Kaka has arrived from the east.

! tt: *orc* d: exitf S HP:Fine>
Kaka leaves west.

o tt: *orc* d: exitf S HP:Fine>
Kaka has arrived from the west.

! tt: *orc* d: exitf S HP:Fine>
Kaka carefully examines the ground around him, looking for tracks...

! tt: *orc* d: exitf S HP:Fine>
Kaka leaves south.

o tt: *orc* d: exitf S HP:Fine>
Kaka has arrived from the south.

! tt: *orc* d: exitf S HP:Fine>
Kaka passes dangerously close to your hiding place.

! tt: *orc* d: exitf S HP:Fine>
Kaka passes dangerously close to your hiding place.

! tt: *orc* d: exitf S HP:Fine>
Kaka passes dangerously close to your hiding place.

! tt: *orc* d: exitf S HP:Fine>
Kaka carefully examines the ground around him, looking for tracks...

! tt: *orc* d: exitf S HP:Fine>
Kaka leaves south.

o tt: *orc* d: exitf S HP:Fine>
Kaka has arrived from the south.

! tt: *orc* d: exitf S HP:Fine>
Kaka passes dangerously close to your hiding place.

! tt: *orc* d: exitf S HP:Fine>
Kaka passes dangerously close to your hiding place.

! tt: *orc* d: exitf S HP:Fine>
Kaka bakar: e du här?

! tt: *orc* d: exitf S HP:Fine>
Kaka passes dangerously close to your hiding place.

! tt: *orc* d: exitf S HP:Fine>
Kaka passes dangerously close to your hiding place.

! tt: *orc* d: exitf S HP:Fine>
Kaka passes dangerously close to your hiding place.

! tt: *orc* d: exitf S HP:Fine>t kaka Jag var inte ens hidden när du kom in
Ok.

Politicians are wise and benevolent and will gladly sacrifice themselves for the common good. Anyone who implies that there might exist dishonest politicians is obviously a terrorist who should be locked up indefinitely without a trial.

Locked