|
Post by Zhang Ping on Sept 14, 2016 3:29:14 GMT
The Warzone, Zhang Ping, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin Archibald Stanford, Mendoza Chávez De La Hoya Card, Lexine Baruch, Sergei Varennikov, Andrey Voronov, Abdul-Al Rashid, Sergei Arkadyevich Ourumov, Dmitry Molchanov, Omar Al-Ghazi, Ashraf Abdullah, John Fitzgerald Kennedy II, Timothy Brown, Wang Xi Jintao, Alright people. I think it's come to a time and place in the RP where we need to stop our inherent laziness and get down to business on the main problem that we face: the debate of battle systems. It's obvious we have suggestions, and everyone's throwing ideas, but we need to set up a main battle system. Therefore, out of the three major participants currently, I have four items to vote on: - Sergei Varennikov 's suggestion: majorly based on the storytelling, maturity, and little to no RNG (dice rolling, calculating, etc.) within. This system has been seen three times already, all three of which have failed. However, given that he's one of the few who's actually provided something, I believe that we could flesh out a system that deals majorly to the roleplaying ability and creativity (while remaining in the bounds of what you may have at your disposal & common sense). This system could include the elements of recruitment and an army base (so that it's not just "big army clashes into another big army until someone screams 'marry sue' or 'powerplay').
- Dmitry Molchanov 's suggestion: As we have seen already, I've had some ideas on the basic workings of a battle system: an RNG-based battle system that calculates the individual damages of vehicles, infantry, and aircraft. These capabilities would be based on brigades and battalions, and the amount of them within a division, and each unit would possess its own stats for the damages it could potentially do as a percentage of the enemy forces (I.E. tesla tanks do 60-80% maximum possible damage against all infantry in a brigade or , 40-50% against armored fighting vehicles in a formation - depending on the vehicles - and 45% against aircraft, while your front line infantry will have a maximum damage of 50% against other infantry, 30% against armored vehicles, and 25% against aircraft). The percentage is then multiplied by the number of these formations within the major formation (I.E. 2 tesla brigades would equal double that percentage, a tank formation would do the same, etc.) More info will be available if people vote for this particular system.
- Mendoza Chávez De La Hoya Card /David Van Rotterdam 's suggestion: Dave decided to bring in the idea of expanding on his system even more, as well as using the current one, provided by Archibald Stanford /Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin , as the grounds for it. It has a massive amount of RNG to it, and personally, while a little more complicated, it would probably be one of the more realistic ones to calculate environmental stuff or otherwise harder things to factor into a battle.
- Other/your suggestion: Leave a reply on what system you would like to implement, or try to create for battles. Naval, air-based, ground, whatever it is, leave a suggestion, as well as your vote here.
Time is running short. If we do not have a battle system by the time the fireworks between Europe and Russia start going off, it's likely that Round 4 will fail, and once again, we will have to rebuild from scratch.
|
|
|
Post by The Warzone on Sept 14, 2016 3:39:22 GMT
What's the difference between Dmitry's and Dave's battle system ?
Also you should add an example of how a battle went under each system if possible.
|
|
|
Post by Sergei Varennikov on Sept 14, 2016 6:16:29 GMT
It's important to say that what i suggested is not only for battles, it's a universal system used for every situation.
|
|
|
Post by Dmitry Molchanov on Sept 14, 2016 6:32:00 GMT
Well, that's understandable and pretty obvious. However, when it comes down to it, we're concentrating mainly on battles, not universal rules.
|
|
|
Post by Lexine Baruch on Sept 14, 2016 7:40:12 GMT
Here is my two cents on the matter, so take it how you will. Many people within the roleplay are not likely to use the RotR mod, nor the submod that Archibald Stanford created, that's fine and dandy. They don't need to play it. I personally am all for playing the RotR game as a battle stimulation game so long as ECA and the AEDP are teamed up (simply because the two factions are supposed to work together on the field of battle, like the the spear/sword and shield of a hoplite, phalanx, or centurion). However, I also see a fair point with Sergei Varennikov. Story-telling can work if neither side goes into godmodding, are good sports and are willing to take a loss or two on battles (Hate to beat a dead horse here, however, look to Andrey Voronov and Sergei Varennikov against GPU Leadership in Round 3 for how this fails horribly). I also find story telling to be exceedingly well done when one goes for scripted events (Look to Wrath of God and dealing with Omar Al-Ghazi for example. [Seriously though Zhang Ping, excuse me for beating a dead horse, fuck you on that.]) However, I can also see RNG dice system working on a case-by-case bases and I'm not all particularly fond of it, much like how I am not not fond of using RotR for 1v1 battles. For example....Two fighters. Both of equal size, dexterity, accuracy, strength, skill. Both fighters should be able to go blow for blow and cause considerable amount of damage to each other. But wait, dice comes along. What happens when someone has very poor rolling or the computer 'hates' one of the players badly? Obviously the fighter whom is lucky is going for a curb-stomp, and will do so whilst looking pretty while doing it. See what I'm going here? If not, let me put it simply. I am for each system depending on the circumstances in place.
|
|
|
Post by Sergei Varennikov on Sept 14, 2016 9:12:22 GMT
[...] Story-telling can work if neither side goes into godmodding, are good sports and are willing to take a loss or two on battles (Hate to beat a dead horse here, however, look to Andrey Voronov and Sergei Varennikov against GPU Leadership in Round 3 for how this fails horribly). I also find story telling to be exceedingly well done when one goes for scripted events (Look to Wrath of God and dealing with Omar Al-Ghazi for example. [Seriously though Zhang Ping , excuse me for beating a dead horse, fuck you on that.]) I'm not sure about Karp, but i was only around for round one. Anyway please alaborate(or post a link to it).
|
|
|
Post by David Van Rotterdam on Sept 14, 2016 10:48:25 GMT
Just to make something clear:
My system doesn't require an increased number of dicerolls.
Just the attacker and defender how Retroliser made it. My system just recalculates positive and negative influences like locations and payloads wich your army possesses im that respective fight.
written on my phone
|
|
|
Post by The Warzone on Sept 14, 2016 15:53:41 GMT
I am in favor of the dice system being used in this round. We will never know whether the Dice system will be feasible or not if we don't use it in a round.
So, I suggest we make a dice system and then use it in the upcoming battles. Based on the performance of the Dice system, we can decide whether to continue with it or use a different method.
|
|
|
Post by The Warzone on Sept 15, 2016 8:17:19 GMT
Reminder : Also no voting with alt accounts ! I will know cause I can see the voters and if alt accounts are used those votes will be deducted.
|
|
|
Post by The Warzone on Nov 7, 2016 16:18:39 GMT
Hello everyone. I think at the current stage where many of us are busy in real life it's best to keep the final decision for later. You can use any battle system you wish as long as 1) It's logical and does not break the roleplay. 2) All parties involved in the battle agree to which battle system is to be used. 3) The Battle system chosen is used till the end of the battle. You can still make your own Battle systems and post them in the Roleplay Rules Construction Board, once everyone is active again we can vote and choose a final battle system. Thanks for your time on the Warzone.
|
|