I don't know if it's me, or this has been brought up before and turned down do to coding but...

Weaponbreaker, the concept is self-explanatory. BUT, When breaking a weapon, should there not be a chance that...

1. if the weapon is wood, you may catch a piece in your eye, a splinter, resulting in bleeding, possibly dropped weapon/shield.

2. If the weapon is metal, a piece jabbing a limb. resulting in bleeding.

Perhaps if failed, you may swing too hard, and hit yourself.

Something to that extent, i mean, Breaking a weapon is a big deal, as it stands, weaponbreaker is not different than disarming and sac'ing the weapon. I feel there should be a downfall to attempting.

> weaponbreaker is not different than disarming and sac'ing the weapon.

That's like saying eating and sac'ing are the same.
There are more dimensions to both than the end result.


And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!

yes its a big deal but when failed (and from what I hear happens alot) you just lost a command there (and a certain amount of lag but I'm not sure how much) Must we change every aspect to the game to make it more like real life? think of the coding that would have to be put in, which in the end would just make warriors complain about weaponbreaker working against them "too" much.

yes its a big deal but when failed (and from what I hear happens alot) you just lost a command there (and a certain amount of lag but I'm not sure how much) Must we change every aspect to the game to make it more like real life? think of the coding that would have to be put in, which in the end would just make warriors complain about weaponbreaker working against them "too" much.

The coding wouldn't be hard if I felt like doing it.

Weaponbreaker is a good, useful skill, but it certainly has drawbacks. Certain things can't be broken. It's not overly reliable. You can carry backup weapons, swap them back in, and beat down the axe spec who's spending his commands breaking your weapons instead of hitting you with whirl/pincer/disembowel/bash action. It's useless against most NPCs and some PCs (invokers, mainly, but classes with pets can play tricks here). There's other things you can do to hinder it as well.

The realism angle doesn't work either. If you're holding a weapon when I shatter it with an axe, you're in a lot more danger than I am. You're closer to the broken weapon, and the momentum of the blow is towards you, not me.

Uhm.. Ok.. I understand that. I guess i'll leave it go. I was just setting around, thinking while doing nothing.. and that popped into my head. My understanding was that the IMM's wanted the game to be more like RL. So, thought i'd throw that out there..

Oh well.

I feel there should be a downfall to attempting.

I think that had more to do with it, personally.

From a design perspective, realism is not the primary goal. For example, it'd be realistic if most food rotted on a time scale of a couple days- remember this is before preservatives and germ theory. However, we don't implement it because we don't want people to spend 20% of their online time worrying about food, clean drinking water, and the location of the nearest outhouse.

One strong design goal is internal consistency. In other words, if I witness Principle X in one part of Thera, I should be able to apply it in other situations. To use an example regarding Weaponbreaker, certain shields can't be broken by Shield Cleave because they're too sturdy. Weapons of similar construction can't be broken either. Thus, as you learn about the game and figure out how to stop one, with a little thinking you can apply that knowledge to a separate skill.

I bring this up because people often confuse the two.

On the point of realism...when was the last time you saw an elf hurl a fireball at a six foot tall cat/bird/orc etc. in RL? Along with the suspension of disbelief comes a certain amount of ignoring the mundane and generally boring.