The current system of deciding priority in combat does not make any sense to me. Might I suggest changing priority to favor the agressor? Who ever started the fight gets priority, makes more sense instead of giving it to the guy that stays logged in the longest.

Flame on

af

The person who gets the first melee hits in a "round" of combat is (in other words, is given priority) is the person who's been logged in the longest. On the who list, the people at the top of the list have been logged on the longest, the people at the bottom are the most recent arrivals. Priority goes from top to bottom.

Splntrd

In beginning of every pulse, the game goes through a linked list of all characters (the list is called descriptor) and processes the actions and commands of all characters. The guy who is first in the list gets processed first, and therefore his attacks always appear before the second guy's attacks. The character order in descriptor list is such that if a new guy logs in, he goes to the last place in the list (the last to login used to be first in the descriptor list but was changed so that people couldn't do a logout/login to get first attacks).

The command who prints out a list of characters online, in the order they appear in the descriptor list. Therefore, it can be seen from the who list which character gets his attacks in first as both processes use the same processing order of characters.

For the amount of work it would take, you probably need to convince us that favoring the aggressor is a lot better than the current system.

I mean, there's a lot of things I'd look at if time was no object, but implementing this ranks around #1098 on my list.

>I mean, there's a lot of things I'd look at if time was no
>object

Like what?

If it does, then I agree that its probably not worth the effort. If it doesn't then its probably worth a discussion.

As has been said the last time this discussion came up.

So long, and thanks for all the fish!

I think the priority should go to whoever did not do the last command in between rounds when those skills do not lag the target.

Svirf pincers mage

R1
Svirf melee
Mage melee

R2
Svirf melee
Mage melee

Mage casts spell

R3
Svirf melee
Mage melee

*Had the mage not cast a spell, as in no 'last' action, mage would come first in priority

Example two

Svirf fails pincer on mage

R1
Mage melee
Svirf melee

Mage casts fireball

R2

Svirf melee
Mage melee

Svirf overheads

R3
Mage melee
Svirf melee


It could get complicated accounting for group fights.

It could get complicated accounting for group fights.

Specifically, it's not hard to imagine multi-party scenarios where the "aggressor" is completely unclear because A attacked B attacked C attacked A, or because parties are entering or leaving an ongoing combat. Heck, why are we even favoring the aggressor?

If anything, I could see this done ordered by DEX (or DEX + a random seed, to provide some level of variation), but even that would be a significant overhaul of how combat is done, and the benefit at the end of the day strikes me as minimal at best.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

add more bonuses to dex based chars

Can we see arials with "inherent slay" in the near future?

When 2 (or more) people are hitting you then you always have the first command in.

Example:

person A trips you
person B trips you

R1
you melee person A
person A melees you
person B melees you


R2
you melee person A
person A melees you
person B melees you


The old system stays when you fight 1 vs 1.

P.S. I would change the anti-gank code for 2 persons instead of 3. Really the battle of 2 vs 1 is too unfair in almost all situations. I think i have read somewhere that uber ap's and liches gain less from anti-gank code so this change won't hurt much "usual" characters.