CLOK BBS

For what it's worth, I'd like to share my thoughts and suggestions on game design and martial combat.

1. Brawling, swords, polearms, and hafted weapons are not exactly separate systems of combat. For example, someone very skilled in swordsmanship is automatically skilled in hand to hand combat. A swordsman who cannot use his limbs in a brawl or grapple is not a swordsman, he's a joke. It is preposterous to think that a master swordsman, e.g. a high level Mercenary of the Western Coalition with "1000 skill points" in swords has no ability to brawl unarmed in a bar fight. However, of course, it is well known that there are advanced schools of hand to hand fighting that do not involve weapons and one can become an expert grappler while remaining a pathetic swordsman.

2. Hafted weapons, e.g. hammers picks axes etc. are both a natural unskilled ability and a hybrid of polearms and swordsmanship. Although hafted weaponry, as with polearms, were in all cultures across the world used by unskilled conscripts, they were also studied by the masters. Men who trained in swordsmanship often trained in polearms as well. Advanced hafted weaponry skills came from the cross training of swords and polearms. An advanced hafted weapon, such as a Morningstar, ball & chain, or flail, is not something your average person can use much beyond a simple swing, however a skilled swordsman who's trained in fighting with or against armor, and trained in both swords and polearms, will know how to use the advanced war-designed hafted weapons to bind and disarm, or to use them to better overcome enemy armor and shields.

3. Staves and polearms are not different skills. Again, although polearms are often used by conscripts throughout history they are also advanced weapon skills learned by warriors and fighters throughout history. So Japanese peasants used the naginata in war, but there were also masters who specialized in fighting with staves/spears alone or in addition to the sword.

4. Each weapon, weapon type, and unarmed type (i.e. striking, grappling, ground fighting), had their schools of specialization. They also became more understood to the swordsman as he advanced in his training. There is a synergy! The foundation of all advanced melee is hand to hand combat. The most readily available ad-hoc weapon is the hafted weapon (often a farm implement such as an axe or hammer). The most basic weapon of war fighting is the spear, pike, polearm, etc. The most advanced weapon of pre-firearm warfare was the sword. Advanced training in swordsmanship often involved advanced training in polearms. Advanced training in polearms and swords led to a more natural mastery and understanding of hafted weapons and even advanced training in hafted weapons.

5. All advanced cultures through history featured schools and masters that trained people in the arts of war and fighting. If a game does not have a system of less-than-lethal training for those who would do violence upon the world for good or evil, then it is not game striving for combat-seriousness. On training alone a fighter could come a very long way and gain much respect in tournaments and contests- having never been in a real fight. Of course his true test came in battle, and the renowned masters through history were usually battle/duel tested, such as Miamoto Musashi.

6. Women and men are not equal in a melee. Not even the strongest of well trained women against the average military man. A game striving for martial realism and strict role-play that ignores the differing roles that men and women have in war is moving away from its design. Women in Clok are nothing more than men with dresses. Strict role play enforcement means roles are correctly played, doesn't it? (Don't respond with your political ideologies, I will never repent.)

7. Not many can go from zero to hero in one discussion with Irwin. Most people have to study their whole lives and come from families that have a history in martial studies to be a warrior.

Take home suggestions:
1. Give more synergy to other weapons and to brawling from having a high score in melee.
2. Combine staves and polearms. Consider getting rid of the hafted weapons skill and base them on a synergy of swords and poles.
3. Implement schools, masters, and non-lethal training, as well as specialized training in particular weapons or disciplines.
4. Penalize women in strength, speed, agility, and stamina to make up for all the free stuff and attention thirsty dudebros always give them online.
5. Make characters select some of their starting skills during character creation and tell them they should have an RP story to support their decisions.

Vertebrate wrote:6. Women and men are not equal in a melee. Not even the strongest of well trained women against the average military man. A game striving for martial realism and strict role-play that ignores the differing roles that men and women have in war is moving away from its design. Women in Clok are nothing more than men with dresses. Strict role play enforcement means roles are correctly played, doesn't it? (Don't respond with your political ideologies, I will never repent.)

You're entirely right. In Clok, women are stronger than men. This is entirely because of a single skill: Groin Kick. It effects only men while holding no effect on women whatsoever. Now, I don't go around kneeing women in the crotch and asking them how it feels, but the general response I've gained was, 'It's not a pleasant experience'. Mind that my stating that women are stronger than men in Clok is purely by comical means, I'm not intending any malice- but I do strongly feel that Groin Kick holds too much bias in a game that is 'equal' among genders.

Vertebrate wrote:stuff

All of these ideas are so radically different from what CLOK currently is. It sounds like you should be playing some other game, really.

Vertebrate wrote: 6. Women and men are not equal in a melee. Not even the strongest of well trained women against the average military man. A game striving for martial realism and strict role-play that ignores the differing roles that men and women have in war is moving away from its design. Women in Clok are nothing more than men with dresses. Strict role play enforcement means roles are correctly played, doesn't it? (Don't respond with your political ideologies, I will never repent.)

Please tell me you are not serious.. Clok has people throwing fireballs and stuff.. how does that fit in your martial realistic arguement without rendering it a moot point?

Vertebrate wrote: 4. Penalize women in strength, speed, agility, and stamina to make up for all the free stuff and attention thirsty dudebros always give them online.

While you are at it why not just bump up our cooking skill so we all just stay in the kitchen and make you sandwiches?

/sarcasm

In response to most of the points about combat, I think that's largely covered by the "melee" skill to be honest, the general ability one would have in combat with different weapons simply because you're good at fighting.

"Melee training will slightly improve one's offensive and defensive capabilities in most any melee combat situation, including swinging any type of weapon, dodging attacks, and more."

And to the point about nerfing ability based on gender, and further... based on attention given by other players, I really think that's just silly and I hope no one takes that too seriously.

I personally feel that 90 percent of the synergy you are talking about is covered by the melee skill. Sure a master swordsman in clok wont lose to the average joe in a bar fight, because his melee skill will be quite high as well, much less a master at arms whose trained many weapons.

Male and female equality: Yes, they are unequal physically IRL. But their equality in games to result in fairness and fun is long tested and generally agreed upon.

Schools of combat: Yes, yes please. Id love a dojo or two, and separate styles of using the same weapons.

Nondeadly training: We have that. Sparring with a friend with wooden weapons of your choice, mostly nondeadly, good skillgains if you do it right, very fun.

Please tell me that number six is some poor attempt at trolling. Please tell me -- I want to go to sleep with faith in the world this evening. "I will not repent?" Really?

Hakon wrote:And to the point about nerfing ability based on gender, and further... based on attention given by other players, I really think that's just silly and I hope no one takes that too seriously.

I don't recall saying anything about nerfing it. It's just fine as it is- I just want it to work the same functionally on females because there's nothing additional a man can do to a woman that does something similar. From a strict balance standpoint, playing a female is the best way to play the game because you cannot be harmed by said ability.

If someone chooses the gender of their character simply to have one "leg up" on other gender(s), then that says a lot about the quality of that player. I don't see the issue.

Dakhal wrote:

Hakon wrote:And to the point about nerfing ability based on gender, and further... based on attention given by other players, I really think that's just silly and I hope no one takes that too seriously.

I don't recall saying anything about nerfing it. It's just fine as it is- I just want it to work the same functionally on females because there's nothing additional a man can do to a woman that does something similar. From a strict balance standpoint, playing a female is the best way to play the game because you cannot be harmed by said ability.

Ah, wasn't meant to target your post. I meant his, you know, giving them less 'strength and agility' and so on.

vidor wrote:If someone chooses the gender of their character simply to have one "leg up" on other gender(s), then that says a lot about the quality of that player. I don't see the issue.

My point is it shouldn't have been a problem from the beginning. Because there ARE people who are out there which would do it purposely for gaining that advantage. Keep in mind that I stated from a purely balanced standpoint- I personally adore RP and I spend entire days doing it without a hint of grinding. But it has irked me that there is an ability out there that holds such a defined bias towards men, when it does in fact produce the same result to women. It's by no means a weak skill either, it's very potent and disables a man pretty effectively.

How about a new move then, so males can give woman a taste of their own medicine? Hmm...How about....uh...bosom twister or some such. With a quick twist your female opponent is stunned!

Dakhal wrote:

vidor wrote:If someone chooses the gender of their character simply to have one "leg up" on other gender(s), then that says a lot about the quality of that player. I don't see the issue.

My point is it shouldn't have been a problem from the beginning. Because there ARE people who are out there which would do it purposely for gaining that advantage. Keep in mind that I stated from a purely balanced standpoint- I personally adore RP and I spend entire days doing it without a hint of grinding. But it has irked me that there is an ability out there that holds such a defined bias towards men, when it does in fact produce the same result to women. It's by no means a weak skill either, it's very potent and disables a man pretty effectively.

Hrm. Good point there, I guess. But I don't see people picking female characters just to get out of that risk. And I'd assume that there's probably a female equiv in the works, but, with all the balancing going on, it's probably a bit far down on the list. Not speaking for the GMs, but just giving an idea.

Oh so many things, not sure where to start.
1. CLOK already has a system in which training swords helps unarmed combat, it's called the melee skill. It actually gives a bonus to Any melee roll regardless of weapon used.
2. The weapon groups are set up the way they are as much for balance as anything else. That's called game design.
3. We play games like this as an escape and wish fulfillment as much as anything else. You should be able to do that no matter your gender or that of your character.
4. It's a game where I can melt your face with fire I call from the air, and someone else can bring you back with the power of goodness, so even if I did accept your argument that in real life women could never match a trained man in combat, which I don't, I don't see why it should matter here.

And on a personal note, I know several women who are stronger than most men will ever be, and some of the best martial artists I've ever seen were women.

Edited to correct typos, and to remove something said in anger I shouldn't have.
Some things get under my skin, not an excuse, just an explanation. Either way I'm sorry.

Dakhal wrote:

Hakon wrote:And to the point about nerfing ability based on gender, and further... based on attention given by other players, I really think that's just silly and I hope no one takes that too seriously.

I don't recall saying anything about nerfing it. It's just fine as it is- I just want it to work the same functionally on females because there's nothing additional a man can do to a woman that does something similar. From a strict balance standpoint, playing a female is the best way to play the game because you cannot be harmed by said ability.

This is being fixed. Never fear.

I love you.

...

In a manner of between friends. Sorry, I have to put you in that zone.

To stop this thread from having 1000 posts by the early morning....

I will -never- work on or for a game that would specifically inhibit female players from doing -anything- that a man can do because of gender roles. I understand what your speaking about but we all come here to enjoy ourselves and yes there is a slight mechanical advantage. (Which is being addressed as we speak actually) What I can say safely is should a system that make women weaker in a fight solely because they are women was ever put in; My resignation would be on the desk the second the after.

I don't EVER see this coming to this game. So lets move on past that aspect of things and address the other parts of the post.

Thank you,

-Vinz

To stop this threat of having 1000 posts by the early morning....

The 15 other people who read the forums can understand sarcasm for the most part.

This seems like a reaction to the "strict" combat enforcement and changes that have happened over the last week. Balance changes and tweaks should not be made so overtly and in some cases in such an unnecessary fashion.

For fun: http://i.imgur.com/lPOBk.png

Fight broken with broken? I knew I loved Valve for a reason. Let's do that. Lol

I feel like 90% of the stuff you suggested is already employed in the game, and the rest isn't needed. The melee skill does exactly what you want as far as there being synergy between swordsmen and unarmed.

Someone is actually setting up a combat school as we speak, and non-deadly training is available in game. I've seen it in action.

Staves and polearms are very different skills. You hold them at entirely different positions, the weight is different, the way you attack with them is different. They're as similar as longswords and daggers at best.

I do like the idea of some starting skills. Give characters a little boost, maybe 10 points in a skill and 10 points worth of double speed learning without a time limit to represent the fact that they weren't born yesterday, they likely had some form of training or apprenticeship beyond the 'general childhood' represented by having 100 on all rolls from the start. Nothing major, but enough to give a good mechanical match to the RP of "I grew up learning to X"

And finally the thing about women. It's wrong on several levels. First off, is your assertion that the strongest woman isn't a match for an 'average military man' That isn't even close to true. I don't know what your basis is for 'average military man' but take an random guy fresh out of boot camp, and let him go up against an Olympic female in martial arts and see how that ends. I'll give you great odds if you want to toss money away on the guy.

Second, you suggest penalizing virtually every stat that exists, yet only some of those are men better in. I grant you that men tend to be stronger, and the strongest man is stronger than the strongest woman. But women tend to be more flexible and agile. Speed is similar, other than the fact that men tend to be taller, and thus have longer strides, but in small movements, they're no better. Similarly endurance isn't particularly different. I personally agree that there should be some mechanical difference between genders, but I think they should be realistic. Men are stronger, women are more agile, sure, I could buy that. Also remember however that women are better multitaskers, have higher pain tolerences, and a number of other advantages over men.

And finally on the gender discussion, there is a point you're forgetting, and that is the game doesn't take place on Earth, and thus doesn't contain the exact same Humans. In a game in which there aren't gender roles, there likely hasn't been evolution to define them with the woman being more suited to housework and men to hunting. Heck, in many fantasy games, it's a given that the races were created whole cloth, no reason that whatever being(s) did it would have to make woman inferior to men in any way.