• Inventory Split Incoming

    MassiveCraft will be implementing an inventory split across game modes to improve fairness, balance, and player experience. Each game mode (Roleplay and Survival) will have its own dedicated inventory going forward. To help players prepare, we’ve opened a special storage system to safeguard important items during the transition. For full details, read the announcement here: Game Mode Inventory Split blog post.

    Your current inventories, backpacks, and ender chest are in the shared Medieval inventory. When the new Roleplay inventory is created and assigned to the roleplay world(s) you will lose access to your currently stored items.

    Important Dates

    • April 1: Trunk storage opens.
    • May 25: Final day to submit items for storage.
    • June 1: Inventories are officially split.

    Please make sure to submit any items you wish to preserve in the trunk storage or one of the roleplay worlds before the deadline. After the split, inventories will no longer carry over between game modes.

Combat/intellect School System Overhaul

Status
Not open for further replies.
I was worried at first about the application rejection part and was over all confused by what you meant by the point system, but as soon as it was explained, it sounds VERY interesting and I'm incredibly excited for this! Honestly a good update!
 
From me to the community, if you plan to use a crossbow, by god do your research on those monstrosities. Nasty things can happen if not played correctly, which can happen pretty easily. Other than that, this seems like a fine update and seems to make fighters more than 'I am X rank in Y school, and Z is my skill set.'
 
This is fantastic, and it really opens the world up to new character ideas. My only concern is a problem that always shows up with point systems: minmaxing. Might I suggest that the highest tiers of most schools be locked behind a permission wall, for purposes of balancing? For instance, if skill with a longsword scales from 0-50, make the unrestricted cap at 0-40, locking the last ten points behind permissions and character-by-character basis? It makes sense for anybody to get really good with something on their own, but to reach the pinnacle, I feel some kind of schooling should be required in their background. This will remove the awkward situation of, say, some mercenary kicking a Viridian's teeth in.
 
Another note, it says in the new page that the schools that boost Proficiency in Long swords, it does not include the School of Rangers, yet in the Altë-Hathel page it states, "Ceremonial Altë-Hathels, those forged by the Rangers...".

On the start of a new topic: This change will result on an overload of Champion Characters that will have to be further more controlled by a more strict permissions system, which in turn will cause irritation and will result of the loss of players.
 
After reading everyone's comments I figured I'll share my opinion as well — While I have a few doubts, overall I think this is a step in the right direction towards more realistic characters and more realistic representation of their abilities with character sheets. People in the real world don't have three skills (or five if they have damaging weaknesses), they have varying levels of skill in everything they attempt. Before, we had tons of people at Warrior level in because it's the highest level you can go without a special permission, and because why waste a strength slot if you're not even gonna be very good at it? Now it looks to me like we've got a bit more accurate way to show character skillsets.
 
Cool! I'm terrible with numbers systems though, but that's just a personal grievance of mine. Battlemages sound delightful, and I'll eat that right up, MMM.
 
XFrostgamingX said:
Another note, it says in the new page that the schools that boost Proficiency in Long swords, it does not include the School of Rangers, yet in the Altë-Hathel page it states, "Ceremonial Altë-Hathels, those forged by the Rangers...".
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
dunno if alte-hathels would count under that tho.


XFrostgamingX said:
On the start of a new topic: This change will result on an overload of Champion Characters that will have to be further more controlled by a more strict permissions system, which in turn will cause irritation and will result of the loss of players.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
i dunno if you noticed but there's way too many champions already
i frankly doubt the problem could get much worse.
 
If everyone wants to be a champion, let everyone be a champion. Or, better yet, do away with "power levels" for all this stuff. Decide combat by dice rolls or mutual agreement on the best narrative outcome. Keep proficiency as simple as "what things can your character do?". No need to quantify how well they can do them. This is freeform role-play, not Runescape.
 
PosidonX7 said:
According to the "have practically no defensive capacity to deflect or out strike opponents with faster weapons" part, this would imply the greatsword wielders can easily be beaten by almost anyone, providing an "always-loss" situation for them. This creates an extreme imbalance in combat.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

All memes aside, I'll give it one last reply since you seem to be misunderstanding the point I'm making:
  • I design weapons based on a rock paper scissors mechanic. If I gave great swords all capacity you (well this really goes for anyone) wanted, it will result in weapon choice minmaxing and everyone would be using it in their mixture. Slightly gamey aspects such as reduction of efficiency in some styles is necessary to make sure that all options remain a viable choice. Essentially, we don't want someone to dump 40 proficiency points in Greatswords and defeat every opponent by default because "lol le epic reach and damage output but I can also deflect and change my stance XD!!!"
  • Just because it states there that there is "practically no defensive capacity to deflect" doesn't mean a Feer-Drakkener will immediately drop dead on the ground when they get sliced once. People who fight with a greatsword have the capacity to block attacks through armor, or use overbearing power and attacks to mimic "the best defense is a good offense". Like come on dude, be more creative.
  • It's nice that you can bring up a lot of youtube videos and cite them as historical proof why XYZ could occur, but I don't want people to win combat rp by default because of some contrived logic that is exposed in a youtube video. If you need to prove to your roleplay partner than you should win by linking them to something outside of massive in an OOC debate about whether your action is realistically possible, then you're losing by default at roleplay in general.
  • And here's the crux of the point about these weapons design: All roleplay is commutable to suit the cooperative narrative. Taking another Feer-Drakkener as example like missmaggy2u's Leah, SupremeCripple's Tristan, these people don't engage in combatrp for the sake of winning it, but for the sake of the story. Even though the lore in such cases may say something, if both sides respect the character design of the players behind them and choose to have a fun time together instead of at the expense of each, then the literal lore just becomes a guideline of combat-rp and not so much the actual rules. When we're all excited about the roleplay scene and we want to know how it continues, nobody is going to pipe up and say "yeah ummm I don't think Tristan can actually swing a sword like that because my longsword was at a 45 degree angle and could easily outstab him???!!?".
If you respect another person's character design, they will respect yours in return and then the specifics of combatrp melt away in favor of the cooperative narrative. Failing that, you can always just rock paper scissors the combat lore to create some sort of fairness, or use dice rolls to determine an outcome if neither partner is accepting the framework of the lore. Either way you turn it, the moment you start arguing in OOC chat about which combat roleplay should win, you've set yourself up for a mutually not-fun experience, and you have lost at roleplay by default.
 
Synthesia said:
I literally only apply to guard charters for weapon permits tbh
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

At that point it doesn't really matter. I don't think I ever had any weapon confiscated from any of my characters. I remember my Shendar goon using a bullwhip to punish a random taverngoer in an alley, a guard walking up to her and her telling him she was a stablegirl.
 
Miss_Ortonnaise said:
At that point it doesn't really matter. I don't think I ever had any weapon confiscated from any of my characters. I remember my Shendar goon using a bullwhip to punish a random taverngoer in an alley, a guard walking up to her and her telling him she was a stablegirl.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I guess
Don't want to risk it though, the bastard sword my char has is pretty important to the development (given to him by his dad when he was like 15 etc.)
 
MonMarty said:
All memes aside, I'll give it one last reply since you seem to be misunderstanding the point I'm making:
  • I design weapons based on a rock paper scissors mechanic. If I gave great swords all capacity you (well this really goes for anyone) wanted, it will result in weapon choice minmaxing and everyone would be using it in their mixture. Slightly gamey aspects such as reduction of efficiency in some styles is necessary to make sure that all options remain a viable choice. Essentially, we don't want someone to dump 40 proficiency points in Greatswords and defeat every opponent by default because "lol le epic reach and damage output but I can also deflect and change my stance XD!!!"
  • Just because it states there that there is "practically no defensive capacity to deflect" doesn't mean a Feer-Drakkener will immediately drop dead on the ground when they get sliced once. People who fight with a greatsword have the capacity to block attacks through armor, or use overbearing power and attacks to mimic "the best defense is a good offense". Like come on dude, be more creative.
  • It's nice that you can bring up a lot of youtube videos and cite them as historical proof why XYZ could occur, but I don't want people to win combat rp by default because of some contrived logic that is exposed in a youtube video. If you need to prove to your roleplay partner than you should win by linking them to something outside of massive in an OOC debate about whether your action is realistically possible, then you're losing by default at roleplay in general.
  • And here's the crux of the point about these weapons design: All roleplay is commutable to suit the cooperative narrative. Taking another Feer-Drakkener as example like missmaggy2u's Leah, SupremeCripple's Tristan, these people don't engage in combatrp for the sake of winning it, but for the sake of the story. Even though the lore in such cases may say something, if both sides respect the character design of the players behind them and choose to have a fun time together instead of at the expense of each, then the literal lore just becomes a guideline of combat-rp and not so much the actual rules. When we're all excited about the roleplay scene and we want to know how it continues, nobody is going to pipe up and say "yeah ummm I don't think Tristan can actually swing a sword like that because my longsword was at a 45 degree angle and could easily outstab him???!!?".
If you respect another person's character design, they will respect yours in return and then the specifics of combatrp melt away in favor of the cooperative narrative. Failing that, you can always just rock paper scissors the combat lore to create some sort of fairness, or use dice rolls to determine an outcome if neither partner is accepting the framework of the lore. Either way you turn it, the moment you start arguing in OOC chat about which combat roleplay should win, you've set yourself up for a mutually not-fun experience, and you have lost at roleplay by default.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I understand it better when you explain it that way. It might have also helped that I got a full night's sleep.
One final request though. /Please/ don't remove Himmlisch, because it's just so damn cool. For balancing and gameplay purposes, lets say Feer-drakken could only be able to use the swing/cleave techniques of greatswords while Himmlisch would only be able to use the stab & parry techniques. How does my proposition sound? @MonMarty

The swings used are Feer Drakken.

Only the stabbing techniques used are Himmlisch.
 
Last edited:
MonMarty said:
Less IC relevant schools turned into Culture Schools that can be learned in tandem
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I think this is a funny thing to call "less ic relevant" because far more of my IC interactions are related to things that would be considered culture.

But I assume this actually just means that people are less likely to need to prove the validity of their actions in the middle of a rp session. People aren't as likely to argue about whether someone is good at singing or cooking lol.
 
Looking great so far! Can't wait for more!
 
Faunfire said:
I believe it was optional as more of a 'you dont gotta list your kryptonite' but it would be nice if weaknesses WERE manditory. It would prevent overpowered characters from... existing.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

People seldom roleplay weaknesses anyways. I remember discussing it back when the age-old system was ditched for the current one. People kept using crop-out weaknesses. All the nobles with "intimidating posture".
 
I love this system!
I always found it restrictive to have foot soldiers who were only proficient in one or two classes of weaponry.
In my opinion, a simple guard would be trained to use:
  • Sword
  • Shield (Large and/or small)
  • Pike
  • Maybe short bow, (Or a easy to learn ranged weapon)

    As the three classes aren't entirely difficult to learn at least averagely, and basically a must among foot men and simple soldiers.
To add, now our characters have much more options, for example, you can either become extremely good at one class of weaponry, or learn how to use a pool of weapons with an average skill set.
So if your character is a hunter in their free time, but a Hightower swordsman, now they can be proficient in blade and ranged, which provides characters much more abilities!

Now, my favorite part!
Short bows are not difficult to learn, though the more years of practice, the more accurate a characters aim. However, many times you may find characters scared to hold a bow, or even to use one, and when you do use a bow or simple ranged weapon, you may be called with a comment like this:
  1. "Whaaa? A bloodcast with a short bow? But you is bloodcast sword guy dood, that is impossible"
  2. (or) "That is not right lols for you to learn a pike when you isn't even tenpenny"
  3. (or) "You can't use one swerd, haha you only can use 2 swerds"
This new combat system now offers a variety of 'informal' training. Meaning, you can now say- "I know how to wield a bow or pike from my service in the vigilants/hightower/other guard charters." Which entirely makes sense.

No longer is IC training or informal training useless.
 
MonMarty, what I am about to do, has rarely been done in history. I hereby, GIVE you, a...


KA-CHOW

From now on, you own this Ka-chow...

This means:
  • You can from now on use as many Ka-Chows as you would like.
  • You can say whatever you would like about Cars and Lightning McQueen (Good or bad).
  • You can also spell Ka-Chow any way you would like.
  • You now have more dignity than other human beings.
Now, you are free to frolic through the meadows, knowing, you have earned something.



P.S.
About the last right, "I jest, I jest!"
-Horse God; Breath of the Wild
 
Last edited:
Some of the descriptions of bladed weapons seem very odd. Referencing thin blades, such as rapiers, as having the innate weakness of having a thin blade, as though it would be easily break or be less durable. Although it would be easier to break than a Longsword's blade, it's still a feat that wouldn't happen during combat, not unless the steel was a very poor quality. It also mentions light pommels. It seems a strange mention to make, so I assume it means the hilt, but in either case, it's not true. The pommel was as heavy as any typical Longsword pommel and it's hilt added a lot of weight to the weapon, which is why rapiers weighed about the same as Longsword, difference being their Point of Balance (P.O.B). My point is that I feel the lore writer should do some more research into the weaponry as although currently it isn't bad, there could be mentions in the lore to a weapon's features and characteristics that are untrue. Such a thing could cause OOC conflict as someone might strike someone's rapier during combat and then expect it to bend or snap, which simply wouldn't happen. I have seen a part of your discussion with the person mentioning the inaccuracy of the Greatsword description and I appreciate your view, but reality has already set a standard that is already balanced enough, in my opinion. Although a Greatsword is a formidable weapon to fight against, it's impractical to carry for self defence, draws a large amount of attention and suspicion, and does have it's own inherent weaknesses that other weapons can exploit. Short swords are generally pretty inefficient duelling weapons since a rapier has a massive advantage in a one on one fight, yet most fights aren't the 1v1 duel. Often a fight starts by two people being very close and one suddenly lashing out. This is sometimes a headbutt, or drawing a knife to stab. In this scenario, the 'quickest to the draw' wins, generally. If you can unsheath your dagger and stab your opponent, they will most likely die. This is a very common scenario, more so than a 1v1, which means that rapiers, longswords and other similar weapons wouldn't realistically be used often, instead daggers and shortswords taking presidency due to their ability to be very quick to the draw. This has been very long-winded, but my main point is that there is already a balance in weaponry and I feel there should be a discussion with those knowledgeable on weapons present to discuss if reality has already created an intuitive and fun system of weaponry. I'd be willing to chat in a PM if you're interested, I am confident in saying I can speak for many weapons and their features, as well as more importantly provide reliable sources of information about medieval combat and weapons. Infact, here's a google drive document I have I send to people so they can have a large array of sources for historical combat and weaponry:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aGDgUD7UE9s_1FiFX4h6zSEx7h2CGlfBIJwUjibBsqU/edit
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

colonelsoberfunk
Work in Progress Kiel Vuakudah
Replies
0
Views
92
Character Sheets
colonelsoberfunk
colonelsoberfunk
H
Work in Progress Rübhezal, Lord of Mountains
Replies
0
Views
87
Character Sheets
HoLee_Of_Ducks
H
ZackTimekiller
Work in Progress Veskar Veyne
Replies
0
Views
78
Character Sheets
ZackTimekiller
ZackTimekiller
BasilMediator
Work in Progress Kaalvën Thalorën
Replies
0
Views
124
Character Sheets
BasilMediator
BasilMediator
IGutTheMidasTuch
Played Character Kethvarr Zelkoriirn | The Scorned Prince
Replies
0
Views
166
Character Sheets
IGutTheMidasTuch
IGutTheMidasTuch
Top Bottom