Curse

The Lurch · Sep 20, 2007, 12:02 AM // 00:02

Okay, I suggested this before on a thread that violated the forum's rules. So I'll repost it more in depth here.

The idea is, to add a bit more realism to the game, is to make your character occasionally miss with attacks and block incoming attacks. You could go even farther, as making spells have a random chance to fail (if they already don't, I havn't played a caster in a while).

Blocking and Missing

Okay, every attack you make could have a random chance to miss. This makes sense, doesn't it? Even if your a trained warrior, your going to screw up every once and a while and not do an attack right, thus causing you to miss. This could help save some people lives, a person who is attacking you misses, and the monk (or you) can squeeze in a heal and save you(rself).
And I know what people are gonna say 'rangers and paragonz can already have things go wild and miss noob". Yeah well guess what? There are 8 other classes, and 3 of those 8 other classes use physical weapons that are perfectly capable of missing. However, to be fair, the higher your weapon mastery is, the less chance you have to miss (for example, a warrior with a hammer mastery of 16 would miss less than a warrior with a hammer mastery of say, only, 9)

Now onto blocking.
I'm not perfectly sure how this would work. Logic tells me, when blocking a weapon, a shield would naturally give you a higher "chance" to block, but I do know you can parry an oncoming attack with a weapon. however, two small daggers blocking a huge maul seems a bit...unrealistic. So give comments on this.

Spells
I dont know if this should be implemented, but maybe, just maybe, we could give spells a random chance to fail. Just offensive spells, we dont wanna piss off the healers (unless you adore this idea...)
Again, same concept. An ele with a fire magic of 16 would have a less chance to fail with his spells then an ele with only 9 fire magic, etc, etc.

This is prolly gonna piss some people off. Dont give me shit like "omg noobzorz" I'm only trying to make the game more interesting. If you don't like the idea, be civil when you flame me. I know that sounds redundant....

Archaic · Sep 20, 2007, 12:10 AM // 00:10

Really not needed. Because, in lore, your character, is highly trained in it's art. And shouldn't miss, ever, unless blind. And about block, an inherent block rate would wreck PvP. Spell fails are also a bad idea.

Your idea's are logical, but bad to the nature of game mechanics.

Amalek · Sep 20, 2007, 12:13 AM // 00:13

I don't really see the point of this. Realism? GW is not a realistic game, it's a fantasy game. Rangers and paragon's can't miss unless the target is moving (or obstructed), which makes sense. It's not like you stand there throwing spears at an armor dummy and 10% of them miss. For pve, all I can see this doing is frustrating people (gg missing an attack "cause the game felt like it". From a pvp perspective, just no.

Cherng Butter · Sep 20, 2007, 12:25 AM // 00:25

The whole premise of Guild Wars is that things work how they are stated and they work in predictable ways. Doesn't really fit, though could be a possibility for GW2...

Archer_Of_Vulpes · Sep 20, 2007, 12:57 AM // 00:57

i'm 100% sure not even the OP wants this

holababe · Sep 20, 2007, 01:32 AM // 01:32

Would screw assassin chain attacks.
/notsigned

HawkofStorms · Sep 20, 2007, 03:02 AM // 03:02

"Realism" in a fantasy world with fireballs should not destroy gameplay.

Ministry Of Peace · Sep 20, 2007, 08:18 AM // 08:18

This is already factored into the game, in a way, based on the AL of a character. In real life, having a shield doesn't make you take less damage when someone whacks your head with a sword, it gives you a chance to block the attack with the shield. Though less obvious, the same is true with armor, as the goal is to "block" an attack from damaging your vital organs. As for missing, pretty much anyone that can swing a sword fairly fast could hit a target, contrary to what hollywood would have you believe.. It's mostly a matter of whether you will hit a vital spot.

mahmoud_ahmadinejad · Sep 20, 2007, 08:37 AM // 08:37

the most absolutely worthless and stupidest idea ever.
even the real lurch wouldn't come up with ideas as bad as this

BlackSephir · Sep 20, 2007, 08:39 AM // 08:39

Worst idea... well, today.

FelixCarter · Sep 20, 2007, 08:41 AM // 08:41

Randomness in PvP already pisses alot of people off.
Those 20% mods and 10% chance mods are usually loathed by most people I talk to about PvP.

In PvE, however, it adds a bit of flavor. Will my next spell have a recharge time of 30 seconds or 15 second? Will it take 6 seconds to resurrect my teammate or 3 seconds?

Personally, in PvE, I like it. The whole "randomness" adds a quality to monking that is... "curious."

You're idea would add a nice "flare" to PvE - assuming it was a small chance (and I do mean small). but PvP would have something else to loath if it was implimented.

the Puppeteer · Sep 20, 2007, 09:12 AM // 09:12

if we wanna be that realistic - then Meteor Shower should practicly "squish" anyone it hits into a puddle :P

BlackSephir · Sep 20, 2007, 09:23 AM // 09:23

And A's Unsuspecting Strike should be 1-hit-K.O.
...
Ok, I'm all in for this whole 'realism' thingie

Hawkeye · Sep 20, 2007, 09:29 AM // 09:29

Well I see where you are coming from. I've often myself thought the game could have used more 'randomness'. It makes sense too. A 100 dmg meteor attack shouldn't deal 100 dmg to every player equally distributed. The target should take 130 if standing in the center and those around should get 70.

The problem is that people don't like randomness for its difficulty to predict attack outcomes. They don't really care to deal an additional +30 damage, but they would care a great deal if it did -30 damage.

They would have had to start with it to begin with before people would accept it. Therefore, I pronounce this idea *NOT* the worst idea on the forum.

Government Flu · Sep 20, 2007, 09:31 AM // 09:31

In a very obvious way, blocking and spell failures have already made their home in Guild Wars. Though lacking the realism factor (one should expect that in an RPG) there are so many skills that block and so many interrupt possibilities that the game mechanics don't need to be tinkered with in this particular area.

As for spells failing, there actually are some that have a 50% chance of failing if you don't meet the casting requirements. For instance:

[skill]Dark Fury[/skill]

MithranArkanere · Sep 20, 2007, 11:17 AM // 11:17

If you want t block, you use skills.

That's how GW works.
I would not disagree with giving shields small chances to block, some thing like 2..5% or so. Maybe when customized, but nothing else.