One-hit kills

**Borborygmus** · 17th July 2012, 04:20 PM

Originally Posted by Thradok

Also, these scenarios tend to just get more and more ridiculous, so I suggest we stop that part of the conversation now and try to get back to talking about one hit kills.

i would hardly accuse a very, very general discussion of infantry and calvary as ridiculous, in a conversation about lethality, tactics, and toughness. one person used an exagerate number of hits to make a point. the number was the established context. nothing hard to follow or ludicrous.

**Thradok** · 17th July 2012, 04:31 PM

I guess I personally have no problem with instant kills, I just see from a balance point of view not being able to do it 1v1. As I've said before, in an ambush getting a few hits off first might be enough due to causing bleeding. It's not instant kill, but functionally you killed them before they could do anything back, especially if you can outrun them and keep them from bandaging.

As for these theoretical situations, it's just rehashing what has already been said in an old thread or three. It gets annoying to me because during the back and forth things just keep getting added until it hardly resembles the issue it was meant to describe. I am having to try very hard not to type up a big explanation scenario myself which would both agree and disagree with those you have put forth so far Borb. Suffice to say I find a group using focus fire to kill targets instantly very different than one person being able to instantly kill someone with a single hit.

**Borborygmus** · 17th July 2012, 04:49 PM

Originally Posted by Thradok

I
Suffice to say I find a group using focus fire to kill targets instantly very different than one person being able to instantly kill someone with a single hit.

ok, why?

if the only thing that we are seeking to preserve is the victims sense of fairness, what difference does it make when he can't do a thing about it? you can't just say "he should've retreated" because this can be said about anyone heading into potential danger.

again, i am not campaigning for common one hit kills. i think some kind of one hit kill is appropriate, whether its from a carefully planned and executed assassination, or a devastating siege weapon direct hit on an individual etc

what i object to is the banning of a concept in every conceivable arena. i think making a blanket policy sort of kills some potentially valuable nuance.

this is not a big deal, and just because im putting energy into a thoughtful discussion doesent mean its my most extreme passion. this is logical debate, and it should be weighed logically.

**Thradok** · 17th July 2012, 05:48 PM

See, getting hit by 5 arrows and dying does preserve a sense of fairness, in my opinion. That person realizes that they were hit by an organized attack from a group of players. They may get mad, but it is only 'unfair' in that they were outnumbered. I recall Rob (I think?) saying something to the effect of "If there is a way for a player to kill someone else in one hit, that system will be abused." They don't think they can properly balance it, and expect an inordinate amount of people to try that sort of build and lifestyle simply because they can get a 1 hit kill.

Siege weapons I can see, but that's almost a separate issue. I believe we are more concerned about 1v1 situations, right? So, an assassination. Like I've said several times, even if you can't just insta kill them, you can probably win the fight on the opening attack. That's just a balance issue concerning stealth, getting free attacks on an unguarded target, how much people bleed, and perhaps poisons. So, barring outside help you've won the fight. However, it does give some limited options to the victim, and if they are good and you suck, perhaps they will kill you before they bleed out and be able to patch up.

As for your group combat...I don't see how it's a problem. If the game lets you be accurate enough to place multiple people's shots on a single target at range it needs to be accounted for by that target. You go into combat knowing that you need to be able to defend yourself from concentrated arrow fire. Should cut down on 2h weapon users a bit, make shields and shield walls more popular, and give a good job to light cavalry, or whatever the tactics are.

If someone is ambushed by several people and killed instantly...it's a well executed ambush? Good job, I guess. Silly person should know it's dangerous to go alone.

**Serpensio** · 17th July 2012, 06:08 PM

What Thradok said. That's how I envision things too.

**Slash Redhand** · 17th July 2012, 06:14 PM

Hey guys here's a scenario.

Let's say the game is 50 hit to kill someone, YEA 50 you read right, I bring 50 archers with me and all focus on one guy and he dies, OMG IT"S A ONE HIT KILL OMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMG.

Yea, you get the point....

**Nefastus** · 17th July 2012, 06:17 PM

How about we make EoC turned based PvP where you have to wait for your turn to hit a target? Or alternatively, if too many people attack a single player, they get banned from the game!

Problem solved!