Reset Password
Existing players used to logging in with their character name and moo password must signup for a website account.
- Bruhlicious 1m Deine Mutter stinkt nach Erbrochenem und Bier.
- BubbleKangaroo 12m
- FunkyMango 27s
- RedProtokoll 18m
- Baphomei 8s
a Neon 1h
- deskoft 48m
- Fogchild1 10m
- Majere_Draven 18s
And 22 more hiding and/or disguised

Player selectable default combat posture

In the current system if your character attacks someone, your character is automatically in the Offensive posture. The character they are attacking is automatically in the Defensive posture.

Has there ever been any previous discussion about being able to select those?

My suggestion is to at least enable the 'defender' to choose their default posture when attacked. For example, they might be an aggressive fighter or built around the concept of having those slight offensive buffs from the more aggressive postures. Why not let them have a "hair trigger" and violently respond to their attackers?

I think that allowing the 'attacker' to choose a posture could lead to some problems. For example in this situations where people are built to be evasive and benefit from a guarded stance. Allowing them to initiate a fight with a strong defense seems like a potential balance issue.

At the risk of throwing 'realism' into the mix here, I'll mention that it isn't realistic to start a fight defensively. Two combatants in defensive postures aren't actually fighting. Attacking someone requires leaving yourself open, however briefly.

On the other hand, it's totally realistic to come across people who believe that they can take a couple of hits and who are willing to trust their stamina and training to make up for a lack of defense.

Gotta' be honest, I think being able to choose your posture right off the bat is a bad idea that'll break combat.


At the risk of also talking about realism, if someone walks up to you and pulls a gun and then starts shooting and you weren't expecting it, you don't think you'd start the fight from a defensive standpoint? Like, try to take cover or evasive maneuvers.
Attacking first is already a pretty big advantage. Letting people pick where the stance they start in would give attackers more options for optimization, IMO.
Not to go into mechanics, but the fact that this idea has been suggested as a nano by Feng is reason enough why it shouldn't be a default option.


Think of it this way. You know you're gonna' be fighting somebody who can't flee from you. So you rock up, initiate combat, but start it in the guarded position, forcing the other dude to attack you while you do nothing but parry.

Imagine if somebody walked up to you, holding a sword, and yelled "IM GOING TO FIGHT YOU" and then you were just forced to attack them while they did nothing immediately.

Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaah gonna go with probably not gonna work.
Honestly, same, getting the jump on someone and knowing they're going to start in a certain posture (which is logical, if you get attacked in real life you're not going to automatically go all out) can really make or break your chances of winning.

I'm going to have to disagree as well.


A somewhat recent update made it so if you're in the guarded position the other person can flee with no check, iirc.

If this were a player selectable option, I'd like to see it split into 'default defender posture' and 'default attacker posture' with attacker limited to neutral or more aggressive and defender's posture unlimited.
RedSteelButterfly's suggestion is solid work around for my concerns.
I love the way the current system works and anything else should exclusively be the realm of drugs/wares. If a character relies on those offensive postures to do well in combat, they should be trying to get the jump on people.
what waddle said

You should adapt to your build, strengths and weaknesses. The current system works fine enough and there are already advantages on getting the first attack on people.

Doing this would just remove the element of having the first attack.

I read a bunch of responses saying this is a bad idea, but I don't understand WHY it's a bad idea.

I think Ranger came the closest when he said,

..there are already advantages to getting the first attack..


Doing this would just remove the element of having the first attack.

When I read that, what I think is, "The system is permanently skewed in favor of giving the attacker a specific posture bonus."

Was that what you meant to communicate?

Is the resistance to change due to people being comfortable with / optimized for the current postures?

Or is it literally that ANY OTHER DEFAULT POSTURE is going to be super broken and imbalanced for either the attacker, or the defender?

Hek no offense but you don't know how combat works or why it is the way it is and your last reply feels like an attempt to tease mechanics information out of more experienced players.

Lord grant me the confidence of someone who claims to have only been in a handful of fights but has some good ideas about how to fix combat.

Anor grant me Vera's confidence that only she knows how anything in this game works and can have productive input on any mechanic ever amen
Hey guys,

This is devolving, can we please stay on topic and avoid personal attacks?


Come on dogg he posted about having never played a combat character like two days ago and this suggestion is ill-informed and nobody who engages with the combat system with any regularity is out here saying it's good.
nobody but the coders know exactly how the combat system works Vera. Everyone else is just guessing based on observation. That being said, regardless of the actual mechanics, everyone's perceived feel of said system is important feedback to the developers for balance and enjoyability.

My character is a effectively pacifist for example, there's no IC reason my character would be in any posture but guarded at the start of a fight.


It's balanced in favor of the attacker, which is a good thing, because it encourages people to take the initiative and risk in starting a fight. It adds more to the strategy of combat that isn't just pitting my stats vs. your stats.

Nothing's stopping you from taking measures to not get ambushed as much and start being the one who ambushes people instead, so this is balanced.

Posture changes were also instant until relatively recently so this barely mattered before. It's not a case of people being overly-attached to the way things are.

It's a bad suggestion that would confer massive advantages to certain weapons and playstyles in a way the OP has not considered.
@Vera, certain weapons and play styles have an advantage in the current meta as well. Would a change along the lines of what I suggested necessarily further exacerbate the current situation, or would it instead alter the meta to favor a new combination?
Some weapons benefit more from certain stances than others. This would potentially imbalance or skew combat in favor of those weapons.


It would grossly exaggerate the differences in certain weapons in a way they are not presently balanced for and really do some damage to the game.
I want to take everyone back a couple of years. The posture system was different, back then. Back then, you could switch to any posture you wanted with no prelude--go directly from guarded to kamikaze, for instance. If you were attacked, you could jump right to kamikaze, as well.

The current system, with it's staggered changes, was introduced to make posturing less meta and remove the ability of skilled players to out-posture their opponents by having a better understanding of the game mechanics. What you're suggesting would be a step back to the old system and would confer those same meta advantages on skilled players again. Does that make sense?

I also want to state, having a bit of the ultraviolence experience, that the 'advantage' of being an attacker or defender is entirely circumstantial. You going ham on someone in kamikazi stance and winning against player XYZ does not equate to you doing the same against player ABC.

With such an imbalance already in place, perhaps a mechanic like this would be a way to simultaneously rebalance the weapons and styles to allow for a more rock-paper-scissors-lizard-spock situation?

It's not an imbalance, it's a purposefully asymmetrical system so that players have to play smart instead of just mashing their character sheets into each other.
I'm just quietly chanting 'FOIC' to myself, over and over.
The attacker is meant to have an advantage, like Waddle and Vera have said. It's not accidental.

I guess my question is, where is this desire coming from? What problem is this change designed to address?


apologies if I'm misunderstanding, but you're making it sound like there is a clearly best weapon/play style that exists so that the attacker using that weapon/play style has enough of an advantage to eliminate stalemates. Is that your intent?

No. Weapons are not all the same. They all work differently and have asymmetrical features that give them advantages or disadvantages in certain situations. Some of these are obvious, others less so, and you need to go play Sindome if you want to learn about these.

The current system is carefully balanced to keep it so that despite their asymmetry, no one weapon class is a clear best in every situation. It's actually pretty well done, using a pistol feels dramatically different from using a shovel but they're both worth using in the right circumstances.

A change like the one Hek has suggested would do a lot of damage to that.

@RedSteelButterfly I'm pretty sure you're misunderstanding something here.

Probably! I don't have a dog in this fight though, I'm just exploring the idea presented.

"Exploring the idea" when you don't know anything about the topic leads to a lot of arguments and people posting IC and mechanics info.
Just to re-iterate, if you don't understand these mechanics, the forums are not the place to be learning about them.

I'm sure you didn't mean it as such, but that is a very elitist and exclusionary comment. Discussions about ideas should be open, educational, and civil. Not closed off and restricted to only those who have spent enough years playing a game to have precise arcane knowledge on a subject. This allows for approached and ideas that come from a fresh perspective to be presented, not limiting things to someone who is 'used to' a system, and entrenched in their viewpoints...or perhaps even benefits from the current meta and motivated to see it stay as is.

Closed off discussion should be limited to the actual implementation of the ideas found worthy in discussion.

Thanks for the thoughtful responses.

My post was not an attempt to glean information from more experienced players. It was an attempt to understand why given 5 postures, specific postures are forced upon characters when combat starts. And why given 5 postures to choose from, characters are not allowed to select a preferred posture.

What I think I've read here is that given the multitude of weapons and skills available in the game, the default postures have been fixed to provide as even a playing field as possible, given all of the variables involved.

Is that an accurate statement?

Not every opinion has equal value and fishing for mechanics info on the forums is against at least the spirit of the rules if not the letter. Go play Sindome and find out how this works if you want to bring a helpful opinion to the table.

This is true, but you're also assuming that every opinion and idea must be taken exactly as presented with no modification or alteration allowed. Just because Someone doesn't know that posture E using weapons B is a viciously superior play style, doesn't mean that they may not have a useful input based on their experiences.

Discussions about ideas should be open, educational, and civil. Not closed off and restricted to only those who have spent enough years playing a game to have precise arcane knowledge on a subject.

This is just flat out not true. To stress in the strongest possible terms, you are not on the forums to be educated about combat mechanics.

No but it does mean a bunch of people who know it's a bad idea because of experience are going to say so and the people who have no idea what they're talking about but are defending it for some reason are going to have hurt feelings and demand explanations from the other side that they can't give without breaking the rules.

The whole thing forces people into an awkward situation where they have to look like jerks and say 'I can't tell you why this sucks but it sucks bad' or keep quiet as if in tacit agreement.

And then eventually someone will get frustrated and will post some IC or mechanics info or something. It's a frequently recurring issue.


I never said to be educated on combat mechanics 0x1mm. Educational does not mean instructional. I can be educated on how different people see the game, what different people are looking to get out of the game, why systems are the way they are. i can do all of this without being educated on a single specific mechanic.

Please pull back a bit and cease assigning ill intentions to my desires.

I'd suggest trying to learn more IC if the topic interests you. Whatever the intent of the questions presented in this thread, they are in practice pressing the boundaries of fishing for mechanical details and insight on a subject everyone should be learning about through IC processes alone.

I'm only allowed to play one character at a time, and my current character is combat exclusionary, so there's not a lot of chance of that happening. That being said, at this point I'm probably more versed in several rare skills than 99% of the players in the game, but I still welcome their input when I participate in a topic involving those skills. it's illuminating to see how people perceive the game world and how they feel things should work.

Please see Rule 1.F if I have -- somehow -- been less than clear.
"I am not playing a combat character so the only way I can learn about combat mechanics is the forums."


To go back to Hek's original post:

My suggestion is to at least enable the 'defender' to choose their default posture when attacked. For example, they might be an aggressive fighter or built around the concept of having those slight offensive buffs from the more aggressive postures.

What I'm reading here is simply, as a defender, I want more agency in how I'm postured when someone attacks me.

Just on it's face, we've already heard:

1. That's part of game balance. Attackers dictate the terms of the fight and have an advantage over defenders, who, by their very nature, are on the defensive. There are ways of getting the jump on someone who is attacking you, by the way, which, as others have said, can't be discussed.

2. It's also realistic that if you're being attacked, you'll start out on the defensive.

3. It's also been pointed out that by changing the system, you'd allow powerful characters to optimize around being able to select a starting posture.

The ultimate goal is the defender having more control over how they're attacked, and that would be unbalancing for the reason's listed above.


Thanks for the response.

In all honesty, I wanted to be able to 'attack' someone but start off in a 'defensive' posture.

Rather than post here and suggest enabling people to set a default posture, I figured it would prudent to ask why such a thing hadn't already been abled.

As I suspected, there has been a lot of thought put into why things are the way that they are.

So all I'm going to say is that combat works really really good right now, and there's no reason to change it to make it easier.
There are a number of reasons I would not support a change of this nature - and whilst unfortunately I am unable to disclose those reasons - I can say I would strongly advocate against any change in this direction and do not see it occurring.