Melee hand to hand

[atonement]

Kittysrule is a gigantic moron. His level of idiocy is so vast you could fit even Lateralus's mom in it. And that's saying something. Truth is melee is for people who pride themselves on "realistic" fighting, but then have characters who do impossible things. Or people don't really pay attention, mess up once, and it's game over. Just like Planal. Like Jacob said, do something fucked up, nobody expects it, and boom, game over. Also one thing many people over look is just how important equipment is. I once had an opponent throw the fight simply because I was wearing armor and they were playing a robed monk with no armor. They were highly susceptible damage, they couldn't touch me since they were unarmed. They just gave up. Versatile equipment is a must, in my opinion. Either that, or develop a strategy for anyone you may end up facing. Look at Czar's quote of Sun Tzu, it's a perfect example.

[Fenris]

Popular oppinion of players not withstanding is that an agreement or disagreement with my last statement?

[baane]

Lateraleus, being forced into a pose where you must react to your opponents' movements is rarely ever advantageous. The less he telegraphs his movements, the more dangerous it is to remain on the defensive. The difference between real fighting and RP is that you can technically always see through feigns and good form regardless. This is not the case in real life.

[Lateralus]

Well, Baane, the point of realistic melee is to force that realism onto the RP. Technically, yes, you CAN always see through feigns and form. Nonetheless, if you don't have a LEGIT reason explaining how they can see through feigns and good form, then that person isn't fighting realistically.

And, again, 'being forced into a pose' is just a thought that you're throwing out there, taking away the meaning of "conservative". Being conservative is placing the element of conservation out there - even if it means stepping backwards and to the side to avoid something (over and over again), which is very easy if you keep your distance and maintain a conservative mind, until you get that opportunity to exploit an opponent's fault in an attack.

[baane]

Forcing yourself into a position where you must react to your opponents' moves isn't any more advantagous.

[Lateralus]

Do what? You're going to react anyways - or, at least I'd hope so - and conservatively doing it is the most advantageous. You move out of the way, keeping a conservative distance, until they do something wrong, then you have it. Doesn't get more advantageous than that.

[Lateralus]

By reacting with a position that gets you within an awkward distance will grant you less degrees of freedom. More degrees of freedom - more things available to do - is the extreme advantage.

[baane]

Your strategy makes the off-the-bat assumption that you are the more skilled of the two and actively underestimates your opponent's aggressiveness and ability to quickly adapt. It's a very dangerous gamble.

...but then, this is The Keep.

[Fenris]

for once i agree with baane about telegraphing and feints being obvious in Roleplay, however I have figured out a way to translate them into RP, however I have only been able to do this with weapons, I simply thrust with my first post, and give a slight hint that its a feint, and depending on their reaction i carry through with the true attack

[Lateralus]

Baane, your idea of conservative/defensive fighting is a little narrow. You don't have to be MORE skilled than the other to perform and sustain a conservative/defensive strategy. If you can't KEEP YOUR DISTANCE with the skill you possess - or even maintain the position you hold with the logical amount of awareness you dedicate, then that's not a very realistic fight. It's all about awareness. Underestimating the aggressive nature of someone has nothing to do with it - throwing frenzied punches at a rapid pace is not hard to avoid. Back-peddling, weaving, ducking, diving, rolling, and SO much more can be used to, again, conservatively defend.

If someone does aggressively come at you, what will you do? Make sure you're situated to avoid in some unpredictable fashion until you can tell by the position of your opponent that their symmetrical weight/balance/form (and even momentum) is off, then you do what's best in response to the position you bear as that opportunity comes. That's conservative/defensive fighting. Whatever it takes to be conservative and allow more degrees of freedom, until a moment with the better chance of success comes, is how it works.

Sure, people may adapt - but, then again, the defensive fighter can as well; to one and to all, the standards are equal, aren't they? Sure, risks are thrown out there; every move technically is one, and that alone carries the element of realism.

[baane]

Throwing frenzied punches at a rapid pace is not hard to avoid.

Your immediate association of aggressiveness with lack of discipline shows me all I need to know about your understanding of the subject.

[Lateralus]

Your lack of understanding CONSERVATIVE DISTANCE just shows me how well your comprehension skills are.

And the lack of understanding "whatever it takes." Considering a quick, aggressive pace involving momentum, it's easy to avoid; if they are going to reach, they are going to convey their mass, velocity, and therefore a risky level of momentum. They are going to HAVE to reach on a conservative fighter who knows what they're doing. When you consider the other being within 2 feet and throwing aggressive stuff, you don't expect a conservative fighter to stick around in that range, do you? No, you don't, because that isn't very conservative. That's the point. Whatever it takes to avoid the non-conservative situation is what it takes to sustain the effective strategy.

[atonement]

Actually Wolf that's a degree of metagaming/autoing. You can't sit there and change the outcome of your move simply because of your opponent's defense and be like "oh it was a feint lol" and then move in for the hit. That's a bit deceptive rping. The fact is, if you give enough reasons to why the move may not be noticed, and your opponent can't give you accurate reasons as to why they see through the gambit, then it's effective. To be honest, Baane has arguments, but Lateralus seriously has a better grasp of the subject matter. I seriously hope to see Lat and Baane fight in the tourny. Hopefully it'll be in the 2 v 2 so we can show him a true grasp on melee fighting.

[Lateralus]

Hell yeah, man. If we aren't gonna come to terms in debate, Baane, we can we try coming to terms IC; only of the subject matter is what I'm saying. Just raw melee, to find the victor - for the hell of it. Sound cool?

[baane]

I do not have the time to dedicate to an IC tournament. It's why I didn't join the last one.

In any case it's clear that your fighting style is defensive which gives my character no reason to fight yours, unless your character is one of those idiots who abrasively challenges people to fights and then simply never makes a move, which I'm giving you the benefit of assuming that's not the case.