More easily hit while not attacking

[pamzheng]

Is it somewhere officially confirmed that you have "lower defence" while not attacking an enemy? I have never heard of such a thing but I am convinced that one is much more easily hit while not actively attacking the "attacker" so to speak.

 

You can often notice this while eating during a fight, at least I do. Very often when I eat while being a attacked, I get hit, while I perhaps very rarely get hit by that monster/NPC otherwise.

 

 

 

What is your view on this? Is it just random? Is it confirmed somewhere officially? If so, where?

[Zaaps1]

Where'd you hear this? Of course you don't get lower defense, how would that even work out?

[pamzheng]

Where'd you hear this? Of course you don't get lower defense, how would that even work out?

 

 

 

No, it's like invisibly lower defence, no visible stat changes or anything like that.

 

What I meant was that you seem to be more vulnerable to attacks while not "replying fire". I haven't read it somewhere, but it most certainly seems that way, judging by how it's been for me through years of playing RuneScape.

 

 

 

To put it simply; the chance of getting hit by an attacking NPC seems quite significantly larger while not actively attacking it, when only it is attacking you. Example situations are when you eat, when you get attacked with "Auto Retaliation" off, etc.

[Zaaps1]

Where'd you hear this? Of course you don't get lower defense, how would that even work out?

 

 

 

No, it's like invisibly lower defence, no visible stat changes or anything like that.

 

What I meant was that you seem to be more vulnerable to attacks while not "replying fire". I haven't read it somewhere, but it most certainly seems that way, judging by how it's been for me through years of playing RuneScape.

 

 

 

To put it simply; the chance of getting hit by an attacking NPC seems quite significantly larger while not actively attacking it, when only it is attacking you. Example situations are when you eat, when you get attacked with "Auto Retaliation" off, etc.

 

 

 

I know what you mean, I meant how would Jagex even program that in, it wouldn't be very easy. Plus the bigger question is, why would they even do that?

 

 

 

I think you're just unlucky.

[Musky44]

Err...can I get this in english please? Or at least the OP quote this and tell me what he's trying to say...

[Zaaps1]

Err...can I get this in english please? Or at least the OP quote this and tell me what he's trying to say...

 

 

 

He's saying when you are not attacking an opponent, your defense would be lower.

 

 

 

Then he gives the example of eating. When you are eating, you are no longer attacking, so he says that your defense would be lower. That would explain why he gets hit so often when he's eating.

 

 

 

Tbh, I don't see that pattern, but then again I'm 90 defense at Giant Spiders, so I don't get hit that often anyway.

[pamzheng]

 

I know what you mean, I meant how would Jagex even program that in, it wouldn't be very easy.

 

 

 

 

I don't think it would be so difficult. There is obviously a variable for whether the player is attacking the NPC or not, because when it is active you keep attacking it, etc. If that variable would be 0, you could perhaps have a higher chance of getting hit (lower defence?).

 

 

 

Plus the bigger question is, why would they even do that?

 

 

 

Well it could be understandable. They could want "a player not taking battle stance" more vulernable to attacks, since the player often looks away from the attacking NPC and would therefore be more vulnerable.

 

 

 

I think you're just unlucky.

 

 

 

I tend to be :(

 

But it seems a bit unlikely since I've noticed it so many times now..

 

 

 

 

Err...can I get this in english please? Or at least the OP quote this and tell me what he's trying to say..

 

 

 

 

It is in English.. Just a tad bit difficult to explain.

[Musky44]

Err...can I get this in english please? Or at least the OP quote this and tell me what he's trying to say...

 

 

 

He's saying when you are not attacking an opponent, your defense would be lower.

 

 

 

Then he gives the example of eating. When you are eating, you are no longer attacking, so he says that your defense would be lower. That would explain why he gets hit so often when he's eating.

 

 

 

Tbh, I don't see that pattern, but then again I'm 90 defense at Giant Spiders, so I don't get hit that often anyway.

 

 

 

Why the hell would your defense be lower when you're eating or not fighting back? Unless you're downing zamorakian brews, I don't think this thread has any discussion value.

[Dire_Wolf]

Perhaps your using wrong armor, that matters alot in getting hit less.

[Suiku]

Hi

 

 

 

It's based in random numbers

 

 

 

Bye

[pamzheng]

 

Why the hell would your defense be lower when you're eating or not fighting back? Unless you're downing zamorakian brews, I don't think this thread has any discussion value.

 

 

 

Hey, it certainly is that way in a real life fight. It is a bit related to "Offence is the best defence" if you know what I mean.

 

Perhaps they would want the players to be more easily hit while not attacking back? It does make sense since it would certainly be easier hitting something that isn't hitting you back, so don't come and say it seems all crazy.

 

 

 

Now to me, it seems to be this way in Runescape, at least when NPCs attack, don't know about other players.

 

 

 

Perhaps your using wrong armor, that matters alot in getting hit less.

 

 

 

Obviously better defence bonuses results in one getting hit less, but now I'm talking about that the chance of getting hit feels increased while not attacking whatever is attacking you back.

 

 

 

 

Hi

 

 

 

It's based in random numbers

 

 

 

Bye

 

 

 

 

Uh yes? I never said it wasn't. But the chance of getting hit while having a +300 defence bonus is not the same as it is while having a +/- 0 defence bonus, however there is a chance of getting hit just as much with both.

[Musky44]

 

Hey, it certainly is that way in a real life fight.

 

 

 

Is this real life?

[dragon312]

I've been pking for quite some time already, and I don't think this is how you say it is, because well, I've been hit 0's also atleast a thousand times when eating, it is just RANDOM (UN)LUCK.

 

(Sorry for my horrible English I'm half asleep.)

[Smapla]

it does sometimes seem that way. and it would not be difficult to program. they already obviously have you in a state of either "in combat" or "not in combat" as so many things rely on that state (your ability to open world map, to attack other things, other interfaces, etc)

 

 

 

 

 

person above me...

 

 

 

i think the poster means like, if you're just sitting there unresponsive. if your'e eating while fighting, you're still "in combat"

[Zaaps1]

 

I know what you mean, I meant how would Jagex even program that in, it wouldn't be very easy.

 

 

 

 

I don't think it would be so difficult. There is obviously a variable for whether the player is attacking the NPC or not, because when it is active you keep attacking it, etc. If that variable would be 0, you could perhaps have a higher chance of getting hit (lower defence?).

 

 

 

Plus the bigger question is, why would they even do that?

 

 

 

Well it could be understandable. They could want "a player not taking battle stance" more vulernable to attacks, since the player often looks away from the attacking NPC and would therefore be more vulnerable.

 

 

 

I think you're just unlucky.

 

 

 

I tend to be :(

 

But it seems a bit unlikely since I've noticed it so many times now..

 

 

 

 

Err...can I get this in english please? Or at least the OP quote this and tell me what he's trying to say..

 

 

 

 

It is in English.. Just a tad bit difficult to explain.

 

 

 

I meant, why bother?

[pamzheng]

 

Hey, it certainly is that way in a real life fight.

 

 

 

Is this real life?

 

 

 

...

 

 

 

No, but if you have played Runescape you may notice how it in many ways based on reality. No one can miss this. Guess why real life things such as "water", "gravity", "matter" or "weight" are represented and featured in a digital manner within the game.

 

 

 

 

it does sometimes seem that way. and it would not be difficult to program. they already obviously have you in a state of either "in combat" or "not in combat" as so many things rely on that state (your ability to open world map, to attack other things, other interfaces, etc)

 

 

 

 

Yes.

 

 

 

 

I meant, why bother?

 

 

 

What? Why bother what?

[Musky44]

 

Hey, it certainly is that way in a real life fight.

 

 

 

Is this real life?

 

 

 

...

 

 

 

No, but if you have played Runescape you may notice how it in many ways based on reality. No one can miss this. Guess why real life things such as "water", "gravity", "matter" or "weight" are represented and featured in a digital manner within the game.

 

 

 

 

I don't see how teleporting around, or not dying forever contains concepts of reality.

[Dizzle229]

I actually think the OP is right. It doesn't lower your defence stats, but you do seem to be significantly more likely to be hit higher when not in combat. I've noticed this at the iron drags recently.

[Zaaps1]

 

 

I meant, why bother?

 

 

 

What? Why bother what?

 

 

 

Obviously, adding this takes a lot more time and effort than NOT adding it. Adding it really serves no benefit. So why would Jagex have even bothered to consider this?

[pamzheng]

 

 

 

I don't see how teleporting around, or not dying forever contains concepts of reality.

 

 

 

Seriously, I said that it was "based on reality". Not an attempt of recreating reality digitally.

 

 

 

Reality is used as a foundation while fictional functions are featured to make a game enjoyable. I don't need to explain this to you, you know very well what I mean.

 

 

 

Reflect upon the meaning of a text read before responding to it, if you will.

 

 

 

I actually think the OP is right. It doesn't lower your defence stats, but you do seem to be significantly more likely to be hit higher when not in combat. I've noticed this at the iron drags recently.

 

 

 

Yes. The easiest way to notice this would obviously be to fight NPCs (monsters) that may hit you from time to time, but don't hit you constantly/never.

 

 

 

 

Obviously, adding this takes a lot more time and effort than NOT adding it. Adding it really serves no benefit. So why would Jagex have even bothered to consider this?

 

 

 

I doubt it would take much effort. Just something like "the defence only gives 80% of the protection it would give if the player was attacking the NPC back while he/she is not attacking it", but scripted, obviously. It wouldn't take them long, besides, it could've been something they thought up long ago just to make the game more realistic.

 

 

 

Note that I am not suggesting that this is a new update, but rather that it has been around for at least several years of time.

[Zaaps1]

 

 

Obviously, adding this takes a lot more time and effort than NOT adding it. Adding it really serves no benefit. So why would Jagex have even bothered to consider this?

 

 

 

I doubt it would take much effort. Just something like "the defence only gives 80% of the protection it would give if the player was attacking the NPC back", but scripted, obviously. It wouldn't take them long, besides, it could've been something they thought up long ago just to make the game more realistic.

 

 

 

Note that I am not suggesting that this is a new update, but rather that it has been around for at least several years of time.

 

 

 

Why would they add this to make it realistic. No body really notices it, they just get hit and move on with their lives. I bet very few people think anything more of it than "darn I got hit again". And this is all assuming that this DOES exist and you didn't just get unlucky.

 

 

 

Regardless, this takes more effort than not doing it, and it provides very little benefits, esp. since no one notices it. So why?

[ilovesilvia]

I also think that while not attacking, you have a larger chance of getting hit while when your character is attacking there is a less chance of getting hit when fighting monsters only. Usually during a fight with another player, I don't notice anything different.

 

 

 

Off-topic: who is taht in your avatar?

[strilmus]

Well, if this is true, there are some benefits:

 

 

 

- If you attack first, you could gain a higher chance of landing the first hit.

 

 

 

- If you're safespotting an opponent, your hits would have a higher chance of landing since they can't reach you and retaliate.

 

 

 

- In a PvP situation, if somebody tries to eat/pot/run away during a fight, you'll have a higher chance of hitting them during this time, which is nice if you're trying to spec/freeze/bind/teleblock them.

 

 

 

Of course, there would also be the downside of you being subject to the same thing, but to be all the more careful before being forced into a bad situation is a good thing to learn.

[pamzheng]

Well, if this is true, there are some benefits:

 

 

 

- If you attack first, you could gain a higher chance of landing the first hit.

 

 

 

- If you're safespotting an opponent, your hits would have a higher chance of landing since they can't reach you and retaliate.

 

 

 

- In a PvP situation, if somebody tries to eat/pot/run away during a fight, you'll have a higher chance of hitting them during this time, which is nice if you're trying to spec/freeze/bind/teleblock them.

 

 

 

Of course, there would also be the downside of you being subject to the same thing, but to be all the more careful before being forced into a bad situation is a good thing to learn.

 

 

 

Yes, but about attacking first, that is only if the "attacking" variable is triggered after that you hit the other player. I believe that the variable is turned on immediatley before your player launches the attack on someone (assuming that player uses auto retaliation) so I wouldn't place my money on that dealing the first hit would be benefitical in this manner. Same if you're safespotting; as long as the other player have you "locked on target" (automatically attacking) - whether an obstacle is in the way or not - I believe that means that his/her "battle variable" is on, hence it wouldn't give you an advantage (according to what I think). However, attacking while the other player is fleeing or eating would be benefitical if this is true.

 

 

 

However, I should remind you of that I haven't experienced this in PvP, and even if it would be present there, it would probably be difficult to notice. But, think about it, players fleeing while being attacked seem to be more vulnerable to attacks, even in PvP, it could just be coincidental though.

[Zaaps1]

Well, if this is true, there are some benefits:

 

 

 

- If you attack first, you could gain a higher chance of landing the first hit.

 

 

 

- If you're safespotting an opponent, your hits would have a higher chance of landing since they can't reach you and retaliate.

 

 

 

- In a PvP situation, if somebody tries to eat/pot/run away during a fight, you'll have a higher chance of hitting them during this time, which is nice if you're trying to spec/freeze/bind/teleblock them.

 

 

 

Of course, there would also be the downside of you being subject to the same thing, but to be all the more careful before being forced into a bad situation is a good thing to learn.

 

 

 

Yes, but about attacking first, that is only if the "attacking" variable is triggered after that you hit the other player. I believe that the variable is turned on immediatley before your player launches the attack on someone (assuming that player uses auto retaliation) so I wouldn't place my money on that dealing the first hit would be benefitical in this manner. Same if you're safespotting; as long as the other player have you "locked on target" (automatically attacking) - whether an obstacle is in the way or not - I believe that means that his/her "battle variable" is on, hence it wouldn't give you an advantage (according to what I think). However, attacking while the other player is fleeing or eating would be benefitical if this is true.

 

 

 

However, I should remind you of that I haven't experienced this in PvP, and even if it would be present there, it would probably be difficult to notice. But, think about it, players fleeing while being attacked seem to be more vulnerable to attacks, even in PvP, it could just be coincidental though.

 

 

 

Still, your explanation seems too much of a stretch. Put yourself in the eyes of Jagex, why waste your time trying to program this when you got eons of work ahead of you?