Odd how air is in only excluded element, but of course this is just up to your personal preference so is not an issue.

For the backpack blocking, it sounds like an automatic one block attack? I assume it hits something hard by sheer luck but breaks it to explain one block? Or the shadows bloc it but why limited to one block? It would make more sense just to leave it open ended where the shadows can block as many attacks as it reasonably could and no auto block.

I was thinking Cahrtikan makes the shadows into a solidified form when they aren't in use, and them being hit, it would take too much for him to hold it solid after a hit so they wouldnt block anything anymore.

Also i would make it infinite blockage, but i was thinking that might be unfair to others.

@Skallagrim @Rilla

What do you guys use as inspiration for your arena writing styles?

Quick question, have yall put in a way to permanently change your text color?

As told by a friend of mine, I'm fairly logical - or try to be - in my fights. Things that make sense, having a story and a motivation helps for that. Otherwise, I don't really know. I typically go with the flow, and add things from other fights I've been in to current fights, as a way to progress. A lot of what I've learned came from trial and error. I was a really raw talent before I met Skallagrim, actually, as I'd only fought on MYB back when it was MYB, so he taught me a lot. But yeah, logic, motivation, teachings from others, and personal style and whatnot.

Quick question, have yall put in a way to permanently change your text color?

No, you just have to do it manually every time.

Just be sure to be respectful with your colors. Some colors are outright eyeraping.

Lol do you mean pink?

No, hard to read colors in general. Like that.

Ah, yeah i thought i was blind when i tried blue.

@Skallagrim @Rilla
What do you guys use as inspiration for your arena writing styles?

That's a good question. I suppose I use the various martial arts I have studied, European sword techniques and fire arms training as a base. For everything else I try and envision it through a cinematic lens. Hope that helps.

Alright, I have two questions.
First, is there any list on what kind of power restrictions you guys generally use? I hear this "T1 attack" but don't quite get what should it be referring to, for example.
As you can guess I'm not that familiar with this section. Only participated once.

Second, is a more typical question. Is it me or it seem there aren't any open threads in this section?
I would like to participate in a match and depending on what rules you use I may create different characters for it.
But it seems tournaments are long closed and anything else are pre-planned fights between fix opponents.
I can't seem to find a more open style tournament here.

BTW, can you @mention me if you respond? Otherwise I may miss it out for a while.

@Willy Vereb

T1 Rules. This should explain a lot, but if you'll still have questions left, feel free to ask.

And these are our ranking headquarters. Free for anyone to join, this is the place where most challenges are issued and battles are agreed upon. You just need to post the characters you want to roleplay in the arena with in the respective tab and announce that you're open for fight in the OOC.

@Willy Vereb

T1 Rules. This should explain a lot, but if you'll still have questions left, feel free to ask.

And these are our ranking headquarters. Free for anyone to join, this is the place where most challenges are issued and battles are agreed upon. You just need to post the characters you want to roleplay in the arena with in the respective tab and announce that you're open for fight in the OOC.

Thank you very much!
So basically T1 is nothing but what you actually do during fights in forum RPs.
At least I hope nobody use this literally because the point would be have a fun and sensible battle than follow arbitrary rules.
Prepping is done in a way it actually does make sense. Not creating it for a skewed sense of balance.
To comment on the guns vs magic example, guns may need to be set-up because their recoil needs support. Doesn't mean you have to "prep" it every time when you fire.
Albeit you should if you are changing positions.
Similarly, defining the battle in "turns" is a nice way to simplify things but it doesn't always work.
Some actions take more time while others require less. You have to judge the "time window" your opponent gave you with that.
Or when somebody performs a "combo". It consists of multiple attacks but if you deal with the initial threat you don't need to deal with the rest.
On the other hand you can't just assume that then the player would continue doing the combo like a dumbass. So you usually only have the same time frame as usual.
That's my RP battle experience from other sites.

I also wonder how people in the Arena judge the description of collateral effects from more powerful attacks. No hits, enemy completely avoided the attack but then the player describes it as the explosion destroying half the ring, limiting the space they can fight in.
Alternatively the same thing happens but the player describes the effects of the enemy's attacks along with the way he dodged.
Either way it's an abuse.
Indestructible arenas can avoid such issues but they also make things look more artificial.
Some battles I participated in also involved an impartial GM who described the general effects and such instead of leaving it to the players.
But that's often too much of a hassle.
So I wonder what Arena-goers did in order to solve these.

Anyways, I'll check out that thread and perhaps create a profile there.

I also wonder how people in the Arena judge the description of collateral effects from more powerful attacks. No hits, enemy completely avoided the attack but then the player describes it as the explosion destroying half the ring, limiting the space they can fight in.
Alternatively the same thing happens but the player describes the effects of the enemy's attacks along with the way he dodged.
Either way it's an abuse.

I don't quite see the abuse here. If you have the power of the attack described well in the character sheet, then the effects are rather predictable and the extent of its ability to damage the arena is known to all participants of the fight, allowing them to fairly judge beforehand how advantageous it would be and regulate it.

Similarly, defining the battle in "turns" is a nice way to simplify things but it doesn't always work.
Some actions take more time while others require less. You have to judge the "time window" your opponent gave you with that.

Yes, timing is actively used throughout the arena. Most of us do tend to lean towards a realistic depiction of combat.

<Snipped quote by Willy Vereb>

I don't quite see the abuse here. If you have the power of the attack described well in the character sheet, then the effects are rather predictable and the extent of its ability to damage the arena is known to all participants of the fight, allowing them to fairly judge beforehand how advantageous it would be and regulate it.

The problem is that it's a kind of win-win situation for the attacker because it means even if he fails he'd get the second most desirable thing in return.
My example was maybe not the best to demonstrate how it's problematic. Say, somebody shoots a rocket at you which you avoid. Then the attacker describes as the rocket impacting with a large gate arch behind his target and the debris blocks the only way out of a certain place.
I tend to describe these as unlikely coincidences. Even if the attack fails it does something to the environment which helps the attacker.
Alternatively the defender describes the effect of the attack but with such details which make the situation more favorable to him.
Now, it isn't as much of an issue when it's obvious what'd happen. But this logic gets stretched further until it becomes an act where one of the players effectively take control of the universe and bend laws just to have things turn out in their favor.

On the other hand you are perfectly right. There's no problem with a rocket for example blowing up walls/buildings or making craters. The problem comes when these things are consciously manipulated in order to give advantages to a certain player. I'm just interested if the Arena has some experience with this and if yes what kind of reactions it produced.

Also just to make this clear, I have no problem with players nerfing down the collateral effects of their attacks for the sake of convenience. Having two physical gods exchange attacks which would blow up cities or worse while they fight in a small arena is a sure way to break the narrative. Sometimes you have to bend reality a bit to make the plot work. The point is to not twist it in a way which obviously benefit a certain player.

What you were talking about Willy is mostly covered by T1 which is in fact a guideline for a large number of fights here and does serve the purpose of balancing fights though I'd refute your claim that this balance is somehow 'skewed' and assume you have used the word incorrectly.

For example, combos are for the most part a bad idea, T1 is designed to cut up movements into individual attacks with cause and effect resolved before moving onto the next move. Most of the time your opponent won't be hit with your first move, which leaves you vulnerable if you haven't left your post open so your character can react to their failed move.

For example, if you post your character attempting a five punch combo that's what they're going to do, regardless of your opponent's reaction, if you include that your character will be ready to abandon their attack you may be ok in this situation, but it's more effective just to post your initial attack and then if your opponent is opened up in a way that makes further combo possible post the next attack in your next turn.

Interruptions are a pain in Arena, but they are the life blood of combat, that's where the most important rule comes in, logic. Only a certain amount of action is capable in a certain timescale and that is where the turn based aspect of T1 comes into play.

Preps work on the assumption that an opponent taking their time with their attack has more right in a combat between two opponents of roughly physical skill (IC, not OOC) to score a more critical hit. Guns in theory should work under this same theory, if you take a turn to aim your pistol you've essentially scoped in on a target and have more accuracy, your opponent is less likely to call bullshit on your insane accuracy and ninja-dodge your ass and instead take the hit as fair for not getting out of the way in the turn they had.

It's a fairly loose fitting guideline with a lot of personal interpretation, but there is no end-all system for combat and so far T1 makes the most sense to me.

Manipulating your arena within the bounds of realism with your descriptions of events is fair game within reason. Usually an attacker will describe some of the damage their attack may cause should it not be negated or deflected somehow, if it is the defender takes control of its effects.

If you are overly manipulative in this way your opponent will probably call bullshit, but I'm personally for Arena manipulation because I happen to use it to my advantage quite often. In ranked battles the judge will probably rule on any overly exploitative manipulation of the Arena though.