• Logout
  • Beqanna

    COTY

    Assailant -- Year 226

    QOTY

    "But the dream, the echo, slips from him as quickly as he had found it and as consciousness comes to him (a slap and not the gentle waves of oceanic tides), it dissolves entirely. His muscles relax as the cold claims him again, as the numbness sets in, and when his grey eyes open, there’s nothing but the faint after burn of a dream often trod and never remembered." --Brigade, written by Laura


    Thread Rating:
    • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    [challenge] I Was Lightning Before the Thunder [Ivar]
    #9
    WINNER: Ivar

    <b>Challenger (Klaudius)</b>

    <b>Attacks (-3/+3): +1 </b> <i>(average of the below)</i>

    <i>Attack 1 (+1)</i>
    +, - or / Was the attack understandable? (did the player use directional cues like right and left, was the horse in the right position to make that attack, etc.)
    +, - or / Was the attack effective? (if the horse is aiming to cripple a horse, they wouldn't bite. if a horse is trying to distract or bruise, they would bite, etc.)
    +, - or / Did the player describe the intended attack well? (specific area that they are aiming for, why they are aiming for that area, etc. this doesn't require specific anatomy, but rather, they are aiming for the shoulder to hinder movement, biting to distract or bruise a neck, etc.)
    Understandability good +
    Not effective – Klaudius has a “1” on accuracy to start with and then inhibits aim with the face mask? Plus even metal spikes versus basically impenetrable dragon scales – not going to do much good. Also talking about knocking Ivar off balance with just his head - unlikely –
    Description was fine +

    <i>Attack 2 (-1) </i>
    Understandability is very poor on this attack. -
    Effectiveness is still bad for the same reasons as above. –
    Description of attack was fine. +

    <i>Attack 3 (+3) </i>
    Understandability of the attack is fine +
    Effectiveness is better; more force behind a kick than behind his head and he has strength to back it up. Plus even dragons are sometimes vulnerable on the chest and underbelly; might actually do damage here +
    Description was ok +

    <b>Defenses (-3/+3): +0.67 </b> <i>(average of the below)</i>

    <i>Defense 1 (-1) </i>
    +, - or / Was the defense understandable? (did the player use directional cues like right and left, was the horse in the right position to make that defense, etc.)
    +, - or / Was the defense reasonable? (did the horse take the appropriate amount of damage given the attack)
    +, - or / Did the damage taken in the defense affect the horse’s decisions/movements adequately?
    Understandability was good +
    The defense was not really reasonable; pulling the wing out will increase tearing and damage, should be way more serious. –
    Did not treat this seriously for the rest of the battle at all. –

    <i>Defense 2 (+1) </i>
    Understandability was good +
    Defense not reasonable or unreasonable; why is he gasping for breath? There are no breathing muscles for horses in the chest. Is it from the pain? Wouldn’t be breathless. /
    Doesn’t acknowledge the injury going forward, but it also wasn’t that serious. /

    <i>Defense 3 (=1) </i>
    Understandability was good +
    Defense not totally logical. Why would he open an injured wing to help him stop? Could he even open it all the way? /
    Damage was taken well here, but talking about flying on the injured wing again! Unlikely. /

    <b>Realism (-2/+2): 0.33 </b>  <i>(average of the below, max of 2 as not all elements need to be present in all posts, should include at least 2 elements per post, however) </i>

    <i>Post 1 (0) </i>
    +, - or / Were stats taken into account? (if a horse has a Speed stat of 10 versus a Speed stat of 5, you won't be able to outrun them)
    +, - or / Was the landscape used? (if it's raining, the footing will be muddy and effective movement. if it's winter, the ground might be ice covered, etc. these things can be used in attacks/defenses)
    +, - or / Were traits used reasonably and within their limits?
    +, - or / Was there anything in particular that stood out in terms of realism, good or bad?
    Stats used poorly; Klaudius already has poor accuracy and then uses a mask that further challenges it -
    Landscape mentioned +
    Before battling again, we need to clarify if "Earth Armor" can be made of metal; database says it is made of malleable earth and it's not the same thing. I've already asked the officers and will let you know what they say :) /

    <i>Post 2 (-1) </i>
    Tries to take advantage of his better speed but still tries to use accuracy he just doesn’t have /
    Total lack of wing issues stands out as unrealistic :(, as does gasping for breath -

    <i>Post 3 (+2) </i>
    Much better use of his own strengths – specifically his strength to kick out +
    Good, horse-like response and attack +

    <b>Creativity (-3/+3): 2.33 </b> <i> (average of the below, max of 3 as not all elements need to be present in all posts, should include at least 3 elements each post, however) </i>

    <i>Post 1 (+3) </i>
    +, - or / Did the horse give a sense of their emotions/reasons/feelings throughout the battle?
    +, - or / Was the horse’s personality clear throughout the fight?
    +, - or / Were the attacks/defenses creative and interesting?
    +, - or / Was there anything in particular that stood out in terms of creativity, good or bad?
    Good emotions/feeling +
    Good personality +
    Good first attack and defense in creativity even if not in realism +

    <i>Post 2 (+1) </i>
    Good emotions/feeling +
    Good personality +
    Uses same attack as first post -

    <i>Post 3 (+3) </i>
    Personality/Emotions/Feelings ++
    Much better with being creative in attacks and defense +

    <b>Grammar (-3/+3): +2 </b> <i>(total from below 3 elements) </i>

    <i>Grammar (-1/+1): +1</i>
    - Were there grammar issues or typos? If yes, -1. If no, +1
    Readability: (-1/+1): /
    - Were the posts easy to understand? If yes, +1. If no, -1
    Some attacks/defenses hard to follow
    Powerplaying: (-1/+1): +1
    - Was there powerplaying? If yes, -1. If no, +1

    <b>Rubric Total (<i>sum of above sections</i>): 6.33
    Battle Stats Score: 0.54
    Battle Total: 0.50</b>

    <b>Challengee (Ivar)</b>

    <b>Attacks (-3/+3): +3 </b> <i>(average of the below)</i>

    <i>Attack 1 (+3)</i>
    +, - or / Was the attack understandable? (did the player use directional cues like right and left, was the horse in the right position to make that attack, etc.)
    +, - or / Was the attack effective? (if the horse is aiming to cripple a horse, they wouldn't bite. if a horse is trying to distract or bruise, they would bite, etc.)
    +, - or / Did the player describe the intended attack well? (specific area that they are aiming for, why they are aiming for that area, etc. this doesn't require specific anatomy, but rather, they are aiming for the shoulder to hinder movement, biting to distract or bruise a neck, etc.)
    Understandability good +
    Attack Effectiveness good +
    Description of attack good +

    <i>Attack 2 (+3) </i>
    Understandability good +
    Effectiveness of aiming for no armor good +
    Description good +

    <i>Attack 3 (+3) </i>
    Understandability good +
    Effectiveness of teeth versus skin good +
    Description good +

    <b>Defenses (-3/+3): +2 </b> <i>(average of the below)</i>

    <i>Defense 1 (+3) </i>
    +, - or / Was the defense understandable? (did the player use directional cues like right and left, was the horse in the right position to make that defense, etc.)
    +, - or / Was the defense reasonable? (did the horse take the appropriate amount of damage given the attack)
    +, - or / Did the damage taken in the defense affect the horse’s decisions/movements adequately?
    Understandability good +
    Defense was very reasonable given his stats +
    Pivots away from injury, good +

    <i>Defense 2 (+1) </i>
    Understandability ok, not great but not terrible took a second read /
    Uses stats well, could have taken a little more damage but reasonable /
    Good on damage affecting decisions +

    <i>Defense 3 (+2) </i>
    Understandability good +
    Good thought but he is taller than Klaudius to start to not sure if he could really duck under all the way; still stats support his success so ok /
    Damage taken +

    <b>Realism (-2/+2): 1.25 </b>  <i>(average of the below, max of 2 as not all elements need to be present in all posts, should include at least 2 elements per post, however) </i>

    <i>Post 1 (+2) </i>
    +, - or / Were stats taken into account? (if a horse has a Speed stat of 10 versus a Speed stat of 5, you won't be able to outrun them)
    +, - or / Was the landscape used? (if it's raining, the footing will be muddy and effective movement. if it's winter, the ground might be ice covered, etc. these things can be used in attacks/defenses)
    +, - or / Were traits used reasonably and within their limits?
    +, - or / Was there anything in particular that stood out in terms of realism, good or bad?
    Talks about the landscape +
    Traits used well +

    <i>Post 2 (+2) </i>
    Good use of stats +
    Good, realistic horse attack +

    <i>Post 3 (+2) </i>
    Better understanding of horse vision and movement +
    Uses traits and stats +

    <i>Post 4 [Closing Defense, if applicable] (-1) </i>
    Defense seems unrealistic -
    Nothing else stands out /

    <b>Creativity (-3/+3): 2.75 </b> <i> (average of the below, max of 3 as not all elements need to be present in all posts, should include at least 3 elements each post, however) </i>

    <i>Post 1 (+3) </i>
    +, - or / Did the horse give a sense of their emotions/reasons/feelings throughout the battle?
    +, - or / Was the horse’s personality clear throughout the fight?
    +, - or / Were the attacks/defenses creative and interesting?
    +, - or / Was there anything in particular that stood out in terms of creativity, good or bad?
    Personality/Feelings/Emotions ++
    Creative use of traits +

    <i>Post 2 (+2) </i>
    Personality/Feelings/Emotions ++
    Not particularly creative attack/defense /

    <i>Post 3 (+3) </i>
    Personality/Feelings/Emotions ++
    Super creative defense +

    <i>Post 4 [Closing Defense, if applicable] (+3) </i>
    Personality/Feelings/Emotions ++
    Creative defense +

    <b>Grammar (-3/+3): +3 </b> <i>(total from below 3 elements) </i>

    <i>Grammar (-1/+1): </i> +
    - Were there grammar issues or typos? If yes, -1. If no, +1
    Readability: (-1/+1): +
    - Were the posts easy to understand? If yes, +1. If no, -1
    Powerplaying: (-1/+1): +
    - Was there powerplaying? If yes, -1. If no, +1

    <b>Rubric Total (<i>sum of above sections</i>): 12
    Battle Stat Score: 0.76
    Battle Total: 0.87</b>


    Messages In This Thread
    RE: I Was Lightning Before the Thunder [Ivar] - by devin - 01-28-2018, 09:15 PM



    Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)