Make parry affect initiative for two turns

[curiousdannii]

From i7/kerkerkruip#34 -- as this would be a strengthening of the standard ATTACK model, I think it is appropriate to implement this in ATTACK directly

What if the initiative bonus for parrying was increased? What if there was a way to track initiative for longer than a single turn? Perhaps we could have a second initiative stat which parrying would increase, so that after attacking, instead of your initiative being set to 0, it would be set to the second stat? Then rather than just getting a bonus for a turn which you probably would already get, you can get a bonus for your next turn too. We should also make clearer what is happening when you parry or attack, because probably the sameness is more felt than is real.

[VictorGijsbers]

This proposal is rather complicated and hard to indicate to the player. I've already been changing initiative-affecting items to items doing something else (for instance, the tormenting necklace and the boots of the war dance), because there was no felt difference for using them. Given that an effect on direct initiative is hard to convey to the player, how much more difficult will it be to give any feedback about a system with delayed initiative bonuses?

[curiousdannii]

Some thoughts:

1. Probably part of the reason why there was little felt difference is that the effect these things have had on initiative have been quite small. The necklace's -2 could be entirely cancelled by the random initiative increase. The boots' +5 is substantial, but very rare. Parrying's +1 is easily overwhelmed by other things, and is useless most of the time because it will normally be the player's turn after their opponent has a turn.
2. We could keep reducing these factors, but that's no fun. If the initiative system is minimised so greatly you might as well just switch between people, with a 10% chance of getting a second turn. I'd prefer we bring back initiative altering stuff so that there are proper tactical choices. Now maybe the system as it is doesn't have enough tactical potential so we'll need to change it... that's what my delayed initiative idea is for. Actually I've had an idea for a complete rewrite, let me know if you're interested and I'll explain it.
3. We can communicate through out of game stuff (or in here-are-the-numbers explanations), but we can also try harder to communicate it better in game. When I was designing the hound (and I can't remember why we decided not to implement it with the initiative system) I used words like "reaction", "planning" and "ready", and we can use those words more. We could also give the player an explanation for why they are receiving a second turn in a row, as the hound power does now (or it could go in a side window?)

[curiousdannii]

Actually I've had an idea for a complete rewrite, let me know if you're interested and I'll explain it.

I wish I had just explained it... I've forgotten! Maybe it will come back to me.