Author Topic: A Debate to End All Debate - Two Handed Swords Too Fast  (Read 15661 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

RaVeN

  • Sergeant Knight
  • *
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Vaegir
  • MP nick: POM_Ravenstein
A Debate to End All Debate - Two Handed Swords Too Fast
« on: April 09, 2010, 04:30:02 AM »
The Debate To End All Debates About 2H Weapons Being Too Fast

I am a player who uses two handed weapons most of the time, especially two handed swords, such as the Great Sword. I almost always spam attack with my two handed weapon and feint spam like crazy. Being a player who plays like this, I am very well aware that to many players, it is very annoying to be killed that way. So annoying that many players are complaining that the two handed swords being way too fast and too unrealistic. Many players have said that two handed swords cannot be faster than the speed of 70 and some have even said that two handed weapons should only be half of their speed!

I am getting the expression that many players believes that two handed weapons in the Middle Ages were something like this...

(click to show/hide)

...and were held by clumsy giants like these...

(click to show/hide)

People who are complaining are saying that two handed weapons' speed should be lowered and tried to back it up with the following arguments. I am here to provide counter arguments against their arguments in an attempt to refute them.



The Arguments

Here are some arguments presented by people are who complaining about this. Please note that these three arguments are very, if not the most common arguments presented by these people.



Argument ONE: Two handed swords should be much slower than one handed weapons due to its big size and weight.

True but the question is, "how much does the weapon weigh and how big is it?" When I asked some people about this, they answered that a two handed sword weigh around 80 to 100 pounds and a sword that weighs 20 pounds is a Lord of the Rings sword replica. When people say this, they have punched a hole in their own argument. How can you possibly hope to swing a heavy bastard sword that weighs 80 pounds faster with one hand than with two?

Many people say that two handed weapons, such as Zweihanders and two handed swords, great axes weigh over 40 pounds that needed strong soldiers to wield. I suggest people take the time to hold a real weapon before believing what movies and video games stereotype and propagate about clumsy giants and their a million pound maces/axes/swords/whatever. If you have held weapons like these before, please keep in mind that just because you cannot swing fast does not mean the warriors hundreds of years ago who spent years training with couldn't. Also, if you have left weights before, you would know that doing a bicep curl with a 40 pound barbell isn't easy, so don't dream about wielding a sword that weighs 80 to 100 pounds.

Bastard swords generally had a weight 1.5 to 1.8 kg/3.3 to 4 pounds.
Even claymores, being stereotyped by many to be huge and hefty blades, had an average weight of 2.5kg/5.5 pounds.
The Dane Axe, no doubt used by Nords in Warband in the name of two handed axes, had an average weight of 1 to 2 kg/2 to 4 pounds.
Bardiches have heavy blades and its the weight of its heavy blade used to be advantage by its users. However, the weight of a bardiche does not exceed 8 pounds.

There is no argument here that two handed weapons should be slower because they are heavy, because they aren't heavy and hefty! With that said, that is no reason for two handed weapon speeds to be lowered.

Argument ONE: Refuted



Argument TWO: Feinting is unrealistic because there is no way you can fake a swing and out of a sudden bring the swing from one side to the other and register it as a hit on your enemy.

Have you guys ever bothered to look at what happens to the sword when a player feints with it? If you did, you would see clearly that the sword passes through the model of its enemies from the right swing animation to the left swing animation. Sure it can be unrealistic, however, it is the problem of the mechanics that a hard model such as the body of a player is unable to stop a sword from passing through it when someone is feinting, it is not the problem of the two handed weapon being too fast.

Also, try swinging a sword to your left and then again to your right. It isn't hard and it doesn't take forever to do. In fact, it is quite fast.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIsec-MTGwU : Look at starting from 1:10. Ultimate proof that a two handed weapon CAN be swung fast, swung faster than that in game.

Also...

Also, here is a better video showing the speed that a medieval European longsword can be wielded with:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwYi_uOwGtY (note, the sword is blunt, but is otherwise weighted and balanced just like a medieval longsword)

Possible Argument on my counter argument against the second argument - It is easy to swing fast against non living objects.

Yes it sure is. But please note that the fact that a two handed weapon CAN be swung that fast refutes this entire argument all together.


Argument TWO: Refuted



Argument THREE: Two handed weapons unbalance the game as a good manual blocker can run the game.

That is based on the skills of the two players fighting. I can also argue that one handed weapons unbalance the game because a good feint spammer with a shield can run the game.

Argument THREE: Refuted



These are the only arguments I've came across so far and these are the only arguments argued by complainers again and again.

If you are one of these complainers, please feel free to send in another argument. I am sure a lot of people would be happy to refute them as well.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2010, 04:31:23 AM by RaVeN »
Raped by the hand of the pope. Awsome.

Wiley

  • Recruit
  • *
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Neutral
Re: A Debate to End All Debate - Two Handed Swords Too Fast
« Reply #1 on: April 09, 2010, 04:40:02 AM »
check and mate - nice post

jerrbear

  • Recruit
  • *
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Swadian
Re: A Debate to End All Debate - Two Handed Swords Too Fast
« Reply #2 on: April 09, 2010, 05:23:45 AM »
just a comment on your weapon weight argument. Yes people think two handed weapons being so big that they must weigh a ton. in which case you are right, they dont. but you forget that holding a two handed sword that is almost 4 foot long at one end multiplies its feel of weight, try taking a metal pole that is about 4ft long and weighs around 5.5lbs (average size and weight of a claymore) and holding it at one end straight out from you, trust me it will seem alot heavier than it is. Now im no expert on this, but i think it has something to do with your hand placement being farther away from the center of gravity of the blade.

todayskiller

  • Veteran
  • *
  • no u
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Rhodok
  • MP nick: TodaysKiller
Re: A Debate to End All Debate - Two Handed Swords Too Fast
« Reply #3 on: April 09, 2010, 05:40:59 AM »
agree, they swing like daggers lol.

graycloak

  • Sergeant
  • *
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Swadian
Re: A Debate to End All Debate - Two Handed Swords Too Fast
« Reply #4 on: April 09, 2010, 06:09:49 AM »
Actually, I think the problems with 2-handed weapons in general have more to do with "game mechanics" problems such as the ease of swapping around weapons in combat and real reach vs apparent reach / attack animations etc than any real world arguments.

Any historical large weapon also would generally have a weighted pommel to offset the length, making it rather easier to wield than say a comparable weight sledgehammer or wood axe. 2h swords can be swung very quickly...but should have a great many more problems very close in than they do presently vs shields. (in no small part because shield-bashes are basically left out completely)
« Last Edit: April 09, 2010, 06:12:36 AM by graycloak »

ares007

  • Master Knight
  • *
  • HoboKnight: Martial, Scholar of Swords
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Swadian
  • MP nick: Ares007_HoboKnight
  • M&BWB
Re: A Debate to End All Debate - Two Handed Swords Too Fast
« Reply #5 on: April 09, 2010, 06:27:52 AM »
Also, here is a better video showing the speed that a medieval European longsword can be wielded with:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwYi_uOwGtY (note, the sword is blunt, but is otherwise weighted and balanced just like a medieval longsword)

just a comment on your weapon weight argument. Yes people think two handed weapons being so big that they must weigh a ton. in which case you are right, they dont. but you forget that holding a two handed sword that is almost 4 foot long at one end multiplies its feel of weight, try taking a metal pole that is about 4ft long and weighs around 5.5lbs (average size and weight of a claymore) and holding it at one end straight out from you, trust me it will seem alot heavier than it is. Now im no expert on this, but i think it has something to do with your hand placement being farther away from the center of gravity of the blade.
Um, a properly constructed sword in the medieval ages was balanced toward the hilt. If you'll notice, the hilt and pommel are the most hefty portion of the weapon while the tip of the blade is the least hefty. Perhaps you've never held a properly balanced 2-handed sword. I, however, have had the pleasure of wielding one, and trust me, they are quite nimble and nice. Swords are not just sharp metal polls; there is more to the art of sword smithing than putting an edge on a metal stick.

Actually, I think the problems with 2-handed weapons in general have more to do with "game mechanics" problems such as the ease of swapping around weapons in combat and real reach vs apparent reach / attack animations etc than any real world arguments.
This. I have been saying this. The "problems" that people are having with certain weapons are just symptoms of more fundamental gameplay mechanics.

Seawied86

  • Sergeant Knight
  • *
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Swadian
  • MP nick: Seawied
Re: A Debate to End All Debate - Two Handed Swords Too Fast
« Reply #6 on: April 09, 2010, 06:31:26 AM »
I was wondering when ares would step in and knock the "40 pound sword" argument on its ass  :D
Avatar taken from Steve Turner's "Beaver and Steve"
YOU'RE NOT A GOD DAMN LION.

Kotyonok

  • Veteran
  • *
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Neutral
  • MP nick: Koshka
Re: A Debate to End All Debate - Two Handed Swords Too Fast
« Reply #7 on: April 09, 2010, 06:38:00 AM »
This really, as has been said, comes down to a gameplay mechanics problem. Claymores and the like should lose advantage when you get on the inside with a shield. At current, the shield user just doesn't have any real advantages on their side compared to a two hand user when it comes to one on one combat.

In fact, lately I've been outright putting my shield away and manual blocking with a single handed as it's the only way I can get an edge.

myrmidon

  • Recruit
  • *
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Neutral
Re: A Debate to End All Debate - Two Handed Swords Too Fast
« Reply #8 on: April 09, 2010, 06:39:12 AM »
lol you should go to one of the recreational medieval fight tournaments and watch double handed sword users get torn a new one by the shield/small one handed hammer users.

quite funny to watch such a pissy little hammer wreaking havoc

Kotyonok

  • Veteran
  • *
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Neutral
  • MP nick: Koshka
Re: A Debate to End All Debate - Two Handed Swords Too Fast
« Reply #9 on: April 09, 2010, 06:40:45 AM »
lol you should go to one of the recreational medieval fight tournaments and watch double handed sword users get torn a new one by the shield/small one handed hammer users.

quite funny to watch such a pissy little hammer wreaking havoc

You get -amazing- speed with singlehanded and the parry from a buckler to shift momentum of a claymore is utterly satisfying when your opponent is on the ground...

I love sparing *cough*   :roll:

myrmidon

  • Recruit
  • *
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Neutral
Re: A Debate to End All Debate - Two Handed Swords Too Fast
« Reply #10 on: April 09, 2010, 07:02:13 AM »
yup, the speed from shield block to counter is absent from this game, but hey its still an awesome game! aww yeah


Kotyonok

  • Veteran
  • *
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Neutral
  • MP nick: Koshka
Re: A Debate to End All Debate - Two Handed Swords Too Fast
« Reply #11 on: April 09, 2010, 07:26:38 AM »
yup, the speed from shield block to counter is absent from this game, but hey its still an awesome game! aww yeah

Very awesome game. I just hope that the devs are looking at this seriously. The kick was a step in the right direction. If they implemented a shield bash it should only be for the smaller shields.

ares007

  • Master Knight
  • *
  • HoboKnight: Martial, Scholar of Swords
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Swadian
  • MP nick: Ares007_HoboKnight
  • M&BWB
Re: A Debate to End All Debate - Two Handed Swords Too Fast
« Reply #12 on: April 09, 2010, 07:41:44 AM »
I was wondering when ares would step in and knock the "40 pound sword" argument on its ass  :D
Happy to oblige  :wink: (though the OP did cover the topic accurately enough. I just decided to add my support :P )

This really, as has been said, comes down to a gameplay mechanics problem. Claymores and the like should lose advantage when you get on the inside with a shield. At current, the shield user just doesn't have any real advantages on their side compared to a two hand user when it comes to one on one combat.

In fact, lately I've been outright putting my shield away and manual blocking with a single handed as it's the only way I can get an edge.
Well, one very nice thing about a shield or buckler in real life is that you can defend all attacks from a certain angle while making your own attack.

Honestly, the real problem with shield fighting in MnB is that it is very static. It needs more dynamic mechanics. I have been pushing for more dynamic shield mechanics all throughout the beta.

I personally think shields should be given more vulnerability in terms of being able to hit around them with melee weapons; however, they should also get some offensive bonuses in exchange (like attacking while defending a certain direction and possibly a shield bash that functions slightly different than kick). However, it's a little late for that. (of course, the new mechanics like chamber blocking and kicking really help to give shield users some tools)

yup, the speed from shield block to counter is absent from this game, but hey its still an awesome game! aww yeah

Very awesome game. I just hope that the devs are looking at this seriously. The kick was a step in the right direction. If they implemented a shield bash it should only be for the smaller shields.
And shield bashing should have a slightly different effect and/or application than kicking. Otherwise it's just a cosmetic change.


Actually, let me tell a little bit about the history of shields in Warband beta:
there was a time before all the new mechanics when shields dominated the battlefield. It was not only to protect from missiles. During this time, a stronger shield typically guaranteed victory in melee combat. The reason? Poor old me with a bastard sword would come up and hit the shield, then the shield player would counter attack. I would have to manual block in response. After manual blocking, I would counter hit. He would right click (with no skill mind you) and then counter attack. Now unless you are a robot, you're not going to manual block everything. So the shield user would win because you would get into this endless attack-block-attack-block-attack-block times infinite cycle with you struggling to manual block and him simply right clicking (and yawning). All things being equal, the guy with three high-tier shields won hands down. This dumbed melee combat down to an unreasonable level, even to the point that a number of beta testers stopped playing the game.

There was another point when one-handed swords had that greatly feared thing called "insta-stab". It was the fastest attack the game has probably ever seen, and you could do it over and over and over and over without your opponent having enough time in-between attacks to defend him/herself much less change the initiative. So the shield allowed you to just block whatever attack and then stabbity-stab-mcstab your way to victory.

Lesson learned? Unless the shield mechanics are changed to be more dynamic, multiplayer dominated by shields is very boring and stale. Having the sword and board combo anything more than on-par with 2-handed weapons makes for a dumbed-down extremely boring game with the current mechanics.

lol you should go to one of the recreational medieval fight tournaments and watch double handed sword users get torn a new one by the shield/small one handed hammer users.

quite funny to watch such a pissy little hammer wreaking havoc
um... medieval fight tournaments? What rules are used? Rules can change things a lot. The longsword has a good chance against sword (or other one-handed weapons) and shield/buckler by virtue of its superior range and the ability to attack from so many angles in such quick succession. Also, while a sword and shield typically has an advantage in close-quarters, they also suffer some severe weaknesses in these ranges (related to angles).

loco21666

  • Regular
  • *
  • Losers make excuses, winners make it happen.
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Nord
  • M&BWB
Re: A Debate to End All Debate - Two Handed Swords Too Fast
« Reply #13 on: April 09, 2010, 07:47:34 AM »
I figure this post is about multiplayer, which doesn't really concern me since I'm more the single-player type for this game. However, after reading the OP's counter arguements I feel like there really isn't much left to say except:
...the Rhodok Sharpshooter, blasting atomic crossbow bolts down at us from the ramparts.

othr

  • Master Knight
  • *
  • int main (int argc, char **argv){return -1;}
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Neutral
  • MP nick: othr?
  • WB
Re: A Debate to End All Debate - Two Handed Swords Too Fast
« Reply #14 on: April 09, 2010, 07:47:47 AM »
WTF not a single cut on that tree trunk in that video!!! And that's exactly what you should get for spamming in M&B, lots of noise, little effect!

Here is a video of a REAL fight: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jj1hBxyw2pw

and on a more serious note, this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFAKTjOQJwQ&NR=1 between 1:12 and 1:15, look how the guy loses balance after a powerful swing.  Loss of balance = dead, where is this loss of balance?!
« Last Edit: April 09, 2010, 07:56:16 AM by othr »
inactive