[SUGGESTION] Health and server options

[Septus]

from my experience most deaths are from one shot. I fully understand the realism of this for the most part, however armor seems a bit overpriced for the little it does. It would be nice to have server options for 1/2 damage and 1/4 damage, not nearly as realistic, but i think i recall a poll a long time ago in which at least hallf the people said they played on 1/4 damage.

I think the game would appeal to more people with these options, most people dont care that much about realism, honestly, we play games to get away from real life. If this is just an option for servers it is not forcing it on people, just increasing the appeal of the game. One of the biggest failings in non persistent multiplayer games is lack of settings, people love options, you make a small change and it can change the game in a big way resulting in much more playtime, and less boredom.

I would really like to hear what other people have to say, but I cant see a reason why you would not give people more options.

[Khalid ibn Walid]

Sounds good.  I don't see what the objection would be.   

[Darkness]

I agree. I think they should be server settings to allow server op to decide what he wants for his world.

[allthesedamnnamesaretaken]

I don't want to see this as it would basically make ranged weaponry useless. Ranged troops rely on doing damage before enemies can close in for melee. Once in melee range their primary weapons become useless.

[Darkness]

I don't want to see this as it would basically make ranged weaponry useless. Ranged troops rely on doing damage before enemies can close in for melee. Once in melee range their primary weapons become useless.

So your against letting server operators have more choices about how they want their server to run?

I don't really understand how this affects archers solely

[allthesedamnnamesaretaken]

Yes, I am against it. 1/2 and 1/4 damage is training mode in single player. Timing and range is everything for ranged troops. They are often at a disadvantage when enemies close in to melee. Nerfing damage basically means they'll have their chances halved and quartered at killing their enemies before they close in respectively. This is a huge nerf.

[Khalid ibn Walid]

Yes, I am against it. 1/2 and 1/4 damage is training mode in single player. Timing and range is everything for ranged troops. They are often at a disadvantage when enemies close in to melee. Nerfing damage basically means they'll have their chances halved and quartered at killing their enemies before they close in respectively. This is a huge nerf.

Get an axe. 

Or call it training mode in multiplayer.

It's just a proposition to allow the option, should anyone be interested.  I could imagine a few people being interested, e.g. those who like to duel longer and stuff.  I don't imagine it'd be the norm.  Or is that what you're fearing?

[Darkness]

Yes, I am against it. 1/2 and 1/4 damage is training mode in single player. Timing and range is everything for ranged troops. They are often at a disadvantage when enemies close in to melee. Nerfing damage basically means they'll have their chances halved and quartered at killing their enemies before they close in respectively. This is a huge nerf.

Hmm... true true. Didn't really think about it that way.

So, maybe health would be a poor idea. Although, if you are paying for the server, you should be able to make it however you want. If people don't like it, they dont have to stay. But then again, people don't pay the bills for the server, you do. So I still am for server op's getting a large list of changeable options.

[okiN]

In principle, I'm all for adding a server-side health percentage option for some more prolonged fights. The ranged damage is certainly an issue, though, and it would definitely seriously affect game balance. Maybe give ranged weapons a proportionate damage hike? The exact ratio might be a bit finnicky to get right so as to not make them overpowered with respect to mélee, but it could work.

[Ursca]

Yeah, I'd like to see armour to give some more protection, but ranged weapons should probably do correspondingly higher amount of damage.
Bows and crossbows can be pretty random in their damage though. Sometimes I can take a bunch of arrows with very little consequence, and sometimes they take me out in one.

I wish damage reports were enabled in warband. That would certainly make it easier to see just how the weapons are balanced.

[okiN]

Agreed, it's really hard to keep track of things sometimes. With ranged weapons it's often very hard to even tell when you've hit the guy. Realistic, maybe, but also annoying.

[inox_ionizer]

I enjoy prolonged fights very much, but I don't think it should be prolonged because of hit points, but rather dodging, parrying and blocking. Thus, two opponents of equal skill meeting each other head-on can fight for a long time, while you can still kill that archer you just sneaked up on before he realizes what's going on. It also adds much more fun to landing hits, since each of them feel more valuable.

If you want melee fights to take longer time than they currently do, I think friendly fire for melee weapons would be the way to go. People would have to be more careful, thus fewer attacks, while avoiding the feeling of being armed with blunt sticks.

[okiN]

I wouldn't mind the option of arming myself with a blunt stick every once in a while, really. Low-equipment duels with stuff like staves and practice swords would be fun.

[MountandBladeKinsman]

Hmm, this is a tough one, I think 3/4 damage should be the lowest, if you're going to add something like this. 3/4 damage allows archers to keep most of their deadliness and allow for slightly more prolonged fights. Or make archers N/A to damage reduction.

[Alhanalem]

I fully support all options that can be used in single player being available on servers (as options).

If someone wants to have a bit more an arcadey feel, let them. There's enough realists playing this that it won't take over.