A little suggestion concerning (free) shields.

[The Shadow]

/signed

 

[FrisianDude]

Having 2 shields as cav is useful since you will often be placed in situations where your back is getting shot (when you run away !). Having the shield there provides a slight increase of protection. Otherwise though its pretty worthless taking 2 shields, especially the free ones since they will be penetrated/destroyed so easily.

I dont really see this as an issue anymore since shield strength was reduced.

Can't you protect your back as well by strafing and turning while retreating? If you're running away properly your back should rapidly become a smaller target, shouldn't it?

 

[Seawied86]

Personally I've never found fighting against an opponent with multiple free shields to be a problem.

 

[Sidus Preclarum]

Personally I've never found fighting against an opponent with multiple free shields to be a problem.

Apart from him being able to block arrows both from behind and front, and of course, looking ridiculous?

 

[Seawied86]

Its still very easy to hit someone's back with an arrow, even if they have a shield on their back. I'd say the "forcefield" shield effect is a bigger issue

 

[CryptoCactus]

Seems like getting hit in the shield (on the back) makes only the slightest damage difference, to me.


2 shields looks considerably less ridiculous than clown-hammers and 10ft axes, though.


I wish we had rough outline of what the devs are planning. To me, tweaking the quantity of shields requires tweaking of the large shieldbusting weapons, and tweaking the forcefield requires tweaking the way ranged troops work.



I would be okay with:

fewer shieldbusters on the field (greatlongs etc) + one shield only

and

arrow nocking + reduced or eliminated forcefield


How to encourage fewer shieldbusters and only one shield, without arbitrary restrictions? I dunno. Cost maybe. Modified encumbrance system. Something.

 

[Vornne]

Why enforce only one shield? It's absolutely possible to carry one extra shield on your back like the character does; if you think it should be discouraged more, I say increase the encumbrance for shields.

What do you (or anyone) think of my suggestion to disable carrying invisible items like multiple shields or multiple big weapons at your back? This would mean two shields can be carried in only one situation: one on the back, and one in the hands - to switch to a two hander you would need to drop the shield in your hands (or it would be dropped automatically).

I also support increasing the time required to switch weapons, and forcing the sheath animation to be played before equipping another item.

 

[Auscifer]

So when the first shield breaks the infantryman is just S.O.L.? Similar restrictions could be proposed for 1 quiver limit, 1 melee weapon limit, 1 xbow limit, etc...  I vote in favor of variety.

I prefer a game where a player can make decisions that will increase survivability at the cost of an additional weapon or ammo. It is a trade-off. Besides, free shields can't even block xbows bolts and break in just a few hits.

 

[Sidus Preclarum]

2 shields looks considerably less ridiculous than clown-hammers and 10ft axes, though.

Oh, come on, you really like fighting the Teenage Mutant Turtles?

 

[AWdeV]

Fighting them'd be awesome if they had their proper moves and you could turn them into soup afterwards.