Adding stamina

[Dahobo24]

So i was thinking people keep on spamming weapons but what would happen if they put stamina so when you attack you lose a bit of stamina and regenerate it back when you are not attacking just something i thought of.

 

[Alec{zacool}]

This has been considered, but it's been put down many times. It just won't work in Mount&Blade.

 

[F1zzzy]

would be great idea to stop 2 handed spams =P

 

[Kevlar]

This has been considered, but it's been put down many times. It just won't work in Mount&Blade.

Never know unless we try. This is the only real possible solution to spam but once you get to block better you find ways of easily defeating it.

 

[Sir Agrivar]

So, how do you deal with spammers? Fess up because I'm having issues against it. With a sword and board there isnt enough time to counter, their second spam swing always gets their first.

 

[Sir Agrivar]

Maybe if blocked shots somehow slowed the second swing a little more.

 

[Berserker Pride]

Nah the problem is people spinning into their attacks.  If they weren't spinning you would have time to counter after you block them.  Stamina is a terrible idea.  I would hate to see somebody lose because he was too tired.  Either from not being able to attack or having a slow attack.

It is also an incredibly gamey addition.  People don't get winded from swinging ten times.  Most matches only last fifteen minutes.  Battles used to last all day.

 

[Kevlar]

If they weren't spinning you would have time to counter after you block them.  Stamina is a terrible idea.  I would hate to see somebody lose because he was too tired.  Either from not being able to attack or having a slow attack.

Easily fixed, just make it so you can block while out of stamina, problem solved.

All I do when fighting is block first, then make my move. If they can block enough swings then you just have to try something different.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

"Spamming" - in the sense attacking too rapidly to allow a counter - does not actually exist to my knowledge. If an attack by one character is blocked, the next attack by that character is delayed.  So there would need to be a large discrepancy in weapon speeds before spamming became possible. I don't know of any weapon combinations that create such a discrepancy. If any exist, that's potentially a serious problem for balance, and I'd expect to see it fiercely exploited by at least some players. If you have an example where it is literally impossible to counter (because the weapon is too slow to get an attack in after a block), please give it.

If you seem unable to counter after blocking, it's more likely because you're too afraid than too slow.

 

[Wolfrug]

When facing a shield + morningstar combination, I'd say any weapon with a speed > 90 is more than capable of spamming that sucker to death, simply because the swing is soo daaamned slooow (hand and a half weapon with shield = -25% speed, + the thing is slow to start with). But I think that's a fine compromise, since the morningstar can overhead block-crush. But yes, there are definitely weapon combinations in which it's practically impossible to attack between blocks.

Anyway, maybe make the attack-stun following a succesful parry so long as to make it impossible, no matter the weapon combos, to spam-attack directly after (note, attack-stun, not block-stun).

 

[kingofnoobia]

Since everyone says that sword+board is too slow, I suggest simply removing the attack delay after a block based on shield speed. Add this to the time it requires to perform a block in stead. This way, counterattacking is just as fast as without a shield, while it makes shield users slightly more vulnerable if they make timing mistakes.

 

[Karel]

Oh, nice suggestion!

Can i make a suggestion, too?
Thanks

 

[Archaeus]

"Spamming" - in the sense attacking too rapidly to allow a counter - does not actually exist to my knowledge. If an attack by one character is blocked, the next attack by that character is delayed.  So there would need to be a large discrepancy in weapon speeds before spamming became possible. I don't know of any weapon combinations that create such a discrepancy. If any exist, that's potentially a serious problem for balance, and I'd expect to see it fiercely exploited by at least some players. If you have an example where it is literally impossible to counter (because the weapon is too slow to get an attack in after a block), please give it.

If you seem unable to counter after blocking, it's more likely because you're too afraid than too slow.

This is exactly how I feel, when countless people go on about spamming. It's never been a problem for me, a simple block suffices...

 

[Qwertyman]

One thing that leads to this myth of 2handers being able to out-spam 1handers is that 2handers deal mild block-stun on fully chambered attacks,  and the first hit is usualy fully chambered-  the one hander tries to hit back, but has had the delay of stun and gets hit.

basicaly,  if you get hit by a fully chambered hit, dont hit back right away,  let him use his second weaker attack then whack him in the face.

 

[Berserker Pride]

This whole stamina idea seems like a crutch to me put forward by weaker players.  If a man has the skill to kill eight or you either kudos to him or you have a weapon balance problem(like lolspinning with a fricken long weapon.)  It does not mean arbitrary slowdown(or autolosing) is a good idea.

 

[DanAngleland]

Stamina was suggested long before the original M&B got to release, although obviously in this thread the idea is to control relentless attacking. A slight slow down after many repeated swings in succession would be realistic I think, but stamina would play more of a part after a few minutes of very vigorous activity. I don't think it is viable anyway because it would probably be very CPU performance draining.

 

[Karel]

Stamina was suggested long before the original M&B got to release, although obviously in this thread the idea is to control relentless attacking. A slight slow down after many repeated swings in succession would be realistic I think, but stamina would play more of a part after a few minutes of very vigorous activity. I don't think it is viable anyway because it would probably be very CPU performance draining.

LOL!

Stupidest thing I've ever heard.
Unless you have a 11 mhz processor, that's wrong. And you can't play MNB with a 11 mhz processor. You cant run windows 95 with a 11 mhz processor

Soooo.....
You know, every character in a battle have his own health. Every character, during the battle can see his health decrearse, ect and I am sure that i don't take even 0.00001% Of your cpu.

If that were a problem, you just couldn't play age of empire 1 

 

[Mabons]

No need to be an ass Karel.

And to the OP: I'm sure a mod will implement this somehow.

 

[Sir Agrivar]

One thing that leads to this myth of 2handers being able to out-spam 1handers is that 2handers deal mild block-stun on fully chambered attacks,  and the first hit is usualy fully chambered-  the one hander tries to hit back, but has had the delay of stun and gets hit.

basicaly,  if you get hit by a fully chambered hit, dont hit back right away,  let him use his second weaker attack then whack him in the face.

Thanks for the tip, that may be what it was that I was dealing with. I'll try to just go for it right after I hear the whack and its not a fully chambered shot. Also I find pressing them and circling works sometimes too.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

One thing that leads to this myth of 2handers being able to out-spam 1handers is that 2handers deal mild block-stun on fully chambered attacks,  and the first hit is usualy fully chambered-  the one hander tries to hit back, but has had the delay of stun and gets hit.

Stun from chambered attacks should go in my view. Makes no sense and achieves nothing. I don't know of anyone who actually uses it deliberately, and I can't remember ever having been killed by it.