Alternative to a double damage
- Thread starter JetJedi
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Volkier
Sergeant Knight
I personally am against hit-box separation, however I am just as against players or NPC's taking damage from the horses's fall. I already stated why in a few previous post regarding this, and posted what I think in the above mentioned topic.
Lastly, I already mentioned it there, but to put this never-ending argument behind us, I think the best idea at the moment would be to impliment a toggle option, or a 'carried damage' bar, signifying how much damage is carried from horse to rider, and vise versa.
This would be a bar raging from off, 0% to 100%. Set at 'off' means hitboxes are completely separate, 0% means the damage carried forward would be 0, (which still interrupts attack) 100% would mean that the rider / horse absorbs just as much damage. It would put an end to this entire argument which I am beginning to hate, since its ruining the game practically from everybody.
Lastly, I already mentioned it there, but to put this never-ending argument behind us, I think the best idea at the moment would be to impliment a toggle option, or a 'carried damage' bar, signifying how much damage is carried from horse to rider, and vise versa.
This would be a bar raging from off, 0% to 100%. Set at 'off' means hitboxes are completely separate, 0% means the damage carried forward would be 0, (which still interrupts attack) 100% would mean that the rider / horse absorbs just as much damage. It would put an end to this entire argument which I am beginning to hate, since its ruining the game practically from everybody.
Volkier
Sergeant Knight
Lol, realism is why Im against falling damage from horse. I have already argued in yet another thread where this was suggested and stated the reasons why I think that whereas it is possible, it happens very rarely.
Obviously I don't mind having fall-damage if it is realistically rare, with the chance decreasing even further by the level of your enemies, and by your own stat. Otherwise I would find it insulting to the players, enemies and horses in game :
Obviously I don't mind having fall-damage if it is realistically rare, with the chance decreasing even further by the level of your enemies, and by your own stat. Otherwise I would find it insulting to the players, enemies and horses in game :
JetJedi,
You're missing the main point of the double hit. It is to interrupt the rider's attack (essential to a foomen), not to hurt him for the heck of it. Injury in falls don't solve anything.
You're missing the main point of the double hit. It is to interrupt the rider's attack (essential to a foomen), not to hurt him for the heck of it. Injury in falls don't solve anything.
not much falling damage. 40% O O hell no!
if in full armor, or at least some decent chainmail, one would only get some bruises. more importantly, youd be shocked for a short moment because of the abrupt changes in the course of the action that it might take you a while to make out where up and down is again and that you are actually lying on the ground on a battlefield.
essentially, this means a fall could very well leave the former rider stunned/baffled for some time, which right now is not ingame. look at dudes with shields! (they block while still lying on the ground ^^).
that would make it easy to land at least one more hit on the fallen.
couldnt armagan just slow down the "standing up" animation of soldiers on ground (that were on horseback before)?
if in full armor, or at least some decent chainmail, one would only get some bruises. more importantly, youd be shocked for a short moment because of the abrupt changes in the course of the action that it might take you a while to make out where up and down is again and that you are actually lying on the ground on a battlefield.
essentially, this means a fall could very well leave the former rider stunned/baffled for some time, which right now is not ingame. look at dudes with shields! (they block while still lying on the ground ^^).
that would make it easy to land at least one more hit on the fallen.
couldnt armagan just slow down the "standing up" animation of soldiers on ground (that were on horseback before)?
JetJedi
Sergeant at Arms
Khalid ibn Walid
Should interrupt an attack? I have not noticed any interruption, as before it is difficult to footman to strike a horse if the horseman to it competently operates, therefore the footman does not receive much. But horsemen now strike blows only on a horse of the opponent, one successful impact by a spear on a horse is equal to a victory...and if you want to be covered from attack by a shield - nothing will turn out, you are dead because you will not hide a horse...unless it is normal? Such transforms game into full nonsense.
Idea with a loss for falling: if the footmen kills a horse it will be much easier to it to finish the injured horseman.
P.S.
To everyone to whom the idea with falling seems ridiculous: you tried to fall from a horse in the armor (when the weight of your body increases kg on 50-60)? I don`t know how it is, but I think it painfully enough
Should interrupt an attack? I have not noticed any interruption, as before it is difficult to footman to strike a horse if the horseman to it competently operates, therefore the footman does not receive much. But horsemen now strike blows only on a horse of the opponent, one successful impact by a spear on a horse is equal to a victory...and if you want to be covered from attack by a shield - nothing will turn out, you are dead because you will not hide a horse...unless it is normal? Such transforms game into full nonsense.
Idea with a loss for falling: if the footmen kills a horse it will be much easier to it to finish the injured horseman.
P.S.
To everyone to whom the idea with falling seems ridiculous: you tried to fall from a horse in the armor (when the weight of your body increases kg on 50-60)? I don`t know how it is, but I think it painfully enough
NikkTheTrick
Sergeant at Arms
I think that instead of dealing that much damage, it should take horseman more time to get up. If one falls down from a horse in plate, it will take a while to get up.
And, of coures, remove the stupid rider-horse hitbox. It is unrealistic and ruins the fun.
ESPECIALY if you are on foot - no real challenge.
And, of coures, remove the stupid rider-horse hitbox. It is unrealistic and ruins the fun.
ESPECIALY if you are on foot - no real challenge.
JetJedi said:
By "interruption", I mean the kickback effect of a double-strike disrupts the horseman's perfectly-timed hit with a weapon. It gives the footman a better chance.
Injuries from falling have nothing to do with that. I don't particularly care that much whether the horseman is hurt or not. What I don't want is for naked horses to be used as shields.
steelmax
Recruit
thorins said:hi all,
im all for the realism of damage for falling off you horse, but maybe 35 to 45% is a little high. it would be nice but not a big deal to me.
hell yah, I'm not for any percentage based damage or damage every time my horse falls down. maybe 0-12 damage on random falls but not every time.
also I think your pole was not worded well, none of the alternate ideas from the referenced thread where presented.
JetJedi
Sergeant at Arms
Khalid ibn Walid
Is glad to hear, that the given system though carries out something
But you must understand, it has more than minuses than pluss. You will understand it when receive "couched lance damage" on your horse - death in any case (even if you have a shield). Now all impacts go ONLY on a horse (because they have not learned to parry ) so is easier and more effective...
By the way, you play for the footman? Strange enough reasonings that horseman should be equal to the footman, I consider it should be stronger but not as earlier (when footman had fight with the intact horseman after difficult kill of a horse)
Is glad to hear, that the given system though carries out something
But you must understand, it has more than minuses than pluss. You will understand it when receive "couched lance damage" on your horse - death in any case (even if you have a shield). Now all impacts go ONLY on a horse (because they have not learned to parry
) so is easier and more effective...By the way, you play for the footman? Strange enough reasonings that horseman should be equal to the footman, I consider it should be stronger but not as earlier (when footman had fight with the intact horseman after difficult kill of a horse)
No name
Recruit
Em..apology for diverting.
JetJedi, i'm really sorry but i didnt quite understand what you were talking about. I'm guessing English is not your first language right? I was baffled just by reading the first paragraph. I had to turn off the music to make sure i was reading correctly. But the others seem to understand it so maybe its just me. I apologise if i insulted your language though.
Anyway i think falling damage should be applied, but on certain conditions, such as horses being shot down while on high speeds, or if it dies on the side of a steep slope and the rider falls and slides down a great height.
Even on bicycles if you hit a small pothole, if you are caught unaware, usually you'll be thrown off and get bruises and perhaps winded. For horses, its in some ways similar. Perhaps you are an experienced rider, but if the horse collapse, being thrown off is inevitable. And getting hurt from a fall is also inevitable. But perhaps 40% is too harsh and too generalising. Perhaps damage is determined by the horse's speed at point of collapse? And as bearhugger mentioned, taking longer to rise due to shock.
Oh and remember that the death throes of animals are quite violent. Horses might kick out or crush someone. But that might unbalance the game so nvm.
And one more thing is that it is almost impossible to hit the rider. Usually my hit touches the horse's head first before the rider, and then the damage is applied to the horse and not to the rider. Many horses have died under my hand.
JetJedi, i'm really sorry but i didnt quite understand what you were talking about. I'm guessing English is not your first language right? I was baffled just by reading the first paragraph. I had to turn off the music to make sure i was reading correctly. But the others seem to understand it so maybe its just me. I apologise if i insulted your language though.
Anyway i think falling damage should be applied, but on certain conditions, such as horses being shot down while on high speeds, or if it dies on the side of a steep slope and the rider falls and slides down a great height.
Even on bicycles if you hit a small pothole, if you are caught unaware, usually you'll be thrown off and get bruises and perhaps winded. For horses, its in some ways similar. Perhaps you are an experienced rider, but if the horse collapse, being thrown off is inevitable. And getting hurt from a fall is also inevitable. But perhaps 40% is too harsh and too generalising. Perhaps damage is determined by the horse's speed at point of collapse? And as bearhugger mentioned, taking longer to rise due to shock.
Oh and remember that the death throes of animals are quite violent. Horses might kick out or crush someone. But that might unbalance the game so nvm.
And one more thing is that it is almost impossible to hit the rider. Usually my hit touches the horse's head first before the rider, and then the damage is applied to the horse and not to the rider. Many horses have died under my hand.
JetJedi
Sergeant at Arms
I have made corrections, I hope it became more clear...
Yes, the horse not simply is easier for striking, the horse is BETTER for striking, new rules force to beat ONLY a horse, in fact the rider can parry (but receives damage from a horse), and the horse is not, it an ideal target, and it is the reason of inevitable death of the rider...
leo
Knight
If there's going to be falling damage from having your horse cut under you, it wouldn't make any sense to have it be a percent of your health...
Why should a healthy person take more damage from a fall than an injured one? A fixed amount of damage [within a logical range] would make much more sense.
Why should a healthy person take more damage from a fall than an injured one? A fixed amount of damage [within a logical range] would make much more sense.
Dynamite_cow
Squire
I don't tend to fall of from horses.
Ah well, I says yay, but I think 35-40% is too much. Maybe like 20-30% or something would be reasonable.
Well as long as I can chop down horses' feet with my axe I'm completely happy.
Ah well, I says yay, but I think 35-40% is too much. Maybe like 20-30% or something would be reasonable.
Well as long as I can chop down horses' feet with my axe I'm completely happy.
Sword sister
Recruit
The problem I have with this is that falling off a horse can result in a very, very wide range of injury in terms of severity.
You can bruise your ass, or you can break your neck. A set percentage is ridiculous. A sliding scale percentage seems reasonable, though.
You can bruise your ass, or you can break your neck. A set percentage is ridiculous. A sliding scale percentage seems reasonable, though.
