Another quick weapon slot

[GreenKnight]

Don't get me wrong; I appreciate the need for this game to be a challenge, but the thing is that I'm a one-handed weapon user, which means that obviously, I make pretty extensive use of the shield. And lemme tell you, that steel shield is a life saver. The thing is, however, that I run into a problem if and when my horse is knocked out from under me. I tend to find that, at least with my skill level, you need to have the option of both the range of the lance and the speed of the longsword to be truly survivable. This means that I've already used up 3 out of 4 weapons slots, so the best means of taking out enemy cavalry and maybe, just maybe getting myself a new horse is unavailable. I can use the crossbow, or the bolts, but not both. In a future game, perhaps I could think ahead and correct this by building up my proficiency in thrown weapons, but for right now, it's a handicap. Some may disagree as to whether it merits correcting, but 4 weapons slots seems a somewhat arbitrary number anyway. I say make it 5.

 

[Perturbatio]

personally I have no problem fighting unmounted with sword and shield, especialy in conjunction with a bow.

 

[GreenKnight]

Well, then you must be a very skilled player. Me, I find it rather daunting when I'm running backward, trying to pick off 10 enemies on foot, only to be beaned from behind by yet more men at arms, or worse yet, by cavalry still swarming around, getting in their cheap shot, then running off faster than I have hope of following. You know, that is if I had a chance to follow them, which I don't, because I'm still getting beaten into puree by the foot soldiers. Granted, that's how I fight, but come on, there's only one of me.

 

[tylertfb]

Actually, I think the slots should be limited to 3. This way you really have to make a tough decision as to what kind of weapons you're going to pack. If you decide to carry a bow and arrow, you best stay out of melee range or you'll be in trouble. I think having to specialize is much more interesting than just making a jack-of-all-trades character.

 

[Tiedye]

Well, this is where decision making skills come into play. You're complaining that you can't equip a sword, shield, lance, bow, and arrows at the same time. Why not complain that you can't toss equip an extra axe and some javelins on top of all that while you're at it.

Such limitations are what make your character challenging, and so make the game more interesting. If you really want to change the game so that you find it easier to stay alive, turn down the difficulty level or use some cheats.

 

[DominicWhite]

Well, then you must be a very skilled player. Me, I find it rather daunting when I'm running backward, trying to pick off 10 enemies on foot, only to be beaned from behind by yet more men at arms, or worse yet, by cavalry still swarming around, getting in their cheap shot, then running off faster than I have hope of following. You know, that is if I had a chance to follow them, which I don't, because I'm still getting beaten into puree by the foot soldiers. Granted, that's how I fight, but come on, there's only one of me.

You do realise that you're not meant to be fighting everyone solo, right? Hire some troops and they'll soak up some of the hurt for you.

 

[GreenKnight]

Now hold on a second. I'm not complaining about anything. I've certainly managed to kill a few enemy units without my full arsenal available, but I'm just saying that unless it's 4 slots for a specific reason, why is that better than 5? It certainly doesn't avoid this "jack of all trades" thing that was mentioned, because the character knows how to use all of these weapons, whether he's carrying them or not. And as for carrying, an extra slot wouldn't hurt realism any further. A character can already pull a lance from nowhere. I admit, this is no big deal, really, and I'm not saying the game suffers hugely without it, but depending on your playing style, those 4 slots would allow some players access to their full arsenal. I'm just saying that 5 slots would be the necessary number for my particular weapon proficiencies, and I doubt I'm the only one who's made the choices I have. Since some people obviously think 5 is too many, what about working in some way to choose the number of slots?

And yes, I am aware of the function of having troops with me, but you don't get all of them with you at once, and fielding a force capable of stopping the superior numbers I often find myself up against isn't always possible for me. Not yet, anyway. Even if the battle is going fairly well, I'll almost always find myself up against a group of enemy infantry, though ten is perhaps unusual, unless the battle has gone badly. Sure, more experience may help with a lot of it, but my suggestion is still 5 slots.

 

[Tiedye]

Good point. I guess I'm against changing it because I've never really had a problem with the four slots. Sometimes it forces me to make a tough call, but nothing that really made the game that much more difficult.

So I guess I pulled the 'ol "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" BS. I hate that saying.

So yeah, I guess I really don't have anything against changing it to 5. I'm not sure why 4 was selected in the first place. Maybe Armagan has some sort of super-complex formula that has decided that if weapons == 4, fun++.

 

[[bulletproof]]

Nah, i think four is ideal. First, that would ruin the fun of fleeing back to your bag to reequip and reload your quivers! I think that adds something to combat, it makes it urgent, it forces you to be situationally aware. You have a "home base" of sorts.

Of course, I'm not saying that one extra slot would make the bag useless, just that it would greatly reduce the player's need to return to it. As an archer, I could carry an extra 24 rounds - that negates reloading entirely.

I guess you could add the slot, but I think it just detracts from the fun and the challenge. I've never needed to carry more than two melee weapons and a ranged weapon, which leaves room for either arrows, a shield, or throwing weapons. I understand the need to have a versitile armanent - it's definitely fun to kill things in several different ways - but the extra slot is unnecessary.

 

[GreenKnight]

Heh, well you have to understand that for me, it's not so much a matter of getting extra bolts as it is a matter of choosing between having the crossbow, OR having the ammunition for it. It looks like there's not much support for this idea, so I guess I'll make do. It's not a huge deal...though if the quick weapons slots is to remain at 4, then I feel the previously mentioned idea of a flag marking your inventory stash, which I think armagan liked, is a must. I realize that all the inventory stuff is there, but I often have a whole lot of trouble finding it, especially in a night battle.

 

[Ferox]

if the slots were limited to three then they would have to make arrows come from the inventory, because I think thats why theres 4 .


I carry a pole arm , sword , bow and arrow.


I do not want to be able to carry more, Infact I like the idea of only having three.


a pole arm, a sword, and a bow makes sort of sense. The polearm guy needs a sword for close in combat, If they made it so you had to choose only 2 weapons, that is also fine with me.

I wouldnt mind my horse being able to "carry" stuff. This way I could have my bow on my horse and use it if I needed.