Block arrows with 2h

[CounterPoint391]

I think it's balanced around battle, not that it's balanced
I play mostly 1h with shield or spear with shield, personal preference as i can fight using most melee weapons.

I also quoted you, thus putting my use of the word 'balanced' in context. And for the sake of disscusion, we are hypothetically speaking about 'Battle mode', are we not?

Dude, i'm heavy in reenacting. Fighting with shield is not as easy as holding it in general direction of the enemy (and block all his strikes), you have to move shield around to defend successfully with it. I HAVE modern replicas of sword and shield, and i'm experienced in real life combat. From your words i see you don't have proper equipment and training to discuss real life medieval combat, so i suggest you to focus on M&B combat balance.

Ok, so you got me by real life experience, nice work... But since you recommend I focus on M&B's combat simulation, ok: The game simulates medieval combat, so we assume a few things, namely that the soldiers depicted by the Multiplayer side of things are trained soldiers. Trained in this context means familiar with the use of their weapons. So, in this context I'd say (and you are free to disagree) that these soldiers would have had sufficient time to build up the strenght, reflexes, and muscle memory to wield a shield with little cognative effort.

Also, i'll ignore the ad hominem above and instead focus on...

...and i'm experienced in real life combat.

Which makes me think "Oh, so you've carried a rifle in a combat zone, have you....."

I already said it's small chance to do so, but, if you would use light bow with practice arrowtips, and i'll be given enough chances to try it, i'm totally in. Did i said here it's something that is reliable ? No.

But, how would using a light bow with practice arrowtips prove that deflecting arrows with a weapon is realistically plausible?

Honest discussion using arguments ? Yep, but you fail here too.

Another ad hominem I'll just skip....

You bolded the text, calling it indirectly bull. I called you to prove it. I was right, you can't chamberblock with reliability, few people can, and i know most of them (EU ones) in person.

My favorite part of your post.

I bolded the text to help show you what I see when I read that post. Funny how personal attack tends to overpower the rest of your argument, isn't it And you used another logical fallacy, too....

 

[nikosierra125]

Multiplayer is not rock-paper-scissor. It's way more complex. From what you just wrote down, i know you are unable to get 19-1 ratio on battle server. I've done even better.

i was in a server with a guy tht had 77-19 kd reatio , BEAT THAT! (i stood near him so hes my claim to fame)

 

[AoC]

I think it's balanced around battle, not that it's balanced
I play mostly 1h with shield or spear with shield, personal preference as i can fight using most melee weapons.

I also quoted you, thus putting my use of the word 'balanced' in context. And for the sake of disscusion, we are hypothetically speaking about 'Battle mode', are we not?

If so, yes, we are talking about 'battle' mode.

Dude, i'm heavy in reenacting. Fighting with shield is not as easy as holding it in general direction of the enemy (and block all his strikes), you have to move shield around to defend successfully with it. I HAVE modern replicas of sword and shield, and i'm experienced in real life combat. From your words i see you don't have proper equipment and training to discuss real life medieval combat, so i suggest you to focus on M&B combat balance.

Ok, so you got me by real life experience, nice work... But since you recommend I focus on M&B's combat simulation, ok: The game simulates medieval combat, so we assume a few things, namely that the soldiers depicted by the Multiplayer side of things are trained soldiers. Trained in this context means familiar with the use of their weapons. So, in this context I'd say (and you are free to disagree) that these soldiers would have had sufficient time to build up the strenght, reflexes, and muscle memory to wield a shield with little cognative effort.

Still, i oppose inpenetrable wall. Shields are meant for increased defense at the cost of offense, not as total anti-defense. Thus i recommend manual-lite block for shields, even something like inversed manual block is better than current system (would be nice twist).

We can discuss how current shield combat is good or bad.

I think it's bad because no matter how you hit shield when it's up, you just damage it, not the bearer. Also, it force opposing player to 'break the shield' to start dealing damage so we have two phases in shield user vs non-shield user

phase 1:
shield user have advantage due to blocking all direction at the cost of little speed.

phase 2:
former shield user have disadvantage due to worse 2h weapon (it's just it, 2h weapon, as second hand does not give anything)

Changing shield would help 2h user in phase 1 and would help 1h user due to longer phase 1 (as shield would be better to counter the fact they can be bypassed).

Also, i'll ignore the ad hominem above and instead focus on...

...and i'm experienced in real life combat.

Which makes me think "Oh, so you've carried a rifle in a combat zone, have you....."

Nope, not rifle.

I already said it's small chance to do so, but, if you would use light bow with practice arrowtips, and i'll be given enough chances to try it, i'm totally in. Did i said here it's something that is reliable ? No.

But, how would using a light bow with practice arrowtips prove that deflecting arrows with a weapon is realistically plausible?

There are light bow in the game, right ? Some practice arrowtips does not affect speed and projectile size much, so it's fair representation i think. Using heavier bow with practice arrowtips would be ok too. Using 'real' arrows is out of question, i don't want to be wounded in such stupid scenario.

'Deflecting' arrow is possible, even just holding the weapon (swinging helps, sure), realisticaly. Unlikely ? yes.

Honest discussion using arguments ? Yep, but you fail here too.

Another ad hominem I'll just skip....

You bolded the text, calling it indirectly bull. I called you to prove it. I was right, you can't chamberblock with reliability, few people can, and i know most of them (EU ones) in person.

My favorite part of your post.

I bolded the text to help show you what I see when I read that post. Funny how personal attack tends to overpower the rest of your argument, isn't it And you used another logical fallacy, too....

Damn shame, isn't it ? Still, at least it's true you can't chamberblock relia... wait, how is that relevant in the discussion ?

 

[CounterPoint391]

Shields are meant for increased defense at the cost of offense, not as total anti-defense.

Uh, I'm pretty sure that's already in place. Last I checked, actively defending with your shield brings your offensive capability to zero (ie. You can't attack while blocking). I suppose you could argue facehugging someone off a cliff is an offensive skill, but....

We can discuss how current shield combat is good or bad.

I think it's bad because no matter how you hit shield when it's up, you just damage it, not the bearer. Also, it force opposing player to 'break the shield' to start dealing damage so we have two phases in shield user vs non-shield user

Granted, but you fail to mention that a 2hander faces no threat from an opponent who is just blocking. And if a shielder goes for an attack, he also leaves an opening in his protection.

phase 1:
shield user have advantage due to blocking all direction at the cost of little speed.

Again, the shield user trades weapon power for ease of defense

phase 2:
former shield user have disadvantage due to worse 2h weapon (it's just it, 2h weapon, as second hand does not give anything)

Why yes he does. But his shield has bought him some time, where a friend can possibly swoop in and save him, or an archer can shoot the 2hander....

Changing shield would help 2h user in phase 1 and would help 1h user due to longer phase 1 (as shield would be better to counter the fact they can be bypassed).

I personally see the current system as fairly fine the way it is. A 'more manual' system for shield blocking would be an interesting (if possibly fun) twist, but I think that is something more appropriate to a modification, and not the vanilla game. But that's just my opinion.

There are light bow in the game, right ? Some practice arrowtips does not affect speed and projectile size much, so it's fair representation i think. Using heavier bow with practice arrowtips would be ok too. Using 'real' arrows is out of question, i don't want to be wounded in such stupid scenario.

I wouldn't be so quick to call all the bows in the game 'light'. I assume we are measuring the 'weight' of the bow as 'draw-strenght'. If so, I wouldn't consider the longbow 'light'. Medium to heavy, but someone with more knowledge should confirm. The 'composite' bows I see represented in game by the 'strong bow' and 'khergit bow', though, I would consider 'heavy' based on draw weight. If I recall correctly, composite bows were more powerful than the longbow. Night Ninja, your input here please.

Also, the thought of putting an arrow in your gut as a way to win an argument was slightly entertaining

'Deflecting' arrow is possible, even just holding the weapon (swinging helps, sure), realisticaly. Unlikely ? yes.

Ok, physically possible, I'll give you that. I'd add highly unlikely, and say we agree here.

Damn shame, isn't it ? Still, at least it's true you can't chamberblock relia... wait, how is that relevant in the discussion ?

Glad you picked up some argumentative flair. Thumbs up.

 

[AoC]

Shields are meant for increased defense at the cost of offense, not as total anti-defense.

Uh, I'm pretty sure that's already in place. Last I checked, actively defending with your shield brings your offensive capability to zero (ie. You can't attack while blocking). I suppose you could argue facehugging someone off a cliff is an offensive skill, but...

We can discuss how current shield combat is good or bad.

I think it's bad because no matter how you hit shield when it's up, you just damage it, not the bearer. Also, it force opposing player to 'break the shield' to start dealing damage so we have two phases in shield user vs non-shield user

Granted, but you fail to mention that a 2hander faces no threat from an opponent who is just blocking. And if a shielder goes for an attack, he also leaves an opening in his protection.

Yes, it leaves himself for an opening. But if 2h does his defensive move, he is vulnerable. When shield user does his defensive move, he is invulnerable (more or less, i know that he can be kicked, blockcrushed and hit from behind) - that is the problem, shield user can defend until his shield is not destroyed (and huscarl round shield can last very long against most people).

Both kick and blockcrush and bonus against shield are hot fixes to broken shield combat.

phase 1:
shield user have advantage due to blocking all direction at the cost of little speed.

Again, the shield user trades weapon power for ease of defense

Sure, but this make it too easy, especially with top end shields. Shields should make defense easier, but not inpenetrable against most weapons. Now it takes ages to destroy HRS with nordic sword (basic).

Also, people using forcefield get used to it and forget how to manual block, as they don't have to do it before shield breaks.

phase 2:
former shield user have disadvantage due to worse 2h weapon (it's just it, 2h weapon, as second hand does not give anything)

Why yes he does. But his shield has bought him some time, where a friend can possibly swoop in and save him, or an archer can shoot the 2hander....

Sure, his shield buy him some time. But we can safely assume that from 1HS>2H in first phase, it goes to 2H>1HS in second phase.

Changing shield would help 2h user in phase 1 and would help 1h user due to longer phase 1 (as shield would be better to counter the fact they can be bypassed).

I personally see the current system as fairly fine the way it is. A 'more manual' system for shield blocking would be an interesting (if possibly fun) twist, but I think that is something more appropriate to a modification, and not the vanilla game. But that's just my opinion.

I think 'more manual shield system' would increase enjoyment, increase difficulty and make 1h+shield 'fun' dueling choice.

There are light bow in the game, right ? Some practice arrowtips does not affect speed and projectile size much, so it's fair representation i think. Using heavier bow with practice arrowtips would be ok too. Using 'real' arrows is out of question, i don't want to be wounded in such stupid scenario.

I wouldn't be so quick to call all the bows in the game 'light'. I assume we are measuring the 'weight' of the bow as 'draw-strenght'. If so, I wouldn't consider the longbow 'light'. Medium to heavy, but someone with more knowledge should confirm. The 'composite' bows I see represented in game by the 'strong bow' and 'khergit bow', though, I would consider 'heavy' based on draw weight. If I recall correctly, composite bows were more powerful than the longbow. Night Ninja, your input here please.

Also, the thought of putting an arrow in your gut as a way to win an argument was slightly entertaining

Short bow seems like 'light' bow to me. Longbows and composite bows are medium and heavy (some composite were sucky if i remember right).

'Deflecting' arrow is possible, even just holding the weapon (swinging helps, sure), realisticaly. Unlikely ? yes.

Ok, physically possible, I'll give you that. I'd add highly unlikely, and say we agree here.

Well, yes. We also agree it's waste of computing power.

隐藏

Damn shame, isn't it ? Still, at least it's true you can't chamberblock relia... wait, how is that relevant in the discussion ?

Glad you picked up some argumentative flair. Thumbs up.
[/quote]

 

[CounterPoint391]

Yes, it leaves himself for an opening. But if 2h does his defensive move, he is vulnerable. When shield user does his defensive move, he is invulnerable (more or less, i know that he can be kicked, blockcrushed and hit from behind) - that is the problem, shield user can defend until his shield is not destroyed (and huscarl round shield can last very long against most people).

Both kick and blockcrush and bonus against shield are hot fixes to broken shield combat.

Sure, but this make it too easy, especially with top end shields. Shields should make defense easier, but not inpenetrable against most weapons. Now it takes ages to destroy HRS with nordic sword (basic).

Ok. I will say that using a shield grants more protection than is should on the sides to melee strikes. I will agree with you there. I finished reading another one of those OP Shields topics, and based on some of the arguments there (coupled with my experiences in game) the side reach of shield protection from an attacker on the side is more than generous, to say the least. But that's why there are special weapons to bust shields, right?

Also, people using forcefield get used to it and forget how to manual block, as they don't have to do it before shield breaks.

I'd say that is a choice they make, they trade constant practise manual blocking for a 'secure' blocking method.

Sure, his shield buy him some time. But we can safely assume that from 1HS>2H in first phase, it goes to 2H>1HS in second phase.

Granted...

I think 'more manual shield system' would increase enjoyment, increase difficulty and make 1h+shield 'fun' dueling choice.

I don't deny that it may be fun. But as an 'option' to set, rather than a fundamental mechanics change.

Short bow seems like 'light' bow to me. Longbows and composite bows are medium and heavy (some composite were sucky if i remember right).

Ok. But we've come to an agreement to the argument the bows were supporting, so from now on, irrelevant.

Well, yes. We also agree it's waste of computing power.

Indeed

 

[AoC]

隐藏

Yes, it leaves himself for an opening. But if 2h does his defensive move, he is vulnerable. When shield user does his defensive move, he is invulnerable (more or less, i know that he can be kicked, blockcrushed and hit from behind) - that is the problem, shield user can defend until his shield is not destroyed (and huscarl round shield can last very long against most people).

Both kick and blockcrush and bonus against shield are hot fixes to broken shield combat.

Sure, but this make it too easy, especially with top end shields. Shields should make defense easier, but not inpenetrable against most weapons. Now it takes ages to destroy HRS with nordic sword (basic).

Ok. I will say that using a shield grants more protection than is should on the sides to melee strikes. I will agree with you there. I finished reading another one of those OP Shields topics, and based on some of the arguments there (coupled with my experiences in game) the side reach of shield protection from an attacker on the side is more than generous, to say the least. But that's why there are special weapons to bust shields, right?

Yes, shield grant too much protection from sides, to the point where it entirely protect the sides (leaving just back to attack).

Shield busting weapons exist, sure. But imo it's too P-R-S for me, there should be some opportunity to hit him 'correctly'. If not by simple hitting around the shield, at least there should be a way to deal more damage to shield, or perhaps even blockcrush shield user if he hold RMB all the time.

Also, people using forcefield get used to it and forget how to manual block, as they don't have to do it before shield breaks.

I'd say that is a choice they make, they trade constant practise manual blocking for a 'secure' blocking method.

I don't like this, due to this my manual block is rusty as hell. It's counterintuitive that it's the only blocking system where you don't have to make a correct block.

Sure, his shield buy him some time. But we can safely assume that from 1HS>2H in first phase, it goes to 2H>1HS in second phase.

Granted...

If shields would be worse, 2h and polearms should be toned down to reasonable levels. Now they are so good to offset shield godmode.

I think 'more manual shield system' would increase enjoyment, increase difficulty and make 1h+shield 'fun' dueling choice.

I don't deny that it may be fun. But as an 'option' to set, rather than a fundamental mechanics change.

There is option to allow auto-block. Some people would use auto-block (that would affect shields as well) as server-side option. It would be fundamental change, but a good change.

Short bow seems like 'light' bow to me. Longbows and composite bows are medium and heavy (some composite were sucky if i remember right).

Ok. But we've come to an agreement to the argument the bows were supporting, so from now on, irrelevant.

All classes are supporting each other.

Well, yes. We also agree it's waste of computing power.

Indeed

Indeed.

 

[CounterPoint391]

Yes, shield grant too much protection from sides, to the point where it entirely protect the sides (leaving just back to attack).

Agreed, but only for melee. Ranged can score a hit on the side from the right angle.

Shield busting weapons exist, sure. But imo it's too P-R-S for me, there should be some opportunity to hit him 'correctly'. If not by simple hitting around the shield, at least there should be a way to deal more damage to shield, or perhaps even blockcrush shield user if he hold RMB all the time.

define P-R-S please? Parry, React, Strike?

Regardless, it would be nice to see weapons flagged as 'Can Crush Though Block' to be able to crush through the block of a raised shield. Unless it does that already.....

I don't like this, due to this my manual block is rusty as hell. It's counterintuitive that it's the only blocking system where you don't have to make a correct block.

Like I said, it's a tradeoff. But you disagree, which is cool too. So this point is rendered mute.

If shields would be worse, 2h and polearms should be toned down to reasonable levels. Now they are so good to offset shield godmode.

Alright, so they are balanced. Maybe you are saying that the shields have scaled weapon damage too high then?

There is option to allow auto-block. Some people would use auto-block (that would affect shields as well) as server-side option. It would be fundamental change, but a good change.

Dunno about that big of a change. Maybe a third option, like a manual/manual block, to complement the auto shield/manual parry, and auto block options. But, M&B has manual shield blocking to an extent, ie you can maneuver your shield to better cover your head or to better cover your feet. It's best illustrated in the arena melee fights in SP, as the AI will aim for the exposed part of your body, which can be blocked by moving your shield up or down.

Really, I see the best way to enhance the shield defense in the game would be to reduce the angle of protection fron the 180 or so it is now to a 110, 100, or even 90 degree sector of protection. This would force players to manually pivot to better protect their sides, while still requiring a modest degree of skill, but without making dedicated practice a necessity to avoid frustration with blocking.....

 

[Amman d Stazia]

what I'd like to see is manual (assisted) blocking.

what?

everyone has to manual block, but your shield skill & weaponmaster skill & 1-hander skill all contribute to an 'assistance factor'.

Once this reaches a given level, the game assumes you to be good enough & experienced enough to block everything in melee as a reflex.
You achieve a de facto auto-block for the human field of vision (about 165 degrees across your front).  Anything else, you don't see so it is not blocked.


Does this suck when you a start out as a new player?  Possibly, but you can train your skill, just as you can train archery.  And it's a harsh realism, that combat favours the veteran over the greenhorn.