Fighting style discussions

Users who are viewing this thread

Windyplains said:
What made me like it was:

1. More varied character development because of the power strike/...etc max limit; which allowed me to be a competitive fighter with str 15 and concentrate on other things (either more STR, AGI, or start building INT or CHA)
That isn't more varied, it is the opposite as your options are being restricted.  Nothing prevents you from stopping a character at 15 STR and then focusing on other stats.  Choice is the spice of gaming.

I was kinda stressing "competitive" fighter, meaning noone else had higher Power Strike; but could still be better in terms of HP or Proficiencies.
Especially in Floris, the difference between Power Strike 5 and 9-10 is gigantic, making it near impossible to properly take on those tier 6-7 troops.

BUT, I admit, it's my own personal problem (as far as I know). I'm rarely long-term satisfied with any character builds in any videogame...

zykox said:
Might I ask about what "direction" you were talking about?
Away from native.  Floris still tries to maintain the native feel of the game while giving it more options and adding conveniences.  Autolooting, for example, adds a lot of convenience, but it doesn't make you any more powerful then what you could have done natively.  The exceptions to this are things like the tournament system, but for those who don't want that change they can disable it.  What you're suggesting is a revamp of how combat mechanics work and wouldn't fit with where we are trying to take the mod.
[/quote]

I get it, that you want to keep "native" feeling, and that's why I love Floris!

And you're right...making faction styles, or styles that could replace "native" would change the game.
__________________

Which is why I (originally, then I got carried away...) suggested keeping the Wpn Styles in the same Power Level as Default.
I included disadvantages, so that "native" isn't the worst choice.

I designed Wpn Styles that would enable "competitive/effective" combat equipment combinations, that wouldn't make any sense in "native" like:
-1h weapon but no shield
-dagger/sickle and leather (like Assassin Klethi starts out with)

Other Wpn Styles, like "Power Style" and "Rule-the-zone Style" were designed to give allow different fight approach.
For Example: "Power Style" is better vs hvy infantry, but creates a challenge vs light infantry. "Rule-the-zone Style" is better to buy time/occupy enemies, but worse at actually killing.

Please compare the "Good" and "Bad" parts...I truly don't think "native" (which should be renamed) fighting style loses any meaning.

And like the Tournaments, no-one has to use the new wpn styles, since they're not more powerful than "native".
.........................
So? What say you? It' my last try to pitch the Wpn Styles...I promise.
 
These weapon styles sound like something you should be pitching to xenoargh over at Blood & Steel, to be honest. And you'd probably see parts of them already in place with his class system and features like Dodge. He's hacked apart the combat system and done some really unique, really fun things. His work is outstanding...but he isn't trying to do a Native-super-enhancement mod, but rather creating his own thing on the same engine.
 
Just to point out that all these talks about becoming super warriors is possible in current design right. The level cap in this game is like 60 something. It just takes understandably forever to get there. Unless there's been some changes i don't know of, theoretically you could get your super warrior. The only real reason for these complaints is that you can't get your level 30str/agi super warrior in the time frame you want..... Not without cheating anyway

CTRL+L  will get you your super 30 STR/AGI/INT warrior in 16 seconds flat

My opionion on some of these power strike ideas is that i don't think it meshes with the game design honestly. This game is about character development in the essence of large scale warfare. Back stabs and no shield sword play doesn't realistic fit this game design, IMO. It's like saying we should have ninjas on the battlefield, or a stealth skill.... it just doesn't make a lot of sense on open battle fields or siege warfare.
 
no shield sword play doesn't realistic fit this game design
You are right. In fact, this is very fast way to die. Seriously,in real life you won't even consider taking two-handed weapon if you don't have decent armor. And two swords are useless(why to take two swords if you can't even control one?) If you have archer against you, you will end up with arrow in your face quickly. If you face guy with shield, he will probably bash to your teeth with shield, and so on...
However, if mod developers were really bored and had nothing other to do, it would be nice to be able to switch your weapons to different fighting styles(for example, you could be able to wield sword like this http://www.thehaca.com/Manuals/Gladiatoria/17.jpg and spear like this http://wiktenauer.com/images/thumb/a/a6/MS_Germ.Quart.16_5r.jpg/300px-MS_Germ.Quart.16_5r.jpg)
 
Just to point out that all these talks about becoming super warriors is possible in current design right

It's NOT about becoming a super warrior. Re-read my post...(if you were talking to me)

Leifdin said:
no shield sword play doesn't realistic fit this game design
You are right. In fact, this is very fast way to die. Seriously,in real life you won't even consider taking two-handed weapon if you don't have decent armor. And two swords are useless(why to take two swords if you can't even control one?) If you have archer against you, you will end up with arrow in your face quickly. If you face guy with shield, he will probably bash to your teeth with shield, and so on...
However, if mod developers were really bored and had nothing other to do, it would be nice to be able to switch your weapons to different fighting styles(for example, you could be able to wield sword like this http://www.thehaca.com/Manuals/Gladiatoria/17.jpg and spear like this http://wiktenauer.com/images/thumb/a/a6/MS_Germ.Quart.16_5r.jpg/300px-MS_Germ.Quart.16_5r.jpg)

Low armor vs Archer is ALWAYS a weakness. But having the fattest plate didn't make the ultimate warrior...that's why the romans, didn't do it, that's why the mongols didn't do it.

Also, fighting WITH shield isn't always better and uses a completely different fighting style...IF you know it.
2h Sword with low armor was never even pitched...1h with light armor and no shield is exactly for 1 reason...speed. A skilled swordsman (NOT neccessarily a samurai...they existed in Europe too) could still easily outfence another "ordinary guard" with chainmail.

And since when does Backstabbing equal Ninjas? Where does the name "Assassin" come from...?

An open battlefield...everyone hacking at each other in melee...and you're saying there's no opportunity strikes involved?

I'm not even saying that EVERY soldier could pull it off.

These weapon styles sound like something you should be pitching to xenoargh over at Blood & Steel, to be honest. And you'd probably see parts of them already in place with his class system and features like Dodge. He's hacked apart the combat system and done some really unique, really fun things. His work is outstanding...but he isn't trying to do a Native-super-enhancement mod, but rather creating his own thing on the same engine.

Ok, answer given. Never considered them to be "native"breaking ideas and I wanted to see them in Floris, but you make the decisions and I accept.
Case closed.
_______________________________________________________________________________________

INVENTORY
*Eating food from Companions Inventory is a VERY nice idea. OR, create an extra inventory window, JUST for food + an overview how much is left of what type of food.

*I would like to access my inventory between long battles (after the reinforcement waves are all exhausted, but the battle continues)...because sometimes my horse dies, and I'd like to replace it with a spare one from my inventory.
This is also very annoying in sieges, when I equip a bow...then the fight goes to town, and I have no melee weapon.

I would also like access to my inventory BEFORE any battle, so I can properly outfit myself for the enemy...just switching in a shield or a bow would help so much.

*Siege
Which reminds me...if the siege goes into town, or the castle itself...WHY am I always at a disadvantage:
3-4 vs 7-8 high tiers...I lose...and the castle garrison hat 20-25 ppl left, while I (and my allies) still have 200 left?
This kills me, when besieging towns with a tower because I have to spent ANOTHER 2 days building it again, just to whack 20 guys.

(was that already changed in Floris? Or am I confusing it with "native" memories)
 
Low armor vs Archer is ALWAYS a weakness. But having the fattest plate didn't make the ultimate warrior...that's why the romans, didn't do it, that's why the mongols didn't do it.
Well, good armor won't come cheaply, and Mongols and Romans had very big armies. But yes, armor needs to be taken care of, and marching three days in unfavorable conditions won't make it any shinier, so it can be disadvantage sometimes.
Also, fighting WITH shield isn't always better and uses a completely different fighting style...IF you know it.
Heavy armor makes it quite useless. Also, you block in completely different way than in Mount and blade, you just hold it straight, for example when you have round shield, you use it to control opponent
2h Sword with low armor was never even pitched...
Only in duels, and even then rarely. In fact, they weren't used that much, even if you had armor. They are very useless in melee.
1h with light armor and no shield is exactly for 1 reason...speed. A skilled swordsman (NOT necessarily a samurai...they existed in Europe too) could still easily outfence another "ordinary guard" with chainmail.
Yes, in battle 1 on 1.(And even then, when you have only one one-handed sword, you will hold it in two hands, unless it's very short). Skilled swordsman won't have many uses in battlefield. What skilled swordsman would do, is teaching art of fencing and fighting as mercenary in duels. But remember, in medieval Europe, most people weren't skilled at all, so even if you know few things, you can easily outfence anyone who doesn't know anything and doesn't wear very good armor.
 
Thanks for the comments, man! At least some people care...

Leifdin said:
Low armor vs Archer is ALWAYS a weakness. But having the fattest plate didn't make the ultimate warrior...that's why the romans, didn't do it, that's why the mongols didn't do it.
Well, good armor won't come cheaply, and Mongols and Romans had very big armies. But yes, armor needs to be taken care of, and marching three days in unfavorable conditions won't make it any shinier, so it can be disadvantage sometimes.
Also, fighting WITH shield isn't always better and uses a completely different fighting style...IF you know it.
Heavy armor makes it quite useless. Also, you block in completely different way than in Mount and blade, you just hold it straight, for example when you have round shield, you use it to control opponent
2h Sword with low armor was never even pitched...
Only in duels, and even then rarely. In fact, they weren't used that much, even if you had armor. They are very useless in melee.
1h with light armor and no shield is exactly for 1 reason...speed. A skilled swordsman (NOT necessarily a samurai...they existed in Europe too) could still easily outfence another "ordinary guard" with chainmail.
Yes, in battle 1 on 1.(And even then, when you have only one one-handed sword, you will hold it in two hands, unless it's very short). Skilled swordsman won't have many uses in battlefield. What skilled swordsman would do, is teaching art of fencing and fighting as mercenary in duels. But remember, in medieval Europe, most people weren't skilled at all, so even if you know few things, you can easily outfence anyone who doesn't know anything and doesn't wear very good armor.

"when you have only one one-handed sword, you will hold it in two hands, unless it's very short"; You just said it yourself...there ARE fighting styles involving no shield and a 1h weapon, either grab it with 2 hands for more power or stay 1h to be more agile (to dodge, rather block blows).

Also...A skilled swordsman/veteran soldier troop would usually be having some special battlefield roles...like scouting, skirmishing, guarding the lord, etc. And still they wouldn'be useless on the battlefield, just less dominating than 1 on1.
The truth is, the rare VERY skilled swordsman had pride and ego...like the "player". Why would I take part in a suicide charge against a line of archers? Why would I wear heavy plate (if I'm not that kind of warrior) and limit my own skills?

That said...this isn't Europe...it's Calradia. Aside from a lot of other realism factors that battles lack, WE HAVE THE KHERGITS dammit! And they look pretty much a mix of Mongol/Chinese. I wouldn't exactly call the Vaegirs (Russian hint) or the Sarranids (Arabian hint), Elephant Slaver Chiefs, etc. the kind of classic medieval full armor fodder Europe only.
Also, my ideas were just examples...I'm sure there were different fighting styles in "Europe". Anyone ever read about different Gladiator fighting styles?

And WHO does it even bother, if I want to play a light armored swordsman? The wpn styles would have never forced anyone to give up on their native gameplay. Compared to Tier 7 troops that get Power Strike 9-10 which equals player max (while in native their max was 4-5), and bandit leaders leading huge armies...I can't believe people think that a few extra combat approaches would be so bad and "native-breaking".

Well, besides me, nobody seems intrigued by the idea...the idea didn't even get as far as to being polled...--> The end.

Historically, there WERE a number of different fighting styles to be found in Europe. Of course, even in Asia, things were never "dynasty warrior" like. But similar to Asia...a skilled "european" fighter could easily defeat 4-5 normal soldiers ON SKILL ALONE without pitting "full plate vs leather; battle axe vs clubs".
Different fighting styles made different uses of available equipment (hence gladiators developed their own fighting styles).

_______________________

What to do about being enlisted with a King when he is captured.

In a previous game I was enlisted with King Harlaus, and after losing a some battles he was captured.
The first time is happened he was released before the 20 day 'deserter timer' ran out.
The second time though, he was stuck in jail for longer than 20 days, and I was classed a deserter.

This was early in the game and my character was too weak to attempt to break him out.

I actually ran into the same problem just a while back...it's not just the king...it's any Lord you're enlisted with and that gets captured.

Another freelance problem I ran into, was that if my lord's army, were I was enlisted, was defeated in battle and I survived....I would get into a screen with my lord's army having 0, and I HAD to follow him or desert --> So I was all alone vs the enemy, just waiting to be defeated and captured.

If the lord's army is defeated, and I luckily survived...shouldn't I be able to escape without being counted as deserter, and without charging 100 enemies all alone just to be captured? Even more ridicilous: The Lord escaped capture...but I still have to follow him into defeat...where I'm 100% captured.

ANOTHER freelance problem...why does my relationship rise, when I take time off and get back? It's like I don't get rewarded for staying in service!
-> Relationship should increase over time
-> "Taking time off, going back"-dialogue has no timer, meaning I can repeatedly spawn the dialogue and buff my relation to 100.
"THEN DON'T DO IT!" ---> But just STAYING with a lord doesn't yield me any better relations. I once stayed 2 months with a lord...went through hard battles, sometimes peace...and my relationship was 5 (earned on the battlefield).
 
a skilled "european" fighter could easily defeat 4-5 normal soldiers ON SKILL ALONE without pitting "full plate vs leather; battle axe vs clubs".
No. Unless:
1. He was main character in Hollywood film
2. They would be very frightened to fight him( but wouldn't they rather run away)
3. They were utterly stupid and kept the fight 1 on 1 always
Also...A skilled swordsman/veteran soldier troop would usually be having some special battlefield roles...like scouting, skirmishing, guarding the lord, etc. And still they wouldn'be useless on the battlefield, just less dominating than 1 on 1.
There is one difference- skilled swordsman is guy who is very good fencer. Veteran warrior is guy who fought in many battles and is very experienced. Good warrior doesn't have to be good fencer and vice versa.
 
Leifdin said:
Also...A skilled swordsman/veteran soldier troop would usually be having some special battlefield roles...like scouting, skirmishing, guarding the lord, etc. And still they wouldn'be useless on the battlefield, just less dominating than 1 on 1.
There is one difference- skilled swordsman is guy who is very good fencer. Veteran warrior is guy who fought in many battles and is very experienced. Good warrior doesn't have to be good fencer and vice versa.

Ok, I admit I was kinda hazy on this one, and you're correct. It's too complicated to elaborate too much...so I'll keep it at this:

A good swordsman doesn't just practice 1on1 fights...
Veteran soldiers might not be much better fighters than regulars...but their experience allows them to fight much more efficient as a group (there are "obvious" formations, like shield-wall, and there are "less obvious" advanced formations like loose/tight formations, rotation within a troop to keep wounded ones in the back.).

But in the end, it doesn't change the fact, that swordsmen/veterans were neither dominating on a battlefield, but neither were they the same as regular soldiers.

a skilled "european" fighter could easily defeat 4-5 normal soldiers ON SKILL ALONE without pitting "full plate vs leather; battle axe vs clubs".
No. Unless:
1. He was main character in Hollywood film
2. They would be very frightened to fight him( but wouldn't they rather run away)
3. They were utterly stupid and kept the fight 1 on 1 always
[/quote]

I don't know, why people have that misconception (even professors at college), that it isn't possible...and I suppose the rather clumsy depictions in Hollywood Movies aren't helping.

I've been practicing Kung-Fu for almost 15 years, my uncle is a kung-fu master, and a good friend of mine is also leading a dojo.
What's true:
-Against "some experienced" practitioners...1on1 it takes me max 2 seconds to fatally hit them. 3on1 isn't really more difficult for me either.

-Against "more experienced" practitioners, like me...my friend takes max 2 seconds to fatally hit me. 3on1 isn't much of a problem for him, too.

-Against "master class"...my friend lasts max 2 seconds before getting owned.

Although I'm not talking about "defensive" fighting, constantly retreating and survival, I'm also not talking about "all out" attack. I hope you get my point...
When practicing fighting skills...the difference can be like this.

To a skilled fighter, the lesser fighters are ALWAYS full of holes/weaknesses. It's not like boxing: I hit you, you hit me...let's see who hits harder and can take more.
Against a higher class fighter...you won't even land 1 hit, and any holes in your defense are exploited faster than you can blink twice.

If we get to boxing...if an amateur fights a boxer...he doesn't last 10 seconds. Even among amateur/pro boxers, that class of superiority can exist.

Ok, weapons...of course, any 1 lucky hit can end a skilled fighter. But don't forget, soldiers aren't suicidal. They needn't be terrified, but the danger of getting killed within 1 second by a skilled swordsman isn't something to sneeze at.
In fact, 1on1, a weaker fighter can last even longer, because he fights cautiously. On an open battlefield, in a wild melee, where an enemy can pop up every second, nobody fights cautiously. That's why a very skilled fighter becomes even more devastating.

Let's not forget...if every famed fighter in history relied on 1on1 stats...why would EVERY document (as exaggerated as they may be) hail a famed fighter on his battle accomplishments, rather than duel stats or strategies?

Man...this keeps reminding me of those stupid amateur history professors...
 
But fighting with bare hands is not fighting with weapons. It is very hard to defeat more that two enemies with weapons and at least some training. For example, English archers used simple tactic against enemy foot knight(three archers, one knight) in melee. Two archers occupy the knight with light attacks and taunts from relatively safe distance, while third bashes the knight form behind.  If you face three opponents and strike at head of one them, he can block it while there are two that can stab you in face, cut your neck or smash your knee.

Suggestion here: Creating discussion thread here on Forum, where discussion like these could take place, so Suggestion thread isn't overwhelmed by this kind of replies.
 
Leifdin said:
But fighting with bare hands is not fighting with weapons. It is very hard to defeat more that two enemies with weapons and at least some training. For example, English archers used simple tactic against enemy foot knight(three archers, one knight) in melee. Two archers occupy the knight with light attacks and taunts from relatively safe distance, while third bashes the knight form behind.  If you face three opponents and strike at head of one them, he can block it while there are two that can stab you in face, cut your neck or smash your knee.

Of course...but that's because it wasn't really a "class or tier" difference in combat skills. The Foot Knight was simply better equipped for Melee, but not necessarily a much better fighter. The two archers must have been sufficiently skilled, as to "occupy" the knight.

Also, these "English Archers" you mentioned, fit perfectly into my example of veterans: Making efficient use of group tactics.
This strategy doesn't sound like something every bloody recruit could pull off.

AND DOESN'T THIS PROVE, that even light armored archers could fend an armored knight? And nobody tell me, that they were using the same fighting style as the Knight.

Why does nobody like my idea of wpn styles?  T____T
__________________

Which reminds me, since my "Wpn Styles" didn't make it into here from the Suggestion Forum: (with some changes for better understanding)
...................................
WPN STYLES: (in addition to default, these have to be learned extra: either book; quest or skill)

*MELEE
Power Style:
Wpn Req:                  2h Weapons/Polearms only
Good:                        more % damage per point of power strike
Bad:                          slower attack speed

Assassin Style:
Wpn Req:                  1h Daggers/Sickles (those wpns that can't be used to block)
Good:                        extra damage from side/rear per athletics per point of athletics
Bad:                            less % damage per point of power strike

Fencer Style:
Wpn Req:                  1h Sword/Axe/Mace
Good:                        extra speed per point of athletics
Bad:                            no shield

Shield Fighting Style:
Wpn Req:                  1h Sword/Axe/Mace + Shield
Good:                          Use shield bash (Knockback + Damage by Shield Resistance * % per Power Strike)
Bad:                            Less speed per point of athletics

Rule-the-zone Style:
Wpn Req:                    Heavy Polearms (not staffs)
Good:                          Every Strike has % Chance of Knockback per point of Power Strike.
Bad:                            Lower Damage % per point of Power Strike

Little John Style:
Wpn Req:                    Light Polearms (staffs)
Good:                          Faster Attack Speed per point of Athletics
Bad:                            Lower Damage % per Power Strike

*ARCHERY
Again: Generally a lot more reloading time instead of making bows do cutting damage

Artillery Style:
Wpn Req:                          Longbows
Good:                                extra accuracy, extra damage, extra range per point of power draw
Bad:                                  more reloading time

Power Shooter Style:     
Wpn Req:                          Warbows
Good:                                more % damage per point of power draw
Bad:                                  lower accuracy

Sniper Style:                   
Wpn Req:                          Khergit Bows (or Shortbows?)
Good:                                extra damage from side/rear per point of athletics
Bad:                                    less % damage per point of power draw
________________________

I hate repeating myself: NONE of the above wpn styles REPLACES "native" fighting. Nor were they designed to be more powerful than "native" fighting.
Also, NO new animations, or extra scripts needed.

Does EVERYONE think this would break the "floris" feeling? Because I love floris and I don't want to play any other mod (as of now 2012).

P.S.: In spirit of the 1st discussion above, I don't think that any above Wpn Style will suddenly enable you to take on 9 ppl at the same time.
 
zykox said:
-Against "some experienced" practitioners...1on1 it takes me max 2 seconds to fatally hit them. 3on1 isn't really more difficult for me either.

-Against "more experienced" practitioners, like me...my friend takes max 2 seconds to fatally hit me. 3on1 isn't much of a problem for him, too.

-Against "master class"...my friend lasts max 2 seconds before getting owned.

Going off-topic, what kung-fu style do you practise? More to the point, are you guys on Youtube?
 
Of course...but that's because it wasn't really a "class or tier" difference in combat skills. The Foot Knight was simply better equipped for Melee, but not necessarily a much better fighter. The two archers must have been sufficiently skilled, as to "occupy" the knight.
Coming to thinking of that, that knight was probably French, and, well, thinking wasn't exactly their cup of tea. But they would probably do more taunting and less fighting, but there is nice example of cooperation against more powerful foe.
Why does nobody like my idea of wpn styles?  T____T
I like more games of type "you are what you use", so if you want to be madman with wooden phallus as weapon wearing only Viking helmet and underwear, you can be madman with wooden... and so on. But adding them could be good idea, in fact, I don't like the idea of "bad thing", for example, you read a book, do a quest, kill 50 enemies using certain kind of weapon and you will get bonus. The weapon styles would be kind of bonus, you will get your capabilities enhanced for completing certain conditions. I personally would prefer, if you could master them all. Maybe something you can get, when you have nothing better to do.
 
Why does nobody like my idea of wpn styles?  T____T

Against my better judgement, I'm gonna jump back into this discussion.

It's not that your ideas are bad but as i said before it just does not fit the reality of this game IMO. Again your talking about a game that focuses on large scale and siege warfare. The average battle involves numbers in the hundreds. Special swordsmanship simply would not be effective in any of those situations.

If this was skyrim, or SWTOR... or some other game that focused on 1 on 1 situations or small scall battles that involved 20 men maxed but still allowed for solo and direct combat, then your idea would be golden. But in a situation where you're automatically outnumbered anytime your with 10 feet of 1 enemy... definitely bad. It's also utterly unrealistic.

I can just image some guy with this special swordmanship skill running in after cavalry has routed the enemy and it's pure chaos. He hops of his horse and start twirling his sword around ready for combat, ready to test his skill against 1 ... may be 2 worthy opponents. 10 yards away some archer running for his life trying to survive the battle that has clearly gone all wrong knows 2 things... if their wearing red kill them, 1 less person on the field to hurt you or your friends..... If their wearing blue help them, 1 more person on the field to help you live longer. He doesn't give a damn that your special and trained specifically. He doesn't care that your challenging some other guy. It's life or death and right now your on the wrong side of that equation. He shoots and misses. But his buddies all with the same fight or flight mentality, beaten into them from training act in accord. The guy thought he'd have some honorable duel on the battle field to test his skills... instead the last 20 guys on the battle field were fighting for their lives and could care less about any of that ****. That's the reality this game if formed on.

In practical points... you're suggesting the modders dedicate time and energy towards putting together something that would work in at best 5 percent of the game. the only places i can think of your weapon style idea being usefull is in tournaments and duels.... oh and the random bandit traps in towns.

It's not that it's a bad idea, just not a right fit for the situation. Like wearing a tuxedo to a job interview... sure it's formal attire but not professional attire. You'll just come off scaring people and looking wierd.
 
if their wearing red kill them, 1 less person on the field to hurt you or your friends..... If their wearing blue help them
More accurately, if he has glowing shield with his master's sign, help him, if he hasn't, kill him. BTW just imagine that we wouldn't have them.
 
Going off-topic, what kung-fu style do you practise? More to the point, are you guys on Youtube?
_____________

Sorry, all different styles...my friend WingChun, his master also WingChun...my uncle uses white crane/shaolin fist/taichi (he would be a tier 9 troop...); I have some basics from my uncle and make taekwondo.
No Youtube from us...BUT you can find my uncle's kung-fu school on: ymaa.com (he's the grand grand master Dr. Yang)


Bankoleva said:
Why does nobody like my idea of wpn styles?  T____T

Against my better judgement, I'm gonna jump back into this discussion.

It's not that your ideas are bad but as i said before it just does not fit the reality of this game IMO. Again your talking about a game that focuses on large scale and siege warfare. The average battle involves numbers in the hundreds. Special swordsmanship simply would not be effective in any of those situations.

If this was skyrim, or SWTOR... or some other game that focused on 1 on 1 situations or small scall battles that involved 20 men maxed but still allowed for solo and direct combat, then your idea would be golden. But in a situation where you're automatically outnumbered anytime your with 10 feet of 1 enemy... definitely bad. It's also utterly unrealistic.

I can just image some guy with this special swordmanship skill running in after cavalry has routed the enemy and it's pure chaos. He hops of his horse and start twirling his sword around ready for combat, ready to test his skill against 1 ... may be 2 worthy opponents. 10 yards away some archer running for his life trying to survive the battle that has clearly gone all wrong knows 2 things... if their wearing red kill them, 1 less person on the field to hurt you or your friends..... If their wearing blue help them, 1 more person on the field to help you live longer. He doesn't give a damn that your special and trained specifically. He doesn't care that your challenging some other guy. It's life or death and right now your on the wrong side of that equation. He shoots and misses. But his buddies all with the same fight or flight mentality, beaten into them from training act in accord. The guy thought he'd have some honorable duel on the battle field to test his skills... instead the last 20 guys on the battle field were fighting for their lives and could care less about any of that ****. That's the reality this game if formed on.

In practical points... you're suggesting the modders dedicate time and energy towards putting together something that would work in at best 5 percent of the game. the only places i can think of your weapon style idea being usefull is in tournaments and duels.... oh and the random bandit traps in towns.

It's not that it's a bad idea, just not a right fit for the situation. Like wearing a tuxedo to a job interview... sure it's formal attire but not professional attire. You'll just come off scaring people and looking wierd.

"I'm gonna jump back into this discussion. "

Well, Bankoleva, thanks for joining ^^

"Against my better judgement"

and I'm sorry if I have offended you in any way earlier...

.....................................................

Realism:
In a battlefield...nearby soldiers WOULD very quickly notice, if one expert warrior kills one after another (not taking longer than 1-2 secs per kill).

But you (and I) forgot, that shields can keep someone alive for very long. But similarly, on a chaotic field, people show their backs, people drop their shields, etc...

HISTORICALLY, German Barbarians generally were superior 1on1 fighters and they were rightly feared. Romans beat them not only because of their numbers...they beat them because of war tactics, special formations that take the head-on ferocity of the Barbarians into account.

An expert warrior isn't necessarily honorable, nor does he rely on 1on1 challenges (else he wouldn't participate in a war).
They're just simply that...superior fighters, that could make "some" difference and stay alive.
.....................................................

I'm sorry, because I think that we're even getting off topic from THIS thread as well...

The Wpn Styles are for a different combat approach, NOT more powerful than "native" fighting style WHICH WOULD STILL STAY.

The "swordsman" discussion was more of a topic, whether high class warriors existed, and how powerful they actually could have been.

The Wpn Styles weren't meant to provide THAT kind of play
_____________________________________________________________

LET'S BEGIN ANEW:

Let's start with what led to my idea in the 1st place:

-I HATE using shields, even if I think my companions and troops do well.
-I like running around fast, assist my troops by flanking an enemy troops. And it bothers me, that although I have no shield, no full plate...I'm still the same speed as a e.g. Rhodok Sergeant....and I can't even retreat or run away to my own troops fast enough, even though I have good athletics.

P.S. - Cavalry ALWAYS has an advantage over infantry (on good terrain)...nothing changes that, I never wanted that to change.

LAST WORD
Wpn Styles would give some more fighting approaches, WITHOUT being superior to the "native" fighting style (which would have stayed).
But let's close the case now.
If anyone ever gets interested in implementing "Fighting Styles" (better name)(I would rework/rebalance them), because everything else has been done...you know where to look.
....................
ACTUAL SUGGESTION (reworded and recompiled in my mind) (this could be moved to the suggestion forum)

-Heavy Armor & Shields should have BIGGER speed penalties (were there any in the 1st place?)
-Heavy Armor & Shields should have ACCURACY penalties (for ranged weapons)

You can code this into the items OR you can calculate a personal encumbrance (total weight on character vs character strength).

Yes, that's it...I shut up now.
 
-I HATE using shields, even if I think my companions and troops do well.
-I like running around fast, assist my troops by flanking an enemy troops.
I use similar tactics, when I need to change tide of battle badly. I just take Dane axe and beat them from behind. I have shield on my back, which protects me against enemy archers firing from behind.
And it bothers me, that although I have no shield, no full plate...I'm still the same speed as a e.g. Rhodok Sergeant....and I can't even retreat or run away to my own troops fast enough, even though I have good athletics.
Yes, this is true. Although plate armor isn't much of burden while fighting, it isn't thing I would take to marathon. At least it could make bigger penalty to Athletics skill.
-Heavy Armor & Shields should have BIGGER speed penalties (were there any in the 1st place?)
-Heavy Armor & Shields should have ACCURACY penalties (for ranged weapons)
1. Heavy armor no, but that with shield is good idea- you can swing faster with buckler in your left hand than with pavise. Shield skill could possibly reduce this.
2.Very same. I don't think that armor would create some imbalance, but I'm almost sure that shield would(and again, bigger shield would make bigger mess)
 
I'm not offended and i apologize if that how it came out. I just did feel alot of personal interest in this topic and really was chimming to get some better udestandingof what the focus of the topic was about. As you both seemed to realize the topic was going all over the place and just was looking for some clarification on if you had a clearer idea for the actual game enviroment.


zykox said:
ACTUAL SUGGESTION (reworded and recompiled in my mind) (this could be moved to the suggestion forum)

-Heavy Armor & Shields should have BIGGER speed penalties (were there any in the 1st place?)
-Heavy Armor & Shields should have ACCURACY penalties (for ranged weapons)

You can code this into the items OR you can calculate a personal encumbrance (total weight on character vs character strength).

Yes, that's it...I shut up now.

THIS ^^^^^^^

is what you should have said in the first place. That makes sense.... to me at least. We're not all super smart modders like caba,... some of us need it dumbed down you know. That whole weapons special was just ......

There is an encumberance system in game that is optional...(in Mod options). I commented earlier that it definitely needs to be expanded upon. I personally think to include powerdraw, power strike and power throw at least. Maybe shield but that one is questionable. Also i have no idea if it's impactful on the AI at all. I know it does affect the player and companions.

 
Leifdin said:
-I HATE using shields, even if I think my companions and troops do well.
-I like running around fast, assist my troops by flanking an enemy troops.
I use similar tactics, when I need to change tide of battle badly. I just take Dane axe and beat them from behind. I have shield on my back, which protects me against enemy archers firing from behind.
And it bothers me, that although I have no shield, no full plate...I'm still the same speed as a e.g. Rhodok Sergeant....and I can't even retreat or run away to my own troops fast enough, even though I have good athletics.
Yes, this is true. Although plate armor isn't much of burden while fighting, it isn't thing I would take to marathon. At least it could make bigger penalty to Athletics skill.
-Heavy Armor & Shields should have BIGGER speed penalties (were there any in the 1st place?)
-Heavy Armor & Shields should have ACCURACY penalties (for ranged weapons)
1. Heavy armor no, but that with shield is good idea- you can swing faster with buckler in your left hand than with pavise. Shield skill could possibly reduce this.
2.Very same. I don't think that armor would create some imbalance, but I'm almost sure that shield would(and again, bigger shield would make bigger mess)

After reading this i think it should affect proficiency, since that the determining factor for speed in terms of weapons. wearing heavy armor with a two hander would slow you down. You'd still hit with the force of a truck but your speed and effectiveness with the weapon would be less without the armor.
 
Back
Top Bottom