Heavy weapon swings wound multiple opponents.
- Thread starter Felklaw
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Don Quijote
Regular
brognar said:
No, I mean you stand to one side. Steel pipe hits them both at the same time.
This suggestion has always been complete and utter nonsense. It should stay in the lawnmowing simulators where it goddamn belongs, some of us prefer to have semi-realistic combat.
It did bring my attention to one area in which M&B is lacking though, and that's the AI opposition's self-preservation instincts. It's generally fairly intimidating (regardless of training) to enter into melee distance against someone who's repeatedly swinging a large weapon in great big arcs, but in M&B the AI opponents like to throw themselves on the player's weapon. Being able to clear and maintain some space in a melee by doing something similar would be a fairly useful feature that adds a great deal to verisimilitude.
**** off. Deadliest Warrior is a terrible source, and that 'experiment' was utter horse****. For one, human necks tend not to be composed purely of muscle. Additionally, if you swing a sword like that, your mates will kill you before your enemies will. All in all, that demonstration was to experimental archaeology what Cheese Whiz is to proper cheese.
I'm sorry, but for that to be a meaningful hit you need to be able to generate about as much power as a small nuclear plant. Also, good luck trying to achieve that in any scenario that doesn't involve compliant opponents.
It did bring my attention to one area in which M&B is lacking though, and that's the AI opposition's self-preservation instincts. It's generally fairly intimidating (regardless of training) to enter into melee distance against someone who's repeatedly swinging a large weapon in great big arcs, but in M&B the AI opponents like to throw themselves on the player's weapon. Being able to clear and maintain some space in a melee by doing something similar would be a fairly useful feature that adds a great deal to verisimilitude.
Don Quijote said:
**** off. Deadliest Warrior is a terrible source, and that 'experiment' was utter horse****. For one, human necks tend not to be composed purely of muscle. Additionally, if you swing a sword like that, your mates will kill you before your enemies will. All in all, that demonstration was to experimental archaeology what Cheese Whiz is to proper cheese.
Don Quijote said:
I'm sorry, but for that to be a meaningful hit you need to be able to generate about as much power as a small nuclear plant. Also, good luck trying to achieve that in any scenario that doesn't involve compliant opponents.
FrisianDude
Archduke
You can hit both guys if you swing a steel pipe, sure. The first one would be hit with the pipe and the second one would be hit with the first one. 
Don Quijote
Regular
Who said anything about deadliest warrior? I took pig spines, tied meat around them, put a weight on it and cut through 4 at a swing.
Pony up proof or gtfo. Did you also happen to kill a Doberman with a roundhouse kick? 
Dryvus said:
Besides, how far apart were the pig spines?
People don't stand all that close to one another.
People don't stand all that close to one another.
Don Quijote said:
No.
I wish we had duel wielding abilities that could cut through FOUR people at once!
Now it is.
I wish we had duel wielding abilities that could cut through FOUR people at once!
Now it is.
TheGoldElite
Regular
Haha, if you ask me, On foot, no weapon should consistently hit many targets, it simply isnt possible to cut clean through a person and into another, bones will absorb impact, nevermind any armour. On Horseback however, I could imagine holding out a great bardiche (Provided I was very strong, and even then only for short periods of time.) and hitting many men passing. Granted, a full on contact to the body would probably knock it out of my hand, but a glancing blow to the head would certainly kill someone, whilst leaving the weapon in a position to make the same contact almost immediately. I suppose the same could be said of right to left swings to the face on foot, but then again it would still only be in certain rare cases. Lets face it, if you're 'brushing' your weapon for glancing blows on multiple targets, you're probably doing it wrong...
Wraith_Magus
Regular
While this is only worth as much as shouting out another "aye" into the crowd...
Currently in this game, I find that I am all too often jumped by 5 brigands at a time at night (not to mention those awful "train three peasants at once while having no armor and a crap weapon you aren't trained in" things or the prison breaks), where they all stand not merely shoulder-to-shoulder, but clipping inside one another's torsos, swinging their axes through their allies to hit me 3 attacks at a time, and only desperate serpentining will get them to actually approach me at as little as two people at a time.
If an enemy can do an overhead chop through their ally to hit me, then, yes, give me the unrealism of being able to skewer two enemies at once with one thrusting attack. That's only fair for all this 5-on-1 nonsense I have to keep putting up with.
If we want to talk about realism, either let my character not be such a dope that she walks down a dark alley alone every night in spite of getting jumped in every single town or village she has ever visited when she has able-bodied soldiers she can call on to watch her back (just one or two of the heroes would be enough) so that she doesn't have to desperately stave off five assailants at once. (Where are the cries of unrealism at mercenary captains/nobles/kings walking around without a bodyguard?) At the very least, make those assailants actually spread out as much as people are claiming that "real soldiers" would do, because they sure aren't doing it now!
If I wasn't constantly pressed into a situation where 5 men fit into a space 10 feet across, and could all hack at me when I somehow don't have enough room to swing my hammer, and if an errant fly bumping into my character's face didn't cancel out my attacks while every enemy can land continuous damage to keep me in stun lock, I wouldn't NEED to swing through multiple enemies at once, but we are in that situation, so I need at least something in this game to be on my side in those situations.
Currently in this game, I find that I am all too often jumped by 5 brigands at a time at night (not to mention those awful "train three peasants at once while having no armor and a crap weapon you aren't trained in" things or the prison breaks), where they all stand not merely shoulder-to-shoulder, but clipping inside one another's torsos, swinging their axes through their allies to hit me 3 attacks at a time, and only desperate serpentining will get them to actually approach me at as little as two people at a time.
If an enemy can do an overhead chop through their ally to hit me, then, yes, give me the unrealism of being able to skewer two enemies at once with one thrusting attack. That's only fair for all this 5-on-1 nonsense I have to keep putting up with.
If we want to talk about realism, either let my character not be such a dope that she walks down a dark alley alone every night in spite of getting jumped in every single town or village she has ever visited when she has able-bodied soldiers she can call on to watch her back (just one or two of the heroes would be enough) so that she doesn't have to desperately stave off five assailants at once. (Where are the cries of unrealism at mercenary captains/nobles/kings walking around without a bodyguard?) At the very least, make those assailants actually spread out as much as people are claiming that "real soldiers" would do, because they sure aren't doing it now!
If I wasn't constantly pressed into a situation where 5 men fit into a space 10 feet across, and could all hack at me when I somehow don't have enough room to swing my hammer, and if an errant fly bumping into my character's face didn't cancel out my attacks while every enemy can land continuous damage to keep me in stun lock, I wouldn't NEED to swing through multiple enemies at once, but we are in that situation, so I need at least something in this game to be on my side in those situations.
So what you're saying is that the game should allow unrealistic elements into the game, not because of any gameplay issue, but because you think it's too hard and on top of that you don't want to face being jumped at night when you choose an option knowing full well there's a chance of it?
Isn't that just saying there should be an unrealistic element added into the game because it would make an easily avoidable hard situation easier?
Isn't that just saying there should be an unrealistic element added into the game because it would make an easily avoidable hard situation easier?
Wraith_Magus
Regular
Swadius said:
No, I mean that the game has enough unrealistic elements in it that create nothing but frustration that the current system is no less unrealistic.
There is a justifiable reason to introduce unrealistic elements into the game to handle unrealistic problems. I certainly don't notice any real-life button that lets me instantly teleport out of a town or go directly to the shop I want to visit, that's not realistic, but it sure makes the game much less tedious to play.
Ultimately, this is the most realistic thing to add to the game:
FrisianDude said:You can hit both guys if you swing a steel pipe, sure. The first one would be hit with the pipe and the second one would be hit with the first one.
Why is it that, when I knock out one of the four peasants in those training peasant sessions, the instant they are "unconscious", their allies can walk through and attack through the unconscious peasant's body, and drop an overhead chop while my character is still recoiling from the swing?
Wouldn't, realistically, the dead/unconscious guy slump over onto the arms of the guy trying to walk through him and slow him down?
Even if it doesn't do damage, throwing in at least a stun from the carry through would be both realistic and beneficial in these already massively unrealistic situations.
Besides, how, exactly, is it easily avoidable when the game ignores what kind of character you are playing, where you are, or gives you access to any of the very rational methods of preventing such a situation? I simply walk into a village or town at "early morning" (apparently, in Calradia, farmers don't get up with the sun... REALISM!) and suddenly, there's six guys with suicidal attack orders. Am I honestly supposed to just sit down every night and hold the space bar until morning comes unless I am playing the Rambo-style character? Why, exactly, is that supposed that supposed to make this an enjoyable game, again?
What I'm saying is that hard situation itself is entirely unrealistic. It's one thing if a battle really turns against you, and you're outnumbered horribly. It's entirely different to have my character blithely refuse to take along backup even after becoming king while walking around town. Why, for that matter, do all enemies have lemming AI that causes them tirelessly charge headlong at my character while bunching so close together that they clip through each other? How is that realism in any way?
So yes, making a grand swing with a staff at the amalgamous manpile of four nearly-naked peasants should clunk their heads together like something out of The Three Stooges, even if it only really inflicts damage on the first one. It shouldn't mean that "I hit one, three other guys immediately hit me, because I have no way of stunblocking their attacks, and then I die in one volley because I have no armor, so three hits is death". It makes those fights INCREDIBLY frustrating re-enactments of Benny Hill where my only option is to turn around and run past as many obstacles in the village as I can until I get someone caught in the geometry, and manage to fight a much more fair mere three-on-one battle. But when I have to do that, the game isn't even being remotely enjoyable or realistic. (I'd say this also makes for a poor training demonstration to run away from the enemy, but honestly, I think I'd rather train the peasants to run away from the enemy, and stop getting in the way of my horse so much...)
I would like it if the peasants behaved more realistically, of course, I would really like it if the bodies of their allies actually stopped them from doing full swings of their axes, and combat actually took more spreading out on the part of the enemies, but the notion that maybe I could use that unconscious guy as at least a stumbling block for the next guy trying to put an axe through my skull, or my request to just bring some backup into town with me are not "unrealistic elements" at the least, either.
Wraith_Magus said:
Just because a game contains unrealistic elements does not sanction the addition of other also unrealistic things that don't fit into the game in any comprehensive way. If having some unrealistic elements in a game is really an argument to put more of it in, then you've removed the standard to which people understand this game. For example, how would your argument be against someone who thinks troops should be entering the fray on flying chairs? It's certainly not realistic, and above that we would want to say that such a concept does not make any sense. And when we say it doesn't make any sense for troops to be fighting atop flying chairs, we are referrencing our understanding of the world, or at least, our understanding of the game world.
Moreover, the issue of "no real-buttons that does the things in the game" is a very shallow assessment. The standard of realism isn't in the way you interact with the game world, but the relations of the elements in the game. It's quite irrelevant whether a real life submarine captain scrolled through his unterseaboot but whether these screens, interfaces, and the information they carry are accurate abstractions and comprehensive to the rest of the data in the game.
To throttle it down a bit, it's like someone declaring that ARMA 2 isn't very realistic because a person would have to use a mouse and keyboard. No ****. But this isn't what most of us are referring to when we say a game is realistic. The reference is the stuff inside of the game, and inside of that world.
The situation you describe is entirely avoidable. People do get ambushed at night.
Also, When you talk about realism about not letting your character walking out at night like a dope you're not really talking about realism, it's functionality. Does a character always gets ambushed whenever it walks into a city? No. It's not the case that your character gets ambushed all the time, this probability of getting ambushed is likely an abstraction of all the factors as to whether your character walks into an ambush or not. You want control over the chances of how you're ambushed, which isn't a bad thing, but this doesn't really have anything to do with criticisms about reality.
