Joined hitboxes for horse and rider again?

[Volkier]

Anyways, in version 0.703 the hit-box is joined up again. I thought this was kind of discussed and people seemed to agree that whereas it is possible to hit the horse and rider in 1 hit, it would be very rare, and difficult to achieve.

Personally I find that it over-simplifies the game, and just makes it more dull. I mean a very rare hit should be ok, but I hit both horse and rider 9 out of 10 hits, and usually kill them both in ONE hit if I do a couched lance attack.. Doesn't have the same feel now ::*(

Then again, everybody is bound to have different views, I am just curious as to what made this change happen? ::\

 

[svart]

Gee, the poll seems to go to your favor Volkier

 

[Narcissus]

The poll is also biased in its wording .....

Narcissus

 

[Volkier]

Not sure which part is biased... not intended to be : sorry if you feel it is :
I know its too late to change it, but option 2 (poll 2) is supposed to be horse and rider only, but the ability to hit them both almost every hit. (thats what I meant by multiple targets, as is currently in game. (thats why I have horse+rider in brackets)). 2 Describes the game best as it is in version 0.703 atm, 1 is just out of curiocity, since I remember some people arguing that they want to be able to do that in previous posts..
Its not a petition or anything anyways, just curious how everyone feels :

 

[Narcissus]

It isn't a big deal, really. If it were worded a little differently, the average vote might be different. The way it is worded is biased towards not hitting two-hitboxes at all or very little.

Maybe something like the following would have been better:

1. Always able to hit two hit-boxes (horse and rider)

2. Very good (75%) chance of hitting two hit-boxes (horse and rider)

3. Fair (50%) chance of hitting two hit-boxes (horse and rider)

4. Small (25%) chance of hitting two hit-boxes (horse and rider)

5. No chance of hitting two hit-boxes (horse and rider)

Like I said ... not a big deal at all.

Narcissus

 

[Volkier]

: was actually trying to more or less get the idea of what people 'think' rather than 'how often' they would want to be able to hit both. Like you said, no big deal though lol nothing we can do about it...
If the developers feel that one hit should take down horse and rider at the same time, its their choice and their game. Although I somewhat lost the mood to play after last patch : usually kept up until 5am, and only went to bed cuz' i looked at the time... Now it seems a bit more boring, but everybody has different perspective, so somebody else might find it more fun... :

Its mostly based on how much damage to how many units people wish to deal. I am also looking more at the angle at which you hit, not exactly the percentage, since it would not make sense that with a 75% chance of hitting both, you kill the rider while hitting the horse on the leg.. Something like that anyways :

And its not my fault.. really... honest... its all Timmy's fault! Sacrifice him instead! aaaaaargh

 

[BlackMeTaL]

I still play 701 and if it's true that 703 has them joined up, then I'm not even upgrading. Seems silly to be able to hit both all the time. So I voted for option 3, rare.

 

[DaLagga]

I've said it before, but i'll say it again. We've nerfed foot combat enough. It is just lame to have to look up to the sky to slice high enough to hit the rider. If you're mounted, hit and kill the horse, the guy falls off at full hp, but it doesn't really matter since now he has no chance in hell against you and is just as good as dead(footmen have no chance at all vs a mounted pc). However, on foot if you dismount him, he hops right up at full hp and is ready for battle, with the other 3 cavalry now nearly right on top of you. And thats the best case scenario. Nothing is more frustrating than slashing the guys' horse right across the middle with your massive 2hander (which realistically IS most likely to kill the horse or at the very least cause the rider to lose control), and having him slice your head off just as though you didn't swing at all. The attack already does half damage, and usually what will happen is you slice the horse for 40 damage, and the attack hits the rider and stops dealing around 10 damage to him. Looks beautiful, and feels balanced. Volkier, have you created an unmounted character and used him throughout several battles? It just makes no sense at all to me that some think its fine for 1 cavalry to be able to dominate 50 infantry, but if 1 infantry can dominate 5 cavalry it's unbalanced and doesn't feel right...

 

[NikkTheTrick]

First of all, 1 cavalry cannot dominate 50 infantry unless that cavalry is player.

A player can dominate anything if he has enough speed to avoid getting surrounded. Giving a footman the same speed as a horseman has would be ridiculous.

In 0.701, Upgrade Borcha as well as you can, give him the best possible equipment and let him, alone, ride against a thick pack of vaegir footmen, who are a next step after peasants, on the max. battle size. First of all, his horse will be stopped by a spear thrust from one of the footmen and will be reared. He will not be able to swing since he keeps recieving blows on his black armor and his spirited charger would barely move since it is thrusted with spears again and again. Eventualy, the horse dies and so does Borcha... Not too much domination, even though his equipment was worth more than that of 50 footmen combined!

IMHO, the unrealistic hitbox is a wrong way to solve the footman problem.

The following can be implemented:

1. Horse is reared by any hit that is more than 40 (?) % of its hp.
2. Pikes can be grounded.
3. Falling from horse will take more time to stand up (depends on armor) and would give some damage (depending on speed of the horse when it was killed).
4. When a horse barely touches a footman, he should not have any knockback.
5. Introduce halberds! Stab rears the horse and chops kill the horse. THe rider falls on the ground and is finished while he is lying there.

With those changes, a footman will have a good chance against a horseman 1 on 1.

Once again, if you do a foot solo, you SHOULD be gangbanged by cavalry. There IS a reason why even the best warriors did not travel on foot alone in dangerous places. Please do not give conan or some other fantasy crap as a counter-example. Only real examples from history.

When you strike a horseman, you MUST strike upwards, if you have a short weapon, you made a mistake while equiping yourself, so stop moaning and die like a man.
Against cavalry, use spears. They rear the horses, preventing the charge. After that, swich to a 2-hander or a poleaxe and kill the rider - easier to hit while his horse is very slow after being reared.

Once again, there are better ways to balance the footmen than that unrealistic hitbox!

 

[DaLagga]

Well, first off half your arguement is flawed because i was talking about the pc regarding cavalry dominating.

There IS a reason why even the best warriors did not travel on foot alone in dangerous places. Please do not give conan or some other fantasy crap as a counter-example. Only real examples from history.

Counter example?...you have to give an example for me to counter... Sorry, but there is no warrior in history that soloed 50 footmen. And i'm not saying that an unmounted character should be able to dominate a large group of knights. But 5 should certainly be possible. You're the one making up fantasy crap by thinking cavalry should be even more powerful. Note: Cavalry from lord of the rings was NOT realistic.

When you strike a horseman, you MUST strike upwards, if you have a short weapon, you made a mistake while equiping yourself, so stop moaning and die like a man.

Yes, but i shouldn't be having to look up at the freaking sky every time i want to attack a mounted unit. I like some of your other suggestions, but believe they should be used along with combinded hitboxes. Btw, i don't think it should necessarily deal 40-60% of the damage to the rider, just so long as there is a knockback effect for hitting the horse hard.

 

[Ingolifs]

Out of interest, what was wrong with the cavalry of Lord of the Rings?

 

[Khalid ibn Walid]

*Not relevant*

 

[DaLagga]

Out of interest, what was wrong with the cavalry of Lord of the Rings?

Did you see the scene at helms deep? Where like, 6 cavalry rode through a few hundered heavily armored orcs? And how when they charged all those pikes, they tore through the defensive wall like paper. Good thing that tactic worked better in Braveheart, or poor wallace would have been screwed.

 

[FLank Sinatra]

i'm not saying that an unmounted character should be able to dominate a large group of knights. But 5 should certainly be possible. You're the one making up fantasy crap by thinking cavalry should be even more powerful. Note: Cavalry from lord of the rings was NOT realistic.
.

I agree, the way it was for a short while after the patch, it was basicly immpossible to kill cavalry period. You would slice them, and they would still hit you with full damage. How is that realistic? Are you all forgetting that horses are living creatures, they aren't machines that feel no pain.

If a horse got slashed with a sword, he would stop or stumble, or at least throw the balance of the rider off.

Btw, i don't think it should necessarily deal 40-60% of the damage to the rider, just so long as there is a knockback effect for hitting the horse hard.

I agree, even if it just knocked back the horse, it would be ok. I would prefer damage delt to both, but as long as there's a kick back for realism sake.


I think these people who are saying it's dumb have never owned/rode a horse before.

 

[NikkTheTrick]

Well, first off half your arguement is flawed because i was talking about the pc regarding cavalry dominating.

I was talking about cavalry IRL and, since the game tends to be realistic, used what happened IRL in my argument.
In medieval warfare, unless infantry was in a tight formation, it would be annihilated by a cavalry charge. The "cavalry dominating" in the game just follows that fact.

Counter example?...you have to give an example for me to counter...

That was quite obvious: noblemen traveling between cities exclusively on horseback when there was any risk of bandits in the area, in the warzone knights traveling around the area only on horsebck even when the time was not an issue and they planned to fight unmounted once in battle. Patrols almost exclusively consisting of mounted soldiers - unmounted commoners could be used more cheaper and their slow movement could be compensated by a larger number used, but still horsemen were used if there were any.

Being on foot alone where you can be caught by the enemy was a suicide. Even the very best fighter, alone on foot, could easily be killed by a lot of peasants with rocks!

Sorry, but there is no warrior in history that soloed 50 footmen. And i'm not saying that an unmounted character should be able to dominate a large group of knights. But 5 should certainly be possible.

Maybe then you will show me an example when a footman won against 5 knights determined to kill him? Alone against more than one cavalryman meant death in medieval warfare. The trick was not becoming alone or having a horse.

The only cases when a heavy cavalry charges were repelled in medieval warfare were when cavalry met a tightly packed and appropreatly armed infantry formations.

As for cavalry dominating, in Medieval times (before british started raping french knighte with longbowmen and formations of pikemen), a strength of an army was measured in the number of knights. All infantry was considered as a support for them, used to reduce effectiveness of enemy cavalry. Only when conditions were unfavorable for cavalry, infantry was given value.
In shotr, if you are in a 11-century battle on a flatland in dry weather and you are a footman, you are just a cannon fodder used to serve those knights.

You're the one making up fantasy crap by thinking cavalry should be even more powerful. Note: Cavalry from lord of the rings was NOT realistic.

You are the first one whom I heard calling medieval warfare and physics (when it comes to killing both rider and a horse) "fantasy crap".

In LOTR Rohan cavalry was indeed unrealistic - the charge against pikemen should have failed.

However, we are not talking about formations of pikemen but about some isolated footman being charged by 5 knights and crying "unfair!"

Yes, but i shouldn't be having to look up at the freaking sky every time i want to attack a mounted unit.

You HAVE to look up! Do you know why? Because THE RIDER TO WHOM YOU ARE GOING TO DEAL DAMAGE IS THERE! Are you going to hit him without looking?! Very fer people knew how to fight with their eyes closed. If you are going to hit something that is higher than you, you have to look up.

"up" is relative. If you are using a spear, you should look up a little since the rider is still at some distance. If the horse is tuoching you, you have to look at the rided if you want to hit the rider or to know how he will strike and block the strike.

I like some of your other suggestions, but believe they should be used along with combinded hitboxes. Btw, i don't think it should necessarily deal 40-60% of the damage to the rider, just so long as there is a knockback effect for hitting the horse hard.

But why would the already going sword swing stop?! Why? Yes, the horse is in pain and stops gallup, but it is the rider swinging! It will take more time for the horse to fall dead or to jump up in pain than the fraction of second needed for a rider to finish the strike. If you want to stop the blade from hitting you, fight the blade, not the horse! Strike the rider, do not use short weapons!

 

[Khalid ibn Walid]

Being on foot alone where you can be caught by the enemy was a suicide. Even the very best fighter, alone on foot, could easily be killed by a lot of peasants with rocks!

So could a knight on a horse:

I love that print!

 

[NikkTheTrick]

So could a knight on a horse:

Nope!
The whole point is that he would be able to ride away after the first rock hits him - you need many rocks to knock out a knight in the armor, while a footman will be still there and peasants would be able to slowly beat him to death.

Or, he would ride around, shield himself and hack them with a sword 1 by 1.

Horse gives speed. Speed allows to avoid utterly hopeless fights.

 

[Khalid ibn Walid]

Nope!
The whole point is that he would be able to ride away after the first rock hits him - you need many rocks to knock out a knight in the armor, while a footman will be still there and peasants would be able to slowly beat him to death.

Or, he would ride around, shield himself and hack them with a sword 1 by 1.

Horse gives speed. Speed allows to avoid utterly hopeless fights.

No offense, but this whole argument is beginning to get ludicrous.

Where did you get so much expertise about what a knight can and cannot withstand?

 

[Volkier]

Yes its true, horses did and do give a VERY big advantage over unmounted troops. That is WHY they were used in the first place. Regarding the matter of 'if I tried creating a footman character' , yes I did, and I DO NOT expect to have a 100% chance of winning against a mounted troop. However, I had no problem in a 1v1 situation against mounted opponents, and actually would argue that it is too easy for unmounted people at the moment. If people want to be able to solo 5 cavalry on foot, (which in my oppinion is BS should they have tried it in reality) its their oppinion. Whats the point of having a horse when ONE footman can beat FIVE of you? Where is the common sense? come on lol

I very much doubt even a player could kill 50 unmounted enemies, since those unmounted enemies would probably kill / shoot down his horse long before he got through half of them. And I don't understand whats wrong with people missing the player on top of the horse. All you have to do is get realistically close, and realistically point your direction of attack UPWARDS.

I completely agree that horses should react better to pain, in terms of rearing, being able to get knocked down, or running out of control for a few seconds. However, I also agree with the wise post which said that joining up the hitboxes is not the way to solve anything. I personally dislike people who find the game too difficult, find that they are being forced to use strategy and their mind, and therefore try to simplify the game to suit themselves. I can't help that dislike, Im sorry.

Original post however, was meant to be a poll to see how many people think what. Apparently now its a resurrected heated argument regarding the thought dead matter. Apologies to the rest of the community on behalf of all those who decided to use my post for personal attacks.

By the way, V0.702 has separate splitboxes as well, Nikk, so you can upgrade to that lol. I'm probably gonna stick with 0.702 myself and drown in the bugs haha

 

[NikkTheTrick]

Where did you get so much expertise about what a knight can and cannot withstand?

From common sence.

If a knight in armor was knocked down by 1 stone thrown at him, then no one would use armor

If a knight on foot is surrounded, he can be knocked down by throwing a lot of stuff at him.