More Shield Functions

[bt1283]

This may have been brought up already, so I'm sorry if I'm bringing up something that's already been visited . This could be hard, but I think it would be cool if you could thrust your shield at an opponent and knock him back from you (would be especially good when your fighting multiple opponents on foot). And maybe it could even knock people on the ground if they didn't have much strength or something like that. Like I said, this could have already been dealt with and dissaproved of, but I think it could be cool if done right.

 

[etalian]

In real-life hitting the other guy with the boss of your shield was a valid tactic. It might make the fights more interesting along with a riposte/counter system. Right now the combat system could use more depth in my opinion (ripostes, shield bashing, counters, more attack combos).

 

[okiN]

This has been suggested several times, but I don't remember coming to any conclusion. Might as well bring it up again.

I think this would be good, it could be like if you suggeed, you either knock your enemy back slightly and lower his defenses for a fraction of a second or, if you're very strong and lucky and he's very weak, knock him to the ground. If you fail, however, you yourself are left defenseless/fall over. This shouldn't be made too easy, though, lest it be over-abused.

 

[Ingolifs]

Shield bash could easily utilise the 'use' key for bashing.

How would it fit into combat though? I'd imagine a shield bash to be a quick attack that does between zero and 1 damage. The effect would just interrupt the attack of the opponent.
The problem is, how do you counter a shield bash? If the attack is quick, you could be stunlocked as the opponent hits you 50 times and knocks you out. What would block a shield bash? could you block it with your shielf or weapon, or would you have to bash yourself to counter it?

 

[bt1283]

Yeah the 'use' key would be good. I agree in assuming that it wouldn't do much damage, but I think it would be useful, especially if you were running backwards in retreat to give your troops time to help (say if you hit '2' to make them come to you). But if you were strong (and they were weak i guess) you could knock them down, and this would be even more useful in fighting many opponents. I'll be honest thought, usefulness isn't my key concern (because I can run backwards and forwards and attack them as they finish out-of-reach attacks all day). Even though it would be useful, it would also just be a cool, fun, and realistic feature if nothing else. In response to your question about "blocking" a shield bash, i guess a strong person or someone who also had a shield could block it (at least the getting knocked to the ground part). You know how it is when a horseman makes contact with you but doesn't knock you over, it just interrupts what you're doing. I guess that could be the effect on a strong opponent. I don't know.. it may not be a good idea in most people's eyes, but I still think it'd be cool.

 

[Crispy Pigeon]

It would be useful for taking out archers that can happily do their magical arrow headshot at point blank range on you, just waiting until you attack before they fire (and stop the player doing similar).

 

[The Pope]

I'd say make the shield bash stun people very briefly, but be easily interrupted by regular weapon attacks. You'd use it to stop long strings of parries and the dreaded magic headshot. However, if you tried to fight with your shield as a primary weapon you wouldn't get far.

 

[Talroth]

Yes, taking a shield boss to the nose hurts! Its not overly hard to knock a guy down if you're large enough and can get a bit of lift behind your shield, but it does come with risks. While you're bashing someone with your shield, they have a chance of swinging around it.

Smaller shields are easier to do it with, a kite shield wouldn't be fun to try to keep bashing someone with, but a buckler would be great for it.

 

[JohnathanStrange]

Yeah, it has been brought up many times! No one is searching apparently.

I kid. But seriously, giving shield carriers a shield-bash attack would be cool and I second the idea too if

If and only if shield protection from the front were not 100% as it is now. A shield-carrier would have a big advantage against archers and thrown weapon users if he could safely approach them completely protected by the smallest of round shields and then knock them down. There should be some small chance of an archer getting a hit on the legs or headshot in return. Why be realistic for one combatant while simultaneously ignoring it for the other guy?

Right now, the archer doesn't get bashed by the shield, true, but neither can that archer damage the man behind the tiniest of shields.

 

[bt1283]

So true, I agree to a certain degree. The reality is though, that shields which always block missiles from the front when held up is a necessity to game balance. I think it might be too easy for a player to just snipe anyone in the face that's charging at them with a shield. You do, however, make a good point that it is senseless to hold up realism in one area while sacrificing it in another. I guess a compromise could be that certain shields have a more defensive value than others (and I don't mean hit points). I mean that a kite shield would block most missiles to the legs, always the chest, etc. while the small ones only the chest. And maybe there should even be tower shields for infantry use. But the head shots propose a problem between game balance and realism that I can't at the time think of a solution for.

 

[The Pope]

Making the different shields have different block areas is a nice idea. Buckler = chest OR head depending on which way you aim, round shield = chest, head and upper legs, tower shield = full protection, infantry only.

 

[Kamamura]

Shield bash could be a very quick, extremely short-range attack that would do no damage, but throw your opponent temporarily off-balance, so you could follow-in with a quick attack. it would be a punishment for the opponent that fails to keep a proper distance.

It should not be counterable by weapon attack, but if the opponent steps out of range, and the shield bash misses, the basher himself would be off-balance for a moment (i.e. unable to block). The same applies for the shield bash being blocked by shield - defender gets the advantage.

Alternatively, there could be a similar form of attack for two handed sword - a pummel with the hilt of the sword.

 

[Talroth]

Making the different shields have different block areas is a nice idea. Buckler = chest OR head depending on which way you aim, round shield = chest, head and upper legs, tower shield = full protection, infantry only.

Check your references for bucklers. I think you would need a LOT of luck to block an arrow with one, seeing as they look like little more than oversized shield bosses.


Maybe have a shield/block skill that allows each level to increase the chances of doing an auto block. Still keep the normal meele blocking system, but if there is an incomming missle a higher shield skill means you have a better chance to block it with a smaller shield.

I shouldn't try to post while doing Calc, this likely doesn't make sense to anyone else.

 

[The Pope]

I know buckers aren't that big, but they'd be pretty close to useless if they couldn't block arrows. I'm mainly thinking about it from a gameplay perspective.

 

[Thraundil]

Hell, I would really like to see some shield bashing! This will open, as I see it, a lot of new things!

In battles:
With a twohanded weapon, for example an axe, you would have the heavy, slow blow that will do a lot of damage (as right now), and the fast bash with the other end of the weapon.

In cities:
The smith should have an option so he could be pad to add some new "functions" to the shield, perhaps spikes or blades at the place you use to bash with

 

[Istadan]

Yeah, it has been brought up many times! No one is searching apparently.

I kid. But seriously, giving shield carriers a shield-bash attack would be cool and I second the idea too if

If and only if shield protection from the front were not 100% as it is now. A shield-carrier would have a big advantage against archers and thrown weapon users if he could safely approach them completely protected by the smallest of round shields and then knock them down. There should be some small chance of an archer getting a hit on the legs or headshot in return. Why be realistic for one combatant while simultaneously ignoring it for the other guy?

Right now, the archer doesn't get bashed by the shield, true, but neither can that archer damage the man behind the tiniest of shields.

I'm with JohnathanStrange on this one.