Quick suggestion on Bastard swords.

Users who are viewing this thread

Ingolifs

Grandmaster Knight
Bastard swords can be wielded both 1-handed and 2-handed. The transition comes when you put the shield away.

Could you please make it so that when you're wielding the bastard sword two handed, you hold it up towards yourself like you wield all other two handed swords, instead of down like all one handed swords?
 
Well if it's a two handed sword and you're wielding it two handed, it should be held in the same way as all other two handed swords. With two hands.
At present, you hold it one handed until you attack, at which point your other hand reaches for the hilt halfway through the swing.

It's just an aesthetics issue. I like the way two handed weapons are held in M&B.
 
my preferable guard i use when i use my hand and a half sword is holding it low pointing it in the direction of my opponents face making its length impossible to determin.

I would like to se this guard in the game. or a high guad also pointing directly at your opponents face. It is the most used guard for hand and a half swords in the middle ages.
 
Anyone realized that while it's a lousy 2hander, the BS is actually MUCH better than any other 1-handed sword? It has a base damage of 30 that's 2 points more than the best water-steeled scimitair (wich has 2:cool:, a much longer range (and everbody knows how much that's important), and just 5 points less of speed.

Hey, this thing rocks, not onyl from an aestethic standpoint. I think it's a bit overkill and needs some balancing.
 
The hand and a half sword should actualy be much quicker than a 1 handed sword. by using 2 hands on a sword that is actualy only 100-200 g heavier than a 1 handed sword wielding it like a leverage pole around one of the hands the tip of the sword is both powerfull and fast. but you haven`t got that much extra reach because instead of it being connected only to one shoulder it is connected to both limiting the maximum reach to be straight in front of you when both hands is stretched out at maximum
.|
/ \
00
instead of one hand when you
|
.\
\.0
.0
i know its a lousy illustration but i hope some of you see what i am trying to illustrate.

since the hand and a half (BS) si just 2-3 cm longer than a 1 handed you get about the same maximum reach, but the speed and power increases a lot.
 
The speed and damage of the sword should change depending on how you are holding it, ie slower with 1 hand, quicker and more damaging 2 handed.
 
Bigwig said:
The speed and damage of the sword should change depending on how you are holding it, ie slower with 1 hand, quicker and more damaging 2 handed.

It does. And Daimyo, I think you might be incorrect. Those numbers that you are reading might actually only apply to its two-handed use. Also, even though it does less damage than another two-handed weapon, it's speed should be significantly greater. I'll download .701 and look at it myself, now.

=$= Big J Money =$=
 
A straight cut, or a cut that just reverses direction from the last, is quicker with a longsword. Other changes of direction can be considerably slower - 2 hands on the hilt and all..
 
To BigJMoney: I've read somewhere that those are the values for 1h wielding, while 2handed use grants a +10% dam bonus, dunno if it's correct tough.

From a first impression, it seems that a basic BS deals more damage than a water-steeled scimitair, but I didn't tested it extensively. Its range seems much longer tough.
 
I did some more testing. They were performed with a testing char with:
100 1h weapons, 70 2h weapons, 5 powerstrike, 15 agi and 18 str.

I equipped both a heavy fighting axe (28c) and a balanced bastard sword (31c), against a full mob of 20+ mountain bandits that wear all +5/+8 armors on all locations, as they're the more uniform foes I can test on with large numbers without risking being killed 10394530 times.

I will call BS1 the bastard sword wielded 1handed, FA the fighting axe (wich is 1handed), and BS2 the bastard wielded 2handed.
Here are the results:

-BS1 and FA speed seemed almost identycal, while BS1 has a slightly more range.

-BS1 and FA damage seemed identycal, ranging from 20 to 30 (they can both score 45+ hits on head or naked feet but that's rare).

-BS1 and BS2 speed didn't changed at all.

-BS1 damage (oddly) seems -higher- than BS2 damage (just a couple of hits tough, no more than 5), but this seemed to be related to the fact I've less 2h skill than 1h (70 vs 100). When I cheated my skill to equal values, there seems to be no more difference.

Conclusion are:
That 31 damage is somewhat a fake or it was intended for 2h wielding, but as the weapon isn't fully implemented (or does not work), there seems to be no difference when using it one or two-handed (except for the skill used).
 
Well, daimyo, the test can't be accurate. You had 43% more skill with one-handed weapons than two-handed weapons! Your 2h skill was only 70. Your 1h skill was 30 points higher. If you do the test again with 100 points in both skills, it will be more accurate. I think you'd agree that a 43% margin of error regarding weapon bonuses is not really acceptable! Also, 5 attacks isn't really going to give substantive results, either. You need at least 100 for each one. (Although, if you see a pattern after 20, it might be good enough) Please report if you decide to do the experiment again, I would be very interested.

=$=
 
Big J Money said:
Well, daimyo, the test can't be accurate. You had 43% more skill with one-handed weapons than two-handed weapons! Your 2h skill was only 70. Your 1h skill was 30 points higher. If you do the test again with 100 points in both skills, it will be more accurate..

=$=

I told you, later I cheated my skill to 100, and the damage equalled to 20-30 hits, both 1h and 2h. No difference at all.

Also, 5 attacks isn't really going to give substantive results, either. You need at least 100 for each one. (Although, if you see a pattern after 20, it might be good enough)

who told you I did just 5 attacks? I played against an horde of roughly 25-30 bandits, all by myself. Given that a single bandit needs 2-3 hits to be killed, this means roughly 60-90 attacks in total, divided among FA, BS1 and BS2 it equals to at least 25 attacks/weapon type. Sure is not 100, but I think that's a more than reasonable account if you consider that except for very few headshot exceptions, it's quite clear that if even there's a difference is so minuscular that can't be seen at all.
 
Daimyo said:
-BS1 damage (oddly) seems -higher- than BS2 damage (just a couple of hits tough, no more than 5), but this seemed to be related to the fact I've less 2h skill than 1h (70 vs 100). When I cheated my skill to equal values, there seems to be no more difference.

Well sorry, but you made it sound like you only cheated the skills when you went to look at damage numbers, but not speed. I've read in a post before that weapon skill affects speed, not damage. It could be wrong.

Daimyo said:
who told you I did just 5 attacks?

Your post did:

Daimyo said:
BS1 damage (oddly) seems -higher- than BS2 damage (just a couple of hits tough, no more than 5),

I probably misunderstood you, but it looks here like when you went to compare the BS1 to the BS2, you stopped after just five attacks.

Anyway, it does sound like there is no appreciable difference between the BS1 and BS2 as far as damage goes. How about speed? It looks in your post like the speed test was performed before you cheated the skills. I have to admit, I was really baffled why you'd bother to run any tests at all without the skills being identical the whole time.

=$=
 
Big J Money said:
Well sorry, but you made it sound like you only cheated the skills when you went to look at damage numbers, but not speed. I've read in a post before that weapon skill affects speed, not damage. It could be wrong.

In v.0632 weapon skills seemed to affect well... nothing, except xbow/archery skills. Now it seems they affect damage somewhat.

Your post did:

Daimyo said:
BS1 damage (oddly) seems -higher- than BS2 damage (just a couple of hits tough, no more than 5),

I probably misunderstood you, but it looks here like when you went to compare the BS1 to the BS2, you stopped after just five attacks.


Yes, my fault. I meant "the difference is no more than 5 hit points per blow. It was expressed badly, sorry, my english is not perfect, I'm Italian. :sad:


Anyway, it does sound like there is no appreciable difference between the BS1 and BS2 as far as damage goes. How about speed? It looks in your post like the speed test was performed before you cheated the skills.

Speed seems unaffected with any skill. Again, if there's a difference is so small that it can't be noticed. Note also that even the difference between the BS1 and the FA (both wielded 1h) seems negligible. The only real difference between those weapons is their range, and the fact that the axe seems to deal damage when collides its head, while the sword deal damage even when collides at half its lenght (but with very reduced damage, like 5-10 hit points).

I have to admit, I was really baffled why you'd bother to run any tests at all without the skills being identical the whole time.

Because I wished to see and "feel" if there's any difference at all when raising a skill by 30 points, or they're still useless. At this moment a 30 points higher skill is worth roughly +2-5 hit points of damage per blow, nothing else.
 
Back
Top Bottom