shields are unrealistic... (plz read)

[Homie]

Shields block too much of the body. If a shield is up, no arrows can get through, whether i shoot at the foot, or the head which is sticking out, the shield blocks it. I think the shield should really only block the area that it takes up. They could also make some larger shields like tower shields (maybe some huge shields could only be usable on foot, cause it's hard to hold that huge shield on a horse i think). These larger shields would be able to block more of your body than the round shields and kite shields. As well as probably having more durability.

Also..... shields should be able to block even when you're not holding the block button. If you're holding the shield at your side as you swing your weapon, and an arrow happens to hit your shield, lucky you. It shouldn't damage you.

 

[Volkier]

Yeah but in reality you can move your left arm with the shield. Unless you are given the option of moving your shield up / down / left / right I find this would make shields completely useless, since even if the guy you are aiming at has a shield, all you have to do is aim at the part which is not covered up.

Oh and you can STILL hit them even though they are holding the shield with an arrow. You just have to get behind them to do it. I find it realistic enough :

 

[Homie]

hmm, that is a good point... it might be hard to actually control your shield to block hits.

Maybe if you hold your shield up, it should block your entire front like it does. But it should be the way i said when you're NOT holding your shield up. when your shield is at your side, it should only protect the area that it covers, but it should still be able to absorb an arrow if you get lucky enough to be hit there.

 

[Rollipeikko]

"just go behind them to do it"
how are you going to do that if you are playing as single character?

 

[Sir Prince]

Or on a cliff shooting at swadian man @ arms at the bottom of thie cliff?

 

[Manitas]

Actually it's pretty straightforward - all you need to do is to surround them.

 

[jknemesis]

Here's an idea:

Because shields don't always block blows and arrows, why not have the shield skill affect your chance to blow a fast moving arrow (like, say 65% base and moving upward from there) and a different probability for an axe or sword blade (like, 90% and moving upward from there)? Anybody ever try to block a very fast moving projectile with a round disk of metal? I sure haven't. But I bet it would be pretty damn hard. Especially if it was raining arrows, like in the crusades, or when you're riding down on a bunch of swadian crossbowmen.

Then again, you'd want to include a parry skill or something to determine your skill at blocking with a melee weapon, and then combat would get all complicated and such, and who wants that?

 

[Volkier]

I did lol. When we were kids we would play with sling shots and rocks, while using trashcan lids for 'shields' lol. Still laugh when I remember the bruises we got from those games... Ahh the happy childhood long forgotten :

 

[svart]

I agree with your suggestions homie, i would also like to see shields block dynamically - so larger shields actually have a function .

I think a shield should be switchable between body area and head area (via the mousewheel, or with a toggle button), the width of the defense area could be just like it's now, but the height should be determined by the shield's height imo.

 

[Kelpo]

Here's an idea:

Because shields don't always block blows and arrows, why not have the shield skill affect your chance to blow a fast moving arrow (like, say 65% base and moving upward from there) and a different probability for an axe or sword blade (like, 90% and moving upward from there)? Anybody ever try to block a very fast moving projectile with a round disk of metal? I sure haven't. But I bet it would be pretty damn hard. Especially if it was raining arrows, like in the crusades, or when you're riding down on a bunch of swadian crossbowmen.

I was just about to suggest that (although not the melee blocking thing, that's fine as it is), but the base blocking percentage should be higher for bigger shields, but they should have some other penalties like maybe being slower to block with or just plain heavier.

 

[Nahkuri]

*without reading the other replys*

Yeah. It sure is frustrating when you are definitely sure you aimed the bandit over his shield but it still hit the shield instead of the bandit.

I find it funny when people whine about this and things like your swing stops when you are hit. It sure would be nice to be fixed, but people don't seem to be able to think it other way around.

Let's think of an example. I have just bought a steel shield, and am thinking: "well this won't break no matter what amount of throwing axes hit it. Let's see what those sea raiders think about that" and just after that... WHAM. Javelin sticking out of your forehead, because it flew over your shield.

I don't know about you people, but this doesn't seem any fun to me. Am I the only one here thinking that game should rather be fun to play, than 100% realistic?

 

[Manitas]

Am I the only one here thinking that game should rather be fun to play, than 100% realistic?

Actually, no. Latest research shows that the percentage of this forum users thinking like that is roughly 50% (but I like to think it's the second half )

I don't know what to think of your statement, fun to whom, and what does 100% realistic mean?

 

[Poil]

Matrix like? That'd be awesome.

 

[Skanky Burns]

Shields are easy to overcome. You can hit someone with a shield from behind. You can hit someone with a shield from the side. You can hit someone with a shield when they happen to be swinging a weapon (hopefully at someone other than you, unless you are good at getting headshots at point-blank range). You can even rely on a shield-bearer's stupidity to shoot them. Due to the fact that they target the nearest enemy to them and respond to the nearest enemy, simply have somoene equipped with a melee weapon closer to them than you are. They won't bother raising their shield even as your arrow flies through their head.

I like it when the red water comes out.

 

[Homie]

i was mostly talking about when units are unengaged in combat. For example, i like to find a nice hill at the start of a battle and take shots with my sniper crossbow as the enemy closes in, especially if a majority of the enemy is foot soldiers.

So when 20 mountain bandits are walking toward me with their shields up, it's literally impossible for me to do any damage to them as they close in on me. I basically have to either tell my army to charge, or just sit here waiting for them to get close. I can't aim for the leg, or for the head, or anything. They're completely invincible and have an automatic get-to-homie for free card.

 

[dirtbag]

Shields are easy to overcome. You can hit someone with a shield from behind. You can hit someone with a shield from the side. You can hit someone with a shield when they happen to be swinging a weapon (hopefully at someone other than you, unless you are good at getting headshots at point-blank range). You can even rely on a shield-bearer's stupidity to shoot them. Due to the fact that they target the nearest enemy to them and respond to the nearest enemy, simply have somoene equipped with a melee weapon closer to them than you are. They won't bother raising their shield even as your arrow flies through their head.

I like it when the red water comes out.

Actually, its almost impossible to come around a shield with a sword or a similiar weapon. I know that because I just to fight with people I know and stuff like that. The easiest way to come around a shield is from above. And not even that is easy. You have to hit away the shield in some kind of way and THEN hit the opponent. Otherwise its almost impossible, so the shield thing in the game is actually good.

 

[Ilex]

I think she is talking about the in-game shield.

 

[Janus]

Yeah, it is kinda wierd to have arrows always stick in the shield when they hit the front, even if they hit nowhere near it. Kinda sucks for archers.

If you go with the couched lance, you don't have to worry about the enemy holding up a shield. They never will, unless they're trying to block somebody else. Hope that changes in the future, makes it a bit too easy.

My favorite tactic if on horseback with a melee weapon (other than couched lance) is to ride up and clip the guy slightly with my horse, then give him a whack with whatever weapon I'm using. When your horse clips them it interrupts whatever they're doing (shielding or attacking themselves) and leaves them open. Heck, it sometimes does a decent bit of trample damage too depending on your horse's charging ability.

 

[Verus]

Yes. i agree with this shielding idea.. its unrealistic that a shot to the head is defended by a small shield. its like when i played Crusade with my friends when i was little - i had a metal rubbish can lid for a shield and a solid wood pole as a sword. we beat each over into submission, somtimes we'd pick up stones and knock each over ouch. it was all fun and games still i was blinded in my left eye by that bastard taylor!

But still, good idea for the shields

 

[Skanky Burns]

I was talking about the ingame shield, and using ranged weapons at that.

i was mostly talking about when units are unengaged in combat. For example, i like to find a nice hill at the start of a battle and take shots with my sniper crossbow as the enemy closes in, especially if a majority of the enemy is foot soldiers.

So when 20 mountain bandits are walking toward me with their shields up, it's literally impossible for me to do any damage to them as they close in on me. I basically have to either tell my army to charge, or just sit here waiting for them to get close. I can't aim for the leg, or for the head, or anything. They're completely invincible and have an automatic get-to-homie for free card.

If there is a melee unit closer to them than you, they won't raise their shields. Simple as that.