Stances with toggle key (interest poll)

[Terco_Viejo]

Nowadays the stances are subordinated to the movement and although the dynamics itself is quite interesting (and whoever wants to see it that way, also historically correct) at the end of the day they are difficult to control due to their randomness thus causing a chain of unfortunate inconsistencies and frustation in player.

I open this thread to count the general interest about an exclusive button that changes the pose from left to right and vice versa through a poll. An exclusive button for the switch of stance which is similar to the switch of weapon use function (X key).

Something like that:



I'd also like to make available to the devs Medieval Swordsmanship: Illustrated Methods and Techniques book in order to polish and order the positioning of the main weapon and the shield. In this book there are also stances & footwork when using a long sword; I suggest you to review them as well.

 

[Terco_Viejo]

bump!

 

[AxiosXiphos]

I'd keep it as it is now but reduce it to pretty much a purely aesthetic feature. It does make the game look nicer but it doesn't add anything to the feel of combat besides feeling of (though technically untrue) RNG

 

[FearSpear]

It seems too useless in practicality to me to ever be effective... I'm going to vote "I am not interested at all in stances"... Just remove Block Delay Taleworlds!

 

[Fietta]

I mean, having it as a toggle would be a good compromise; stances usually come about with 'normal' movement, so you're always in the stance your character moves in (in a nutshell), however, as an inverse player such as myself, you're always going against the stance by attacking the opposite direction of the stance (moving right and doing a left swing instead of a right swing), if I'm able to toggle, I'll be able to change to a left stance and do a left swing whilst moving right, which would be really cool.

 

[Craven4]

+1 to keeping it an aesthetic

 

[Terco_Viejo]

I mean, having it as a toggle would be a good compromise; stances usually come about with 'normal' movement, so you're always in the stance your character moves in (in a nutshell), however, as an inverse player such as myself, you're always going against the stance by attacking the opposite direction of the stance (moving right and doing a left swing instead of a right swing), if I'm able to toggle, I'll be able to change to a left stance and do a left swing whilst moving right, which would be really cool.

Exactly. For those of you who want to try a little experiment. Go to a controlled environment like custom battle and try the following:

Regardless of whether you have a weapon + shield or 1h/2h weapon, position yourself with a/d in the left or right stance. Now do a forward, backward, left and right movement exercise. If you have engaged the movement cross with the left stance you will see that the avatar keeps its dominant left foot advanced when going forward, right and backward. On the other hand, when it turns left, it automatically changes its dominant foot, thus changing to a right stance.

Now do the same thing but hold a block. The dominant foot always stays in a constant advanced position and unchanged.

If the eventual implementation of an toggle on/off button could always force a advanced positioning of the dominant foot as well as when a block is executed as when not, the user would have much more control over the stances. This could mean that a user who dominated the stances effectively and purposefully (and without randomness) could impose himself over others who don't know how to use it.

That said, it would be necessary to regulate the bonus/penalty parameters that affect the movement according to the stance.

 

[ZavodilaSauklus]

I'm for new content, but I don't want to have 13 squat variations like Arma 3 or other minor details. Everything suits me in this mechanic.

 

[Terco_Viejo]

I'm for new content, but I don't want to have 13 squat variations like Arma 3 or other minor details. Everything suits me in this mechanic.

It's just that nobody talks about this, nothing to do with the Arma stances or the ones Nioh has. Rather a button like the one in the Mortal Kombat Video which flips the hips of your avatar by switching the dominant foot and that this stance remains unchanged until the user decides to change it.

 

[ZavodilaSauklus]

It's just that nobody talks about this, nothing to do with the Arma stances or the ones Nioh has. Rather a button like the one in the Mortal Kombat Video which flips the hips of your avatar by switching the dominant foot and that this stance remains unchanged until the user decides to change it.

I understood the meaning of your thread. I just don't want every key to be responsible for any mechanic that only professional players will use, so I wrote about Arma, because as I remember, almost all, if not all keys are responsible for something. And in order to get comfort from the game, it was necessary to pass a large threshold of entry, I do not want such a threshold for M&B.

 

[Terco_Viejo]

I understood the meaning of your thread. I just don't want every key to be responsible for any mechanic that only professional players will use, so I wrote about Arma, because as I remember, almost all, if not all keys are responsible for something. And in order to get comfort from the game, it was necessary to pass a large threshold of entry, I do not want such a threshold for M&B.

I respect that and certainly the poll is to count different interests. Not that I want to make an apology about stances, but rather that since we have them applied inconsistently and randomly; let's give the user control over it with a toggle key.

I think, as we have it; let's profit from it by giving it a twist. I think the same thing with the class system, well it's here to stay. The devs don't want to remove it and a large section of the community is against it. Well... a middle ground that satisfies both sides is always better than something imposed (hybrid system warband custom loadout + classes).

 

[Revverie]

I dont even know how they work

 

[OurGloriousLeader]

My preference is to remove all combat specific bonuses from stances and have them be purely animations (which are still important for combat) while the "rest" animation is defaul; that is to say, you have a neutral stance, then when doing a combat action that changes stance it animates, then when you stop you return to neutral stance.

This is how Warband does it btw.

 

[EbdanianAdmiral]

I mean, having it as a toggle would be a good compromise; stances usually come about with 'normal' movement, so you're always in the stance your character moves in (in a nutshell), however, as an inverse player such as myself, you're always going against the stance by attacking the opposite direction of the stance (moving right and doing a left swing instead of a right swing), if I'm able to toggle, I'll be able to change to a left stance and do a left swing whilst moving right, which would be really cool.

Exactly! A mechanic which is supposed to add more depth to movement is severely limited by the movement itself. Changing stances with A and D when A and D are also used to move makes no sense. It makes 25% of the stance/movement combinations players should be able to have impossible. Just make it a rebindable key and you instantly add more depth and mechanical skill to combat.

 

[OurGloriousLeader]

however, as an inverse player such as myself, you're always going against the stance by attacking the opposite direction of the stance (moving right and doing a left swing instead of a right swing)

This has nothing to do with inverse, it's simply the correct movement for combat if you want the fastest swing.

Making the stances compliment that simply worsens the issue by making the correct move even better, and especially worse if you hide it behind a gameplay toggle option.

 

[EbdanianAdmiral]

This has nothing to do with inverse, it's simply the correct movement for combat if you want the fastest swing.

Making the stances compliment that simply worsens the issue by making the correct move even better, and especially worse if you hide it behind a gameplay toggle option.

I dont understand what you are saying here. Fietta is saying that he is always playing with a disadvantage because of how the movement mechanics work. He just wants a toggleable button to give him the opportunity to have the same advantages as everyone else. The current stance system forces you to move and look a certain way to be optimal. Removing the constraints diversifies combat and allows more dynamic infantry footwork.

 

[froggyluv]

+1 toggle stance. Neigh the naysayers!

 

[OurGloriousLeader]

I dont understand what you are saying here. Fietta is saying that he is always playing with a disadvantage because of how the movement mechanics work. He just wants a toggleable button to give him the opportunity to have the same advantages as everyone else. The current stance system forces you to move and look a certain way to be optimal. Removing the constraints diversifies combat and allows more dynamic infantry footwork.

Yes, but not because of inverse and it's not correct to reverse the current setting (imo).

Movement is the same for inverse and default (if you're going for the fastest swing); move right while doing a left swing, due to the position of the weapon. Inverse simply has an added advantage in that you can also smoothly turn into the swing direction (which is why it's better).

The current stance acts against that; you must move left, in order to get the best left swing, which you must move right with in order to use at its most effective. It's correct that stances therefore are counter-intuitive and don't work well with the combat. However, if you were to "correct" that and make moving right (or create a gameplay toggle option for the player to decide it) the best stance option for a left attack, this would immediately become the best option - by far. There would be no reason not to always have what we could call "inverse stances", and there would be no reason not to have inverse attacks (there basically already isn't).

I mean ultimately it's up to the devs, but imo it's not the best gamplay to have every movement tuned towards the best attack, as it stratifies gameplay.

 

[Fietta]

Yes, but not because of inverse and it's not correct to reverse the current setting (imo).

Movement is the same for inverse and default (if you're going for the fastest swing); move right while doing a left swing, due to the position of the weapon. Inverse simply has an added advantage in that you can also smoothly turn into the swing direction (which is why it's better).

The current stance acts against that; you must move left, in order to get the best left swing, which you must move right with in order to use at its most effective. It's correct that stances therefore are counter-intuitive and don't work well with the combat. However, if you were to "correct" that and make moving right (or create a gameplay toggle option for the player to decide it) the best stance option for a left attack, this would immediately become the best option - by far. There would be no reason not to always have what we could call "inverse stances", and there would be no reason not to have inverse attacks (there basically already isn't).

I mean ultimately it's up to the devs, but imo it's not the best gamplay to have every movement tuned towards the best attack, as it stratifies gameplay.

Footwork in inverse is naturally the opposite to that of normal, im always moving right and doing a left swing, that's just the natural way of going about it whilst playing inverse, which is why all I verse players do it subconsciously. People who use normal attack direction, usually take a couple of steps the direction they want to swing (you'd move slightly left to ready the left swing and then move right or whatever), that's just natural, so you're pretty much already in the left stance before moving right. If people were always moving right whilst doing a left swing, then there would be no 'advantage' as per say using inverse as the same speed could be achieved from both, it's just readying in normal attack direction is slower because you're naturally going slightly left to ready the swing, whilst in inverse you just walk and click.

Inverse players are notoriously faster because they're not slowing down to do the direction they want to attack, whilst in normal you're always fighting against your movement when readying your attack, if that wasn't the case, you'd not be complaining about inverse like you have done for the past 5 years.

 

[Roadpork]

Right now, the stance is basically the Circling technique which already exists in WB.
Devs just make it unblockable, then give it a fancy name: stance.


The reason for stance as I assume is, Devs try to build up an "engage + depart" combat rule.
People find an angle, people jump in, throw an attack, leave.

This fighting rule will make BL totally an ordinary game, just like thousands of ACTs out there.

Boring.

Why?

M&B is the only game that simulates the cold weapon battle (when you are a soldier).
"Jump in and out" style might be simulating HEMA. Yeah, it's a real-world thing, but the mass battle is different.
People move steadily, predictable. They fix each other's weaknesses, keep a formation.

That's why we need a block-based fight instead of dodge-based.