Stun animation should interrupt/cancel all actions

[Random Peasant]

So far damage interrupts holding your shield up and attacking (most likely a few other major things but these are the two that have most to do with the thread). I think it should also interrupt shield- and weapon-switching.

Isn't it annoying that you can strike someone and they are allowed to instantly pull out their shield and block your attacks with it even though you may have hit them within the animation of doing so? Shouldn't they be punished for not being ready or paying attention?

This is especially bad in the case of archery. You can hit someone with an arrow, causing them to instinctively pull out their shield mid-stun and block the incoming second that would have hit them otherwise.

If you're in a melee fight and the other player doesn't have his shield out/has a two-handed weapon and is having bad luck with manual blocking, they should not be able to instantly pull out a shield/switch weapons after receiving damage (again, talking mid-stun-animation) and block the rest of your attacks.

You should not be able to pull out a shield or change your weapon in the middle of animations; receiving damage should cancel your current action and reset it. People should be punished for their risk. It's as simple as that.

The only exception I can think of would be glancing blows or very minor damage (less than 5).

You can't say this isn't justified realistically either. Taking real damage in real life can and will delay your actions or even prevent you from carrying them out completely, especially if the damage received is as bad as what some people manage to survive in Warband...

Due to misunderstandings, I will now inform you that this post is not trying to enforce 'realism'. This is a game balance opinion.


Recap of main idea's purpose:

When the stun animation is in play:
-You cannot equip or put away a shield
-You cannot change or put away your weapon
-You cannot pick up or drop equipment
-You cannot move
-You cannot ready attacks
-You cannot block

Immediately after the stun animation completes:
-Play resumes as normal

This is not about:
-Making archers stronger
-Making infantry weaker
-Unbalancing the game
-Ruining combat

This is about:
-Evening the playing field across both the infantry and archer spectrum
-Forcing thought into play
-Removing a 'feature' that doesn't make sense
-Improving combat

 

[GerDeathstar]

Don't compare Warband to real life, that never works. As for the PullShieldWhenStruck thing, I'm glad I can pull out my shield when some archer hits me from out of nowhere, instead of being stunlocked by it.

 

[Random Peasant]

Don't compare Warband to real life, that never works.

You do realise that's the basis (comparing, that is) of a lot of game mechanics, right? (... if not the entire game)

And I wasn't comparing, I was justifying.

 

[longbow93]

Don't compare Warband to real life, that never works.

You do realise that's the basis (comparing, that is) of a lot of game mechanics, right? (... if not the entire game)

And I wasn't comparing, I was justifying.

Then, for realism, everytime I hit your arm, you should drop your weapon and be unable to fight anymore... And everytime I slash overhead ya face you should be oneshotted. And everytime an archer shoot your stomach, you should be half dead, running very slow and losing hp every step you do..... Realism and games does not go along together very well.

 

[Random Peasant]

Then, for realism, everytime I hit your arm, you should drop your weapon and be unable to fight anymore... [snip] And everytime an archer shoot your stomach, you should be half dead, running very slow and losing hp every step you do..... Realism and games does not go along together very well.

Keyword: basis

And everytime I slash overhead ya face you should be oneshotted.

That actually happens most of the time, in my experience (unless I/the person is wearing head protection, that is). More so with horizontal slashes I suppose, though I don't use overheads that often.

 

[Spec]

Unless you're fighting with a shortsword against banded armor, a hit already has serious effects in M&B. It's not really a realism issue, it's a gameplay problem how fast weapons/shields etc can be switched. I'd be all for longer animations (especially to for large weapons) and for them being interruptable.

 

[DanAngleland]

If you can't get a shield out to protect yourself after being shot, how are you going to survive? If we are going to insist on unforgiving realism in this game, it must be in all quarters. The 'skill' to archery at the moment is having fast and accurate mouse cursor positioning, as well as being able to lead a shot. People can run around while slashing with no regard to momentum, they can perform a kick, turn whilst kicking, and still land that kick even when they started it facing the wrong way. People don't have to put away their two hander/crossbow etc before bringing out their shield and sword.

I don't think you would necessarily be stopped from doing everything when shot in real life anyway, and it certainly wouldn't be a good idea from a gameplay perspective in my opinion.

 

[DanAngleland]

Unless you're fighting with a shortsword against banded armor, a hit already has serious effects in M&B. It's not really a realism issue, it's a gameplay problem how fast weapons/shields etc can be switched. I'd be all for longer animations (especially to for large weapons) and for them being interruptable.

That's another realism problem; short swords are rarely the best weapon to use at point blank range. A two hander can just touch you with the edge of his blade, just above the hilt, and you're dead, but try getting a hit to even interrupt his attack with a short sword, stab or slash (stabs are generally less effective than slashes, I assume because of the larger margin for error in getting the sweet spot). It is made worse of course because of people running around the side of you in the time it takes to do a swing, and stuff like that. The realism argument for the OP suggestion should be applied to many other parts of combat before this .

 

[Random Peasant]

If we are going to insist on unforgiving realism in this game

That being the problem in your post. My suggestion/request has nothing to do with realism. This is about game balance. The last few posts in this thread have apparently been hung up about the last section of my post, that is merely there in case someone tries to argue realism.

Look at what happens when you hit someone in the middle of their switching animation. The animation cancels, the stun takes its place, yet the action still carries out. It looks glitchy and unfinished. The same goes for changing equipment mid-stun.

You might be used to seeing it, but that does not mean it looks or is right.

 

[HJKL]

You want to always be able to get a second shot on someone after you shoot them once? That they shouldn't be able to reactively equip their shields? If your aim with that isn't realism then you shouldn't claim it's for gameplay because that would be just too stupid.

 

[Recel]

If you could shoot someone a second time that means the second shot has the same "stun" efect, thus you could shoot him a third time and so on, wich is pretty stupid if you also take into consideration that someone who gets shot stops moveing for a breef time, thus he would be an easy target. Maybe they can swich there equipment but they cant block durring the time thus an arrow hit is already dangeorus as it is.

 

[Random Peasant]

You want to always be able to get a second shot on someone after you shoot them once? That they shouldn't be able to reactively equip their shields? If your aim with that isn't realism then you shouldn't claim it's for gameplay because that would be just too stupid.

If you could shoot someone a second time that means the second shot has the same "stun" efect, thus you could shoot him a third time and so on, wich is pretty stupid if you also take into consideration that someone who gets shot stops moveing for a breef time, thus he would be an easy target. Maybe they can swich there equipment but they cant block durring the time thus an arrow hit is already dangeorus as it is.

I can only imagine that being the case with either:
A. Medium to short distance to an archer
B. Several archers
and a possible
C. One very experienced archer at any range

If you are running around without a shield in either the A or B scenarios, then you are practically asking for it and deserve it. If C, more power to them.

 

[DanAngleland]

Er, you suggested that the player shouldn't be able to change equipment if they are stunned. In that case, they will not be able to do anything until you have stopped shooting them, which you won't do. The gameplay argument is much weaker than the realism one.

 

[Random Peasant]

Er, you suggested that the player shouldn't be able to change equipment if they are stunned. In that case, they will not be able to do anything until you have stopped shooting them, which you won't do. The gameplay argument is much weaker than the realism one.

I am flattered by your assumptions of me, but no, however much I wish for them to, my arrows do not magically hit the same target every single time I point my bow in their direction. And while this may be the case for a select few, I am not one of them, nor is the majority of people you will encounter.

 

[HJKL]

Ah, so whether your target dies in your unavoidable arrow stunlock should be determined by the randomly generated accuracy variance?

 

[Random Peasant]

Ah, so whether your target dies in your unavoidable arrow stunlock should be determined by the randomly generated accuracy variance?

It usually is actually, but thats in my case.

Oh, right, what was I thinking! I totally forgot all bows had 100% accuracy, trajectory is non-existent, top tier ones come equipped with free non-shield-user-seeking-missiles, and reloading is instant! Please forgive me! Heaven forbid anyone get an edge in between you and your magical 10 meter shield forcefields!

But really now, what's so bad about making people think ahead a bit? Or do you believe people shouldn't have to worry about their surroundings in a battle?

Do most people really lack the ability to think 'Oh, hey! There are projectiles flying around! Perhaps it would be in my best interest to pull out this plank of wood on my back so one of them doesn't hit me.'?

 

[longbow93]

Ah, so whether your target dies in your unavoidable arrow stunlock should be determined by the randomly generated accuracy variance?

It usually is actually, but thats in my case.

Oh, right, what was I thinking! I totally forgot all bows had 100% accuracy, trajectory is non-existent, top tier ones come equipped with free non-shield-user-seeking-missiles, and reloading is instant! Please forgive me! Heaven forbid anyone get an edge in between you and your magical 10 meter shield forcefields!

But really now, what's so bad about making people think ahead a bit? Or do you believe people shouldn't have to worry about their surroundings in a battle?

Do most people really lack the ability to think 'Oh, hey! There are projectiles flying around! Perhaps it would be in my best interest to pull out this plank of wood on my back so one of them doesn't hit me.'?

You know, there is a thing called " ambush ", WOAH! In a battle with 30 vs 30 you really have few few chances not to get shot once, and if when you get shot, you just stand there and can't block you'd get raped.                ( Remember that with most shields you can hit their feet, so even if you have it up ready you'd get owned )

 

[Random Peasant]

You know, there is a thing called " ambush ", WOAH! In a battle with 30 vs 30 you really have few few chances not to get shot once, and if when you get shot, you just stand there and can't block you'd get raped.                ( Remember that with most shields you can hit their feet, so even if you have it up ready you'd get owned )

Now you're playing with number tricks.

okay, lets take your scenario.

30 vs 30. What do you think is fair? 6 archers on each team? 10 maybe? 15 depending on the faction?

6 archers: Even with a shield, you're pretty dead if they all aim at you. But will ALL of them aim at you? Not unless you're the last person on the field I guess, after all there are 29 others to target.
10 archers: Even with a shield, you're pretty dead if they all aim at you. But will ALL of them aim at you? Not unless you're the last person on the field I guess, after all there are 29 others to target.
15 archers: Even with a shield, you're pretty dead if they all aim at you. But will ALL of them aim at you? Not unless you're the last person on the field I guess, after all there are 29 others to target.

 

[The_Freeman]

I will ignore the arguing going on here and answer to the OP: no, I'm fine with the switching animation as it is.
The reasons are: it's balance impact is easily neglegible and that the game is already quite unforgiving of mistakes to the point that even I find it too difficult and "hardcore" many times.
Since most people (I hope) play to have fun anything that makes the game easier should be welcome and not pushed aside for more realistic mechanics (unless they are also more fun, which is not the instance).

 

[Random Peasant]

I will ignore the arguing going on here and answer to the OP: no, I'm fine with the switching animation as it is.
The reasons are: it's balance impact is easily neglegible and that the game is already quite unforgiving of mistakes to the point that even I find it too difficult and "hardcore" many times.
Since most people (I hope) play to have fun anything that makes the game easier should be welcome and not pushed aside for more realistic mechanics (unless they are also more fun, which is not the instance).

That is one of the reasons I can't understand the amount of blowing-up people are doing with the issue so far. It's not as though it will completely change how fights work. It will just cause people to think a bit more about their actions.

'Should I take a shield in, or should I not? I can no longer expect to be able to equip it in a jiff, so perhaps I should consider this.'
Not
'SHIELDS ARE NOW USELESS ARCHERY IS OVERPOWERED THE GAME IS BROKEN'

Anyhow, yes. Fun is the bottom line for me. People doing things that almost seem glitchy and exploitive ruins the fun and feel of the game in my opinion. This happens to be one of those cases just as if attacks could still do damage even after they have been canceled or interrupted, and I would like it changed or 'fixed'.