Stun animation should interrupt/cancel all actions

[longbow93]

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.

But you don't know where the archers are, so even if only one is aiming at you, it does not matter he is the one in front of you. He will probably be on a side, as people tend not to shoot shields but search for open flanks. So he shoot you once, you get hit but, Hey! You can't block, so there is a free hit for the other 5 archers and the same archer who hit you once.

 

[Random Peasant]

If you're surrounded and apparently have no idea where they are... you're kinda dead anyway, shield or not.

... really now.

 

[Shik]

I agree with this suggestion. It's absolutely retarded how people can easily switch in a shield almost instantly in any situations. The current mechanics encourage multi-shielding and 2h+shield because you can almost instantly pull out a shield to react to any threat. You can break a double-shielder's first shield, but all they have to do is jump backwards and pull out another shield. You can shoot a 2h'er and he can immediately pull out his total wall.

It's not fun at all to face people using gamey mechanics such as multi-shielders and 2h+shield+onehanded+throwing users, but the fact is that the current mechanics make said play-styles superior.

 

[The_Freeman]

But you don't know where the archers are, so even if only one is aiming at you, it does not matter he is the one in front of you. He will probably be on a side, as people tend not to shoot shields but search for open flanks. So he shoot you once, you get hit but, Hey! You can't block, so there is a free hit for the other 5 archers and the same archer who hit you once.

Because players are always this organized in casual games.
But aside from that the situation you are describing is one where this poor "shield guy" is charging alone to at least 6 archers that are all aiming at him waiting for the right time to shoot him.
A realistic situation would be this (as I've experienced it many times)
A guy with a shield charges at 6 archers, they all shoot like crazy at the shield, the guy gets close enough to force one archer to switch to melee and start fighting, the other archers shoot in melee and end up hitting their allied, then one or two of them realize they can use a melee weapon and go in melee and kill the guy with the shield, or one of the best archers manages to flank the guy and shoot the unprotected side, killing him or stunning him giving the opportunity to the others to finish him off.

 

[longbow93]

In maps like village, it is a bit hard to know where all archers are, no matter where you are. Even outside you can get side hit.

 

[Shik]

I don't see how this suggestion would make archers overpowered at all. Arrows are easy enough to dodge, and it's not like every archer is going to hit you at the same time. Besides, if you are fighting two melee guys, you can easily be combo'ed after being stunned. I don't see why two archers shouldn't have the same ability.

 

[Random Peasant]

In maps like village, it is a bit hard to know where all archers are, no matter where you are. Even outside you can get side hit.

If you get hit in the side and you have your shield out, then you just take the hit, turn and block in the appropriate direction.

If you get hit in the side and you do not have your shield out, you take the hit for the risk, do your best to get behind cover and take out your shield.

Even now, if you take the hit and just sit there trying to pull your shield out instead of immediately heading for the nearest cover, well, you're asking to get hit again.

I don't see how this suggestion would make archers overpowered at all. Arrows are easy enough to dodge, and it's not like every archer is going to hit you at the same time. Besides, if you are fighting two melee guys, you can easily be combo'ed after being stunned. I don't see why two archers shouldn't have the same ability.

Not exactly my point, but yes, this is what I would like to see.


Please remember this thread is not about archers specifically. I am speaking from both the archer and infantry perspective. It's just as annoying when someone does it to you in melee, but it's disadvantaging and almost a cheat to have it done to you as an archer.

 

[Shik]

IMO it's actually worse if they do it for infantry. A shield user can essentially block every incoming hit while staying out of kicking range, and the current mechanics allow them to easily switch to another shield in the middle of a fight if one breaks - they can take a hit in the middle of switching the shield, but the end result is that a second shield is still pulled out and you have to plow through yet another huscarl shield.

 

[DanAngleland]

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'.

The more I think about it, the more I'm inclined to agree with you. It shouldn't have a negative effect on someone using a shield already, so it should just effect people who want to try and have their cake and eat it. I don't often use a two hander myself and I hate the way they change to a shield without sheathing their two hander in a separate animation. And the 'second shield' people are annoying as well. Ideally, and I have mentioned this before recently, I would like to see changing weapons require putting away the equipped one before drawing the next one, and same for shields.

EDIT: I still think archery is too easy to do though.

 

[Achilla]

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.

'Realistically' speaking, in-game terms of dealing 0 damage don't necessarily mean you didn't weaken/interrupt your enemy at the same moment. On the other hand, not every blow causing visible damage, pain and suffering would necessarily delay or even interrupt your foe's action. There are many factors involved, and creating a semi-random or more complicated experience wouldn't necessarily benefit the game.

What I propose is that each time you are hit (no matter you took damage or not), by anything, a 3-second timer is added preventing you from swapping weapons. The timer wouldn't be cumulative but it would reset to full 3-second penalty each time you are hit.

Another option is that weapon swapping puts you in 'vulnerable' mode during the weapon swap and that the shield won't allow you to block any incoming blows/projectiles until you actually raise it up (as it stands now, you can 'block' with a shield after falling down and switching weapon, even before the shield is actually drawn and raised up ... common horsemen trick of avoiding instant death after being de-horsed and falling down). Naturally, in the second case the 'weapon swap' animation should be lengthy enough to allow your opponent to interrupt you, either with direct blow or thrown projectile (e.g. 1.5 second of 'I'm dead meat' mode).

 

[Recel]

What I propose is that each time you are hit (no matter you took damage or not), by anything, a 3-second timer is added preventing you from swapping weapons. The timer wouldn't be cumulative but it would reset to full 3-second penalty each time you are hit.

So if you sneek up behind an archer he is dead. If your not useing your shield at the moment and get shot you are dead. If your not useing your spear and a horseman stabs you than turns around for another hit you are dead. If you use throwing weapons and get hit you are an easy target and might be dead too. If a team mate acidentaly shashes you, hits you etc in the above things not the enemy you are dead. These things happen day by day, any time during fights, only you can swich now.

Yes, 3 sec is that long and people will take the advantage.

 

[Achilla]

What I propose is that each time you are hit (no matter you took damage or not), by anything, a 3-second timer is added preventing you from swapping weapons. The timer wouldn't be cumulative but it would reset to full 3-second penalty each time you are hit.

So if you sneek up behind an archer he is dead. If your not useing your shield at the moment and get shot you are dead. If your not useing your spear and a horseman stabs you than turns around for another hit you are dead. If you use throwing weapons and get hit you are an easy target and might be dead too. If a team mate acidentaly shashes you, hits you etc in the above things not the enemy you are dead. These things happen day by day, any time during fights, only you can swich now.

Yes, 3 sec is that long and people will take the advantage.

Obviously, actual numbers would need to be tuned. Most important is the idea here - catch that archer in surprise and make dodge a hit or two if he is to successfully draw that sword to defend himself. At least it sort-of simulates a dilemma between immediately dropping the bow onto the ground & grabbing your sword or running away to have time to put your bow on the back and then drawing the sword. Whether it's 1 second, 2 seconds or three seconds is not of primary importance. Perhaps there are better, less awkward ways to solve the primary concern of the OP.

 

[Recel]

Obviously, actual numbers would need to be tuned. Most important is the idea here - catch that archer in surprise and make dodge a hit or two if he is to successfully draw that sword to defend himself. At least it sort-of simulates a dilemma between immediately dropping the bow onto the ground & grabbing your sword or running away to have time to put your bow on the back and then drawing the sword. Whether it's 1 second, 2 seconds or three seconds is not of primary importance. Perhaps there are better, less awkward ways to solve the primary concern of the OP.

True, but most of the time the suprise hit will kill the archer already and often you can do a second hit because of the suprise itself wich most likely will kill the archer or crossbowmen because they are mostly light armored. If they couldnt swich to sword immidiatly than that two hit would be pretty much garantied and maybe you could do a third if needed. I understand the idea, even the OPs idea, but i still think that with the current damage hits/shots do they are enough of a punishment for being unaware or getting suprised.

 

[Random Peasant]

Obviously, actual numbers would need to be tuned. Most important is the idea here - catch that archer in surprise and make dodge a hit or two if he is to successfully draw that sword to defend himself. At least it sort-of simulates a dilemma between immediately dropping the bow onto the ground & grabbing your sword or running away to have time to put your bow on the back and then drawing the sword. Whether it's 1 second, 2 seconds or three seconds is not of primary importance. Perhaps there are better, less awkward ways to solve the primary concern of the OP.

As an archer I can tell you that unless the person is using an axe or another equally short weapon, there is no 'running away'. Trying to turn and run while they are already beside you ready to fight will get you killed.

I've seen lots of complaining about archers being more powerful over it yet if you think about it, its practically a guaranteed death for them if they get sneaked up on -- which I am fine with. Archers shouldn't be going solo; they're a support troop.

Completely unrelated and new thought: What if weapons' switch animation lengths were affected by their speed?

 

[Random Peasant]

Since no one's posted any other insight yet, I'll go ahead and recap what I had in mind, in simpler words.

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

 

[doomsayer]

You can't block an attack that is on the way while you are stunned already. Everything else would be silly (eternal stunlock).
The only thing they should change is making the switch animation so long you can't just switch and be ready to block the next attack.

 

[Random Peasant]

You can't block an attack that is on the way while you are stunned already. Everything else would be silly (eternal stunlock).
The only thing they should change is making the switch animation so long you can't just switch and be ready to block the next attack.

There is no stun lock -- unless you're dumb enough to repeatedly try and take out a shield even though the situation does not make it a viable option.

How it is now:
-You get hit
-Begin pulling out shield
-Receive another hit
-Shield animation automatically completes and you block the third attack even though your character doesn't appear to be blocking, as they are still playing the stun animation.

How I want it to be:
-You get hit
-Attempt to pull out shield
-Receive another hit
-Shield animation cancels, use your manual blocking skills to save you, or die.

 

[zumbum]

Considering most shields had to strapped onto the arm in order to hold it effectively I have no problem with this idea.

 

[doomsayer]

You can't block an attack that is on the way while you are stunned already. Everything else would be silly (eternal stunlock).
The only thing they should change is making the switch animation so long you can't just switch and be ready to block the next attack.

There is no stun lock -- unless you're dumb enough to repeatedly try and take out a shield even though the situation does not make it a viable option.

How it is now:
-You get hit
-Begin pulling out shield
-Receive another hit
-Shield animation automatically completes and you block the third attack even though your character doesn't appear to be blocking, as they are still playing the stun animation.

How I want it to be:
-You get hit
-Attempt to pull out shield
-Receive another hit
-Shield animation cancels, use your manual blocking skills to save you, or die.

If you are only applying this to shields (and possibly heavy weapons) fair enough. Other switches should be possible though. F.E. if I pick up a shield from the ground but it replaces my onehander and I realize it only after I throw a right hook and get stabbed it's really not fair to let me die for that. Unless of course you code the game that way that it always keeps an onehander in your hand/inventory if you take a shield.
But also take away 3rd person from archers since if I can't switch weapons if suddenly an archer comes around from the corner no archer should be able to camp behind a corner and wait until he sees me pulling out a greataxe. And really, when going one on one with a heavy board guy it's just sensible to replace your sword with a greataxe.

 

[Random Peasant]

If you are only applying this to shields (and possibly heavy weapons) fair enough. Other switches should be possible though. F.E. if I pick up a shield from the ground but it replaces my onehander and I realize it only after I throw a right hook and get stabbed it's really not fair to let me die for that. Unless of course you code the game that way that it always keeps an onehander in your hand/inventory if you take a shield.

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

And plenty of people, myself included, have died because of that slip-up as it is now. You shouldn't be grabbing things off the ground 2 meters away from an enemy anyway, unless you're unarmed.

But also take away 3rd person from archers since if I can't switch weapons if suddenly an archer comes around from the corner no archer should be able to camp behind a corner and wait until he sees me pulling out a greataxe. And really, when going one on one with a heavy board guy it's just sensible to replace your sword with a greataxe.

Not necessarily. If I come up against guy with a tough shield I'd rather have a shield myself, since he would have the automatic advantage otherwise...