[Suggestion] Field of threat for missle users

[Wild Bill Kelso]

Field of Threat- A proposal for modifying the targeting reticule of ranged missile users in response to the proximity of enemy

There has been a lot of debate regarding the issue of missile dominance in the field of battle.  My topic has nothing to do with whether this is all simply anecdotal or a justifiable observation of the game mechanics.  This idea is an attempt to introduce an element of stress that would occur during a real encounter.
What I propose is what I call a “Field of threat” to extend in front of each player.  However, this may or may not be within the limits of the game mechanics that is for the programmers to decide.  This field of threat would extend as a isosceles triangle with the users field of view being the apex (example one).  Any enemies that enter within this field of threat would have an impact upon the ability of the missile user to effectively throw a weapon.  Generally, the closer the enemy is to the missile user the more of an impact there will be on the missile user’s ability.  This is to simulate the very real threat and the resulting stress that an enemy would have upon someone not wielding a weapon to protect themselves.   

It wouldn’t be that difficult to build in this feature if the game mechanics allow for its operation.  The field of threat would have a large influence on the targeting reticle.  Basically, the closer an enemy is within the field of threat the wider the targeting reticle becomes.  It would also widen depending upon the speed of approach; hence a galloping horseman would cause the targeting reticule to widen much faster than a charging infantryman.  The field of threat would also decrease as an enemy moves further away.  This widening would be on top of the widening of the reticle due to archer fatigue. 
 
Finally, the field of threat would differ between types of missile users.  Long range users such as crossbowman and archers would have a larger field of threat than shorter range missile users such a javelin and axe throwers.  Mounted missile users would also have smaller fields of threat than their unmounted counterparts.   


Simple diagram of a hypothetical filed of threat

隐藏

Screen shot taken by Sir_Jaakko with a hypothetical field of threat inserted onto it.  In this example, the close proximity of the mounted solider would be having a large impact upon the crossbow users ability to fire straight.

隐藏

 

[PsykoOps]

Only if the penalties are for all classes. Inf and cavalry alike.

 

[Wild Bill Kelso]

Only if the penalties are for all classes. Inf and cavalry alike.

The field of threat would come into effect the moment that a targeting reticule is displayed, so yes it would also apply to infantry using thrown weapons and cavalry using thrown weapons and bows.

 

[CalenLoki]

...and if you see archer in FoT, you loose thrust/swing accuracy, because you are stressed... (this archer may hit you!)
Don't like idea - instead of simulate player behaviours, better add something to real stress archer - like longer weapon change, every weapon throwable, ramming/pushing/bashing with shield without releasing block, or something like that...

 

[EdwardWellcraft]

I wouldn't ever support the implementation of a game feature to simulate emotions, and that is what this basically does. I am under control, therefor my character should be.

 

[Wild Bill Kelso]

...and if you see archer in FoT, you loose thrust/swing accuracy, because you are stressed... (this archer may hit you!)
Don't like idea - instead of simulate player behaviours, better add something to real stress archer - like longer weapon change, every weapon throwable, ramming/pushing/bashing with shield without releasing block, or something like that...

This system would not affect melee weapons, only those which engage the target reticle.  The main reason I thought of implementing this was to add incentive for missile troops to switch to melee when threats are close.  Do you really think that someone would be calm cool and collected drawing back a bow while a horse was bearing down on them?

 

[Halcyon]

 
The field of threat would have a large influence on the targeting reticle.  Basically, the closer an enemy is within the field of threat the wider the targeting reticle becomes.  It would also widen depending upon the speed of approach; hence a galloping horseman would cause the targeting reticule to widen much faster than a charging infantryman.  The field of threat would also decrease as an enemy moves further away. This widening would be on top of the widening of the reticle due to archer fatigue.

Dear GOD! lets nerf archers more! sorry but that is all this is. Even if it applies to thrown weapons, it affects archers the most.

This system would not affect melee weapons, only those which engage the target reticle.  The main reason I thought of implementing this was to add incentive for missile troops to switch to melee when threats are close.  Do you really think that someone would be calm cool and collected drawing back a bow while a horse was bearing down on them?

Yes, lets force archers to switch to something they are bad at. melee. Just what every archer wants.

There is a reason archers dont switch to melee, its because they are not very good at, even if the enemy is 5 feet away, im going to try to shoot him until the last minute, because thats what archers are good at, i.e they do more damage that way most of the time. So no, i do not want to be forced into melee because of a silly system like this.

 

[Wild Bill Kelso]

 
The field of threat would have a large influence on the targeting reticle.  Basically, the closer an enemy is within the field of threat the wider the targeting reticle becomes.  It would also widen depending upon the speed of approach; hence a galloping horseman would cause the targeting reticule to widen much faster than a charging infantryman.  The field of threat would also decrease as an enemy moves further away. This widening would be on top of the widening of the reticle due to archer fatigue.

Dear GOD! lets nerf archers more! sorry but that is all this is. Even if it applies to thrown weapons, it affects archers the most.

This system would not affect melee weapons, only those which engage the target reticle.  The main reason I thought of implementing this was to add incentive for missile troops to switch to melee when threats are close.  Do you really think that someone would be calm cool and collected drawing back a bow while a horse was bearing down on them?

Yes, lets force archers to switch to something they are bad at. melee. Just what every archer wants.

There is a reason archers dont switch to melee, its because they are not very good at, even if the enemy is 5 feet away, im going to try to shoot him until the last minute, because thats what archers are good at, i.e they do more damage that way most of the time. So no, i do not want to be forced into melee because of a silly system like this.

Silly as in making a system that requires players to work together to cover each other weaknesses?  Yeah I guess that is silly, what was i thinking of?  I guess most players want it to be called Warband in name only.

I would like to add that if such a system was used then perhaps archers could have a little more melee ability.

 

[Halcyon]

increased melee was obvious, however perhaps you should have put that in your post beforehand, but you did not. Either way, simply increasing archer melee ability isnt enough to balance this out. Secondly, if i want to shoot someone from 5 feet away i should be able to do so with no penalty.

 

[EdwardWellcraft]

Do you really think that someone would be calm cool and collected drawing back a bow while a horse was bearing down on them?

This get's at the crux of the matter for me. Sure "someone" might not be able to remain calm and cool when a horse is charging them, but "someone" isn't playing. I am. The player needs to be in completely control of their abilities in game. Artificially reducing these abilities by simulating what amounts to an emotion seperates the player from the character. When I talk about Mount and Blade I say "I do this." not "My character does this."

See what I mean? To encourage team-work I would simply make it take longer to switch weapons. You should not be able to put away your bow and pull our your sword in any less than 2-3 seconds. Though I'd also make it possible to drop your current weapon and draw your alternate much faster.

 

[Archonsod]

Been suggested before, and it's still an incredibly stupid idea.

 

[nijis]

I'm not wild about the idea for gameplay purposes, as I already can't hit the broad side of a barn with a missile weapon. However, it's not inappropriate, I don't think.

Adrenaline is not an "emotion", and it's not about controlling your fear. It's your body and brain optimizing themselves for hand-to-hand combat, which means that you lose some of the skills needed for missile accuracy. The effect here described is similar to the vision-blurring in Red Orchestra, or the involuntary "flinch" in Brothers in Arms -- necessary to simulate the effects of suppression fire in a WW2 game. Without it, historical tactics don't make as much sense.

I'd only think that this was a good idea for M&B if there was broad agreement that short range missile needed to be nerfed. However, I'd restrict it to bows and crossbows, as throwing is much more of an instinctive response to a threat than loading and firing.

 

[Archonsod]

It's a failure as much as it is in those games though. Why simulate something in game which you should be capable of invoking in the player from the game? It's like telling the player "you are scared" in a horror game, you're covering for a failure in your design rather than a failure of the medium.

 

[SockMonkeh]

No one is going to be scared by the game because death is meaningless in the game. It does work really well in Red Orchestra. I don't think the crosshairs expanding is a good idea, but some kind of effect similar to Red Orchestra, just to distract and scare the player (you can still overcome it if you are focused enough because it doesn't really disable you in any way, it just makes the danger seem really imminent. Basically, it does what you are talking about). It would be cool to see this kind of effect when a mounted soldier is bearing down on you full speed or when you are on the receiving end of melee blows, as well as when arrows/bolts and thrown weapons are nearly missing you. Really just any time your character would feel immediate danger and could potentially panic.

 

[kingofnoobia]

It's a failure as much as it is in those games though. Why simulate something in game which you should be capable of invoking in the player from the game? It's like telling the player "you are scared" in a horror game, you're covering for a failure in your design rather than a failure of the medium.

That's a rather weird argument imo. If someone charges straight at you (let's say with a great axe, to maximise the effect), I'd think you'd be scared - or at least nervous - irl. In MnB, you don't even get slightly excited by it (at least I don't). When some guy is only a few meters away from you, you'd probably draw some melee weapon, not simply stand there dead-calm aiming between the eyes. I personally don't know whether this would have a good effect on gameplay, I'm rather neutral towards it, but I found your argument rather irrelevant. MnB is not a horror game, and it does not scare people enough to mess up their aim. If you have a suggestion how to make a horseman charging at you scary enough, please say so.

 

[Cwvym]

It's a failure as much as it is in those games though. Why simulate something in game which you should be capable of invoking in the player from the game? It's like telling the player "you are scared" in a horror game, you're covering for a failure in your design rather than a failure of the medium.

That's a rather weird argument imo. If someone charges straight at you (let's say with a great axe, to maximise the effect), I'd think you'd be scared - or at least nervous - irl. In MnB, you don't even get slightly excited by it (at least I don't). When some guy is only a few meters away from you, you'd probably draw some melee weapon, not simply stand there dead-calm aiming between the eyes. I personally don't know whether this would have a good effect on gameplay, I'm rather neutral towards it, but I found your argument rather irrelevant. MnB is not a horror game, and it does not scare people enough to mess up their aim. If you have a suggestion how to make a horseman charging at you scary enough, please say so.

It is not weird at all, and it is relevant. The point is - if you tell a joke then have to explain why it is funny, your actual joke failed.

Like the guy who goes "I don't care who you are, that's funny." Dude, if it was ****ing funny I would have laughed at it, and I am not laughing at a ****ty tagline which just spoils the joke when it is funny. Thanks for telling me it was funny, I was afraid I may have laughed at an inappropriate moment.

I've done my share of panic fire and seen others do it in game too, so kindly stop talking out of your ass or hat.

 

[grimage]

It's a failure as much as it is in those games though. Why simulate something in game which you should be capable of invoking in the player from the game? It's like telling the player "you are scared" in a horror game, you're covering for a failure in your design rather than a failure of the medium.

Very pertinent to me.
Emotion must be transmitted to the player, and it has to be via immersion.
I do feel scared when charged already, i have surges of adrenaline when playing, i do miss by being nervous, i do stupid things because i fear to die. Many keyboards, mice and screens have been harmed while playing!
Maybe some people aren't concerned by those emotions ingame, but only immersion and their involvement in the game should be revised, in my opinion.
If you want to scare them more, make death more punishing, make cavalry approach louder, scarier, give infantry ability to scream, to taunt, raise trample damage... I don't know, but simulating emotion for an emotionnal being doesn't feel right to me.

That said, your suggestion seems quite good concerning bots, whom doesn't know fear. In that way, very nice suggestion OP!

 

[SockMonkeh]

This game is an action/rpg hybrd. The visual effects (or the expanding crosshair, which is an implementation that I do not support) for fear are absolutely in line with other aspects of the game, like attributes and skill. You are limited as a player by your character's statistics. How is your character transmitting his feelings of fear to you through the game any different?

 

[Berserker Pride]

Because it is a lack of control.  It forces you to be afraid.  IRL the choice is yours how to deal with fear so you are still in control.  Some might lose focus and aim in a combat situation but some people focus even more when they are afraid.  This would assume that your character is a scared little baby which would infuriate me to no end.

Go with what the others have said.  Don't force something on a player encourage it.  If you want to encourage archers not firing when someone is a certain distance away you simply have to make the weapon switching more realistic and take longer(ie no more magic trick sheathing of your bow.)  Inaccuracy in accordance with your level of skill is a different thing entirely.  That is always the same and can be built up in single-player.  Trying to simulate character emotions in anything but a horror game is just not a good idea for an action title.  The more in-tune you feel with your character in an action title the better.

 

[Archonsod]

If someone charges straight at you (let's say with a great axe, to maximise the effect), I'd think you'd be scared - or at least nervous - irl. In MnB, you don't even get slightly excited by it (at least I don't).

Yes, that's the point. If the game was doing it's job you should be involved enough that seeing someone charge towards you on a horse provokes a reaction in you. If it doesn't, then the game has failed to engage you on an emotional level. It's something I think particularly acute in the multiplayer; single player has your persistent character to provide a level of emotional investment, multiplayer removes that but doesn't offer anything to replace it.

This game is an action/rpg hybrd. The visual effects (or the expanding crosshair, which is an implementation that I do not support) for fear are absolutely in line with other aspects of the game, like attributes and skill. You are limited as a player by your character's statistics. How is your character transmitting his feelings of fear to you through the game any different?

It breaks the suspension of disbelief. If being charged by an axe wielding Nord is not a fearful experience, and yet the game demands it is, then you're creating a disconnect between the player and the game. It'd be like showing a picture of a flower and demanding people acted afraid, at best the player might find it humorous. Most likely they'll just be nonplussed.