[Suggestion] Old combat system - Is it better?

[Timothy the Knight]

One day when I felt like playing some M&B I went and started up Warband, only to see the servers down. So I instead fired up good ol' version 1.011, and when I got into a fight with some looters, it hit me. The combat is quite different in Warband.

For those who don't have an idea of what I'm talking about, shame on you! Go play the older singleplayer native, it'll do you good. No, seriously, go play it now, even if you know what I'm talking about. Done? Good.

Now, how's the combat different? In Warband, any hit that lands does a fairly large amount of damage, enough to stagger the target. In 1.011, a poorly executed blow glances off, dealing either negligible or no damage at all, leaving you open to a counter. Armor has a big impact on this. Try hitting a half-naked looter, and afterwards a chain-mailed Sea Raider, and after that a Swadian with a coat of plates. Swords get useless once armor gets better. I also tried the popular Warband trick of lancing, and I consistently needed several hits to kill a single target, even with little armor. Unless I hit them dead-center at breakneck speeds, of course, and even then there was the occasional survivor.

In Warband, however, I've seen dudes in the best armor get one-hit-killed. Conversely, I've also seen folks with just the starting shirt survive around 5 blows before going under. It's pretty inconsistent and luck-based what armor does, except for reducing the wearer's speed. It just isn't worth spending that hard-earned gold on something that you can't rely on. And don't give me that "but it will make weapons useless!" argument either. Armor is expensive, and if it would actually benefit you any, you'd have to ask yourself: "do I want more speed and offensive power, or do I want more protection?" That's really a non-issue currently, you just pick a twohander, go naked, and carelessly spam the **** out of the attack button. You'll still get a decent score at worst.

That attack spamming would obviously be roundabout and get you killed quickly if your careless swings would glance off of someone's armor. But that just doesn't happen currently, even the worst blow staggers the enemy if it hits, leaving them vulnerable to the next one.

Of course, I'm not saying Warband's system is all bad. There are a lot of new and good things, such as the ability to use throwing axes and javelins as melee weapons or the ability to aim the couched lance around a bit. However, some things that were good in the older system got either removed or changed a lot. Why doesn't a poorly aimed, bad-angle blow glance off anymore? Why can't I hit anything with a sword from horseback? Why is thrusting lances suddenly so powerful? I'd certainly like to see something closer to the original M&B combat system, with the new things that work well adopted in.

How about you? Got any other things to suggest, any new additions or old omissions that you'd like to see integrated? Got comments/flames/spam? Post them all here!

 

[Phallas]

the first thing i noticed in war band is the combat is very fast compared to the original.
I agree there are things in the original that where better.

 

[Berserker Pride]

I prefer the old native combat too.  Although I feel they would have to tweak weapons and damages if armor went back to the way it was.  You wouldn't want heavy infantry to be completely immune to an archer's melee weapons.  And it would be important to make sure every faction had a weapon that could defeat heavy armor.  And I really like how the stubbing about from horseback didn't one-shot a target.  Even in native it was the safest way to attack but because the damage was lower I tended to couchlance or get a morningstar instead.  It gave a lot of versatility to mounted combat which is missing right now.  I also like how in the old system if you backed away from a blow and got hit when the weapon started slowing down you often received no damage provided you were wearing armor.  I don't see what the problem is with making armor good.  Provided you make sure that both teams get a chance to use it(aka enough money for losing side) it should be the default choice.  Right now people seem to prefer leather.  Enough protection so that one-handers don't one shot you but doesn't slow you down too much.  Armor improved in defensive power a couple patches ago but for how much it slows you down it should be cheaper.

 

[looy]

Meh, the old system was good enough for bot-bashing, but it's a little bit crude for multiplayer.

 

[Commodore_Frank]

I'm too lazy to go into much detail, but I like some of the features of both. In Native, armor seemed a lot more effective, and it was much more necessary to use the sweet spots of your weapons instead of turning into your attacks to hit sooner. I like the faster pace of Warband, though. That's just two examples, as I'm a lazy bum today.

 

[Johnny Morphine]

I'm too lazy to go into much detail, but I like some of the features of both. In Native, armor seemed a lot more effective, and it was much more necessary to use the sweet spots of your weapons instead of turning into your attacks to hit sooner. I like the faster pace of Warband, though. That's just two examples, as I'm a lazy bum today.

All very true. Especially the lazy bum part.

 

[Vornne]

You need more poll options. I like the warband system better, but I would support some things.

Increased effectiveness of the heavier armours would be good, also better animations for slashing from horseback (as many others have said) and reducing the effectiveness of stabbing big lances sideways on a horse; whether that means when riding at speed making stabbing (not couching) disabled entirely, or unless aimed mostly forwards, I don't really mind.

 

[TRU]

After playing Warband a few weeks I fired up mnb and noticed right away that I keep the camera way lower since the weapon range is a bit better. In mnb attacks seem to have more direction and I would be able to tell the direction of an attack if i could see it, not always the case in Warband. I guess the slower pace too (not really sure what was slower though)

 

[test]

The reach and arc of <1.011 swing animations are infinitely better for gameplay, imo.

Everything else goes to Warband, especially with the physics and new mechanics going in that will give combat even more depth.  Native is based around bot-smashing, the balance doesn't compare.

 

[Triggerhappy]

The reach and arc of <1.011 swing animations are infinitely better for gameplay, imo.

Everything else goes to Warband, especially with the physics and new mechanics going in that will give combat even more depth.  Native is based around bot-smashing, the balance doesn't compare.

Agreed, right now any time I use a one handed weapon I feel like I'm slashing at something right in front of my face and don't get a sense of the depth/arc of the swing.  Let's wait and see what the new physics will do.

 

[Cwvym]

It is easy enough to use a weapon from horseback ... with practise. Also, unlike the hapless bots, opponents have a tendency to spoil your aim by chopping at your horse.

I found thrusting easy in single player.

Warband has a better but different view for swinging weapons from horseback. So many successful attacks in single player I did not even see.

You are right on about the armour though.

 

[Sir Pwn-A-Lot]

On-foot combat is much more polished in WB, though still need some work with weapon momentum (so damage can be different in the beginning, middle and end of swing arc) . But mounted sword/axe/mace battle system was much better in 1.011.

 

[Merlkir]

I think that armors do a lot already. The other day I was fighting a nord in maille and my attacks with a sword didn't seem to hurt him at all. Obviously he broke my shield and killed me before I could much harm.  (and yeah, I suck, but it was clear that the sword didn't do much damage)

And in general, I think the new system is better, because it's suited more for multiplayer. The old one would be horrible in MP.