[Suggestion] Reflect stun time back to the attacker on a successful parry

[Urist]

I think Plazek suggested that before but I think this deserves a thread.

It can be pretty frustrating to get stun locked by a heavy weapon.
In order to give the defender an option to break the stun lock, why
not let a successful parry reflect the stun time back on the attacker.

So if for example the defender would get stunned for 1s when blocking normally,
a parry should stun the attacker for 1s instead. This would simulate a defensive
maneuver that uses the momentum of the attacker's swing to break his balance.

A light weapon ( vs. a heavy one) would naturally be better for parrying as it would be stunned
for longer with a regular block.

In compensation the parry time window should be rather small and parry should not be spammable.
There should be cooldown timer for parry that only allows 1 parry attempt per second or so but still
always allows normal blocking.

 

[Ros]

So if a scimitar parries a long axe/maul the long axe/clownhammer user should be guaranteed to be hit? Imo I'd like to see LESS stun, not more. Not to mention it would discourage attacking a lighter weapon in the circles of the mildly good who might often be able to block a slower/heavy weapon with the parry.

That is, unless you wanted to make parry REALLY hard. It would still have the above effect(except only for even better people) but make the learning curve even more vertical for someone not used to and into M&B.

 

[Urist]

There is no guarantee to be hit. The attacker gets stunned. That means he can't attack for a short period of time. He can still block.
The attacker experiences the same stun effect the defender would get if he blocked instead of parrying.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

Or just remove stun 

 

[Berserker Pride]

I like this idea.  This is exactly the way parry should work.  It would encourage a lot of momentum swings between players.  Right now the momentum is always on the attackers side with a continuous barrage of stuns. 

However I feel that even weapons that don't normally stun should impart some stun on the attacker if your parry him.  Just not as much.  Otherwise weapon speed dominates who wins a fight too much.

 

[Manitas]

It can be pretty frustrating to get stun locked by a heavy weapon.
In order to give the defender an option to break the stun lock, why
not let a successful parry reflect the stun time back on the attacker.

In other words, fix stun with more stun. Why only the defender is to be frustrated, let's frustrate the attacker as well.

I hope the testing period for stun is about to end, and being verified negatively.
A fake mechanic intended as a stopgap for the lack of inertia, breaks more than it fixes.

 

[Thyr]

I always wondered why it wasn't like this in the first place, thus \agree that there should be an option to fight back against stun.

Though personally I'd already enjoy it enough if parrying at least negated the stun, for me mirroring it back isn't really necessary, but meh. Just worried about completely stun-overloaded fights where things turn from the old block-hit-block (which is nowadays just a block-block-block against heavy weapons) to a parry-hit-parry rythm with each party getting stunned in a row. The parry window should really be made smaller (maybe, as somebody else once suggested, the first 0.x seconds of a regular block would work as a parry if a weapon collision is detected).

 

[CalenLoki]

I like it, but a little more complicated version would be better:
-if you block (long hold block button, easiest option), you are stunned
-if you parry with block (short tap block button, easy, but harder than block), nobody (or both) are stunned, initiative goes to faster weapon
-if you parry with chambering (hardest and most risky way), attacker are stunned.

 

[AoC]

I like it, but a little more complicated version would be better:
-if you block (long hold block button, easiest option), you are stunned
-if you parry with block (short tap block button, easy, but harder than block), nobody (or both) are stunned, initiative goes to faster weapon
-if you parry with chambering (hardest and most risky way), attacker are stunned.

Pretty much agree, but with parry i think attacker should be stunned a bit (just a bit), to allow initiative takeover (with good timing). No stun means that weapon with similar speed (attacker) will still outspam defender.

 

[NieksterNL]

this suggestion is bull**** imo

 

[Berserker Pride]

I always wondered why it wasn't like this in the first place, thus \agree that there should be an option to fight back against stun.

Though personally I'd already enjoy it enough if parrying at least negated the stun, for me mirroring it back isn't really necessary, but meh. Just worried about completely stun-overloaded fights where things turn from the old block-hit-block (which is nowadays just a block-block-block against heavy weapons) to a parry-hit-parry rythm with each party getting stunned in a row. The parry window should really be made smaller (maybe, as somebody else once suggested, the first 0.x seconds of a regular block would work as a parry if a weapon collision is detected).

I suggested that the first few miliseconds of a regular block should be the parry.  But it should be a very short time window not something even a player with very good ping could pull off all the time.  Quite honestly the tap to parry system annoyed me.

 

[Plazek]

It is a good suggestion actually

lol at

this suggestion is bull**** imo

So eloquent.

Anyway, an important part of the suggestion when I origionally made it is to also have stun not be a default attack. Should be caused by chambering or some other specific means. A reflectable stun would be nice without that but not ideal IMO. It is no good if every time you use a heavy weapon a skilled player can just stun you back (though with a limit of 1 per second in combination with feints I feel the advantage would still be with the heavier weapon).

The problem as I see it is big weapons stun all the time every time. Making it so you have to perform a stun move would reduce it, making it so there is a risk to performing it would reduce it more. Then it would actually be a very nice combat mechanic.

 

[Berserker Pride]

Exactly chambering should be necessary for stun.  A chambered attack is also a telegraphed attack, but could be useful to regain the initiative in the fight.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

I'd say a real telegraphed, committed attack is more likely to lose you the initiative if you have it, or kill you if you don't have it.

 

[Plazek]

If it fails, ie you get stabbed first it would. Also if you had the stun reflected it would too. Of course if it is sucessful you stun the opponent.

Risk/reward trumps reward alone IMO. ie stun as it is now.