[Suggestion]Weapon and Armor Overhaul.

正在查看此主题的用户

EdwardWellcraft

Sergeant Knight
So does anyone else think the whole weapon and armor system really needs an overhaul? I did some searching and also looked in the suggestion thread stickied at the top and didn't see anything about this, but I'm sure it's been discussed in passing. At any rate here are my points.

1. Weapons need to do more base damage: Basically weapons should be calibrated against the naked human body first. All weapons should be killing in one hit to the naked head 99.9% of the time, and should be killing in 1 hit to the naked torso like 95% of the time. A majority of the time, at any rate. I should not have to hit someone multiple times with a hand axe to bring them down. Keep in mind that no, getting stabed with a sword once or hit with an axe once might not actually KILL you in one hit, but it will be removing you from combat. Unless you want to start showing crippling and slowly bleeding to death in agony than we need to use the point at which somone becomes incapable of combat as when they should be killed in game.

2. Armor needs to protect more: This entirely depends upon the weapon and armor, of course. But for the most obvious example a short sword cutting at someone in the a mail hauberk should be doing almost no damage, or no damage at all. H

3. More differentiation between attack types: Cut, pierce, and blunt damage need tweaking in their armor penetration bonuses. Cutting should be doing very little against maille, and should also be significantly hampered by the good "soft" armors. Piercing and blunt, however, should be very effective against these armors, almost ignoring them in some cases, such as with the picks and morning star, and 2-handed weapons would also deal out more damage to armored foes so that someone with a great axe with "cutting" damage would still be capable of dealing tremendous damage to someone in maille.

I think all in all these kinds of changes would add some significant variation to the different weapons and armors. It would buff both the armor, which is not particularly useful(though it's gotten more useful lately) and some of the mostly unused weapons, like the military pick and morning star. It would also make the thrusting of swords more useful and common. Finally it would work towards balancing out 2-handed and 1-handed weapons in a fairly realistic way, as single handed weapons, besides a few key weapons, would have significantly less armor penetrating ability than 2-handers.
 
Armor should definitely play a greater role than it does now. I'm tired of dying in a few slashes from a short sword when I buy the most expensive armors.
 
I agree-the naked ones can take up a few hits before falling, me wiht basic armour get down in 1-2 hits 95% of the time.
 
I like it, only if the armor did not slow down your swing speed or not been a handicap on movement speed i would buy brigantine/mail all the time.

It is more of a handicap with the swing speed and movement speed disadvantages.

I don't agree on little to no damage but to medium damage, just a tad less than right now. It takes like 4 - 5  bastard sword swings to kill a guy in brigantine which is enough.
 
I'm not sure people really think through the repercussions of making armor inviolate to slashing attacks. What do you want swadians to do? Need to take an awlpike for pierce to touch someone in lamellar? And a near-miss slash to the torso or the arm isn't necessarily going to kill you, however we only have 1 torso hitbox and we can't account for that when a naked is guaranteed to die in one tap.
 
Yea as realistic as it sounds it might not be good for the game play.

Having to be invincible to every attack but thrust makes little sense in terms of a videogame.
 
Ros 说:
I'm not sure people really think through the repercussions of making armor inviolate to slashing attacks. What do you want swadians to do? Need to take an awlpike for pierce to touch someone in lamellar? And a near-miss slash to the torso or the arm isn't necessarily going to kill you, however we only have 1 torso hitbox and we can't account for that when a naked is guaranteed to die in one tap.

They have swords, which work wonders with stabbing (which is piercing). Those swords are also 2-handers, which would be more effective against armor as proposed by the OP. In addition, they have crossbows and cavalry to rely on.
 
Ros 说:
I'm not sure people really think through the repercussions of making armor inviolate to slashing attacks. What do you want swadians to do? Need to take an awlpike for pierce to touch someone in lamellar?
Their swords have piercing damage and their two handed swords will still be able to cut through armor to a degree. Also if armor were to be near impervious I'd propose slight prices increases to reflect that. Very few people would be walking around in the heavy armor.
And a near-miss slash to the torso or the arm isn't necessarily going to kill you, however we only have 1 torso hitbox and we can't account for that when a naked is guaranteed to die in one tap.
The game could do with separate hit boxes for portions of the body, for one thing. However the fact that not all hits would be fatal is accounted for in the small chance of surviving a hit to the torso. I said it would kill 95% of the time. That means 5% of the time it won't.
 
say what? o_O
i do agree on the point that naked guys take way to many hits before going down, especially in the torso and head.
But the fact that armour is useless as it is now, i couldnt diasgree more, as an all inf player i ALWAYS buy as much metall as possible, and i do get saved by it aswell.
I tend to get "stuck in" melee and soak up hits and deliver them aswell with my 2Hers. Its not unusual that i kill 1-5 enemies in one go when im being at my best (im not bragging) the armour makes me superbly hard to slay,especially when people use ligth handweapons such as the Scimitar or shortsword, it usualy takes 4-11 hits to kill me whit theese weapons wich is well enough for a balanced gameplay.

Arrows also tend to hit me alot, i almost look like some wierd WoW orch after some siege figths , pointy sticks everywhere and blood all over me.
Armour is efficient as it is, thou what needs a nerf is the Warhammer at the moment, i used to love that weapon but now its just far too good. Earlier today i bought the heaviest thouhest shield the rhodoks have to offer an i fought an Khergit with a looted sledge hammer, one hit goes rigth throu my shield, wounds me BADLY and throws me off my feet, sure it would hurt irl but such things just aint good for balance IMO.
 
Syzgroth 说:
say what? o_O
i do agree on the point that naked guys take way to many hits before going down, especially in the torso and head.
But the fact that armour is useless as it is now, i couldnt diasgree more, as an all inf player i ALWAYS buy as much metall as possible, and i do get saved by it aswell.
I tend to get "stuck in" melee and soak up hits and deliver them aswell with my 2Hers. Its not unusual that i kill 1-5 enemies in one go when im being at my best (im not bragging) the armour makes me superbly hard to slay,especially when people use ligth handweapons such as the Scimitar or shortsword, it usualy takes 4-11 hits to kill me whit theese weapons wich is well enough for a balanced gameplay.

I usually don't see the best players running around in heavy armor as they know ultimately it's not going to do much good, other than soaking up a few stray arrows here and there. I'd like to see almost more of a pierce/no pierce system. You either get through the armor or you don't. If you do get through you do moderate to heavy damage but if you don't get through you deal no damage. It's not as though if you kept hitting someone in maille with a sword you would wound them a little bit every time and then eventually kill them. You would simple either get through their armor or not get through it. If you did get through it you'd likely either kill or fairly seriously wound them.

IT would need a good deal of tweaking but I think a system like that, combined with more effective anti-armor weapons, and you'd see a lot more variation in what weapons people grab. How many people even bother with the morningstar now a days? How many people would grab it if they knew it could just crush it's way through almost any armor with ease?
 
On the same note then arrows from weaker bows should also have a chance of glancing off plate armor :razz:

X-bows on the other hand would then be the ultimate anti-armor ranged weapon - as they should be :grin:
 
I remember ages ago when Zaro was doing his Realism/Enhanced mod. He made it so cutting wasn't effective against maille so you would have to stab to get results. Did some other stuff too, was ages ago so I can't exactly remember.
 
For gameplay reasons, I disagree that any armor should offer 100% protection against cutting weapons. Significant reduction in damage is fine, but it would never be fun to have a situation where on side has no chance to damage the opponent.
 
dstemmer 说:
For gameplay reasons, I disagree that any armor should offer 100% protection against cutting weapons. Significant reduction in damage is fine, but it would never be fun to have a situation where on side has no chance to damage the opponent.

This is why I believe that attacks should not be exclusively piercing, bludgeoning, or cutting. All attacks should be rated in each category. A prime example would be an axe, which should do significant cutting and bludgeoning damage. Another good example is a spiked mace, which should be doing piercing and bludgeoning. This would also be a great way to make heavier 2-handed weapons more effective against armor naturally. A one-handed sword would do a lot of cutting damage with a slice, but no piercing damage and only a slight about of blunt damage. However, a 2-handed great-sword would do a little more cutting damage but a lot more blunt damage, to the point where it will matter when you are beating on someone in heavy armor. Even though it's designed as a cutting weapon, a weapon that big is going to do bludgeoning trauma when you smack someone with it. It's not going to be effective as a purely bludgeoning weapon like a mace, but it won't be nearly completely negated by heavy armor at all.
 
Yep, don't see any reason that two types of damage shouldn't be allowed. Axes should do some piercing damage, for example, since they penetrate deeper than a sword slash.
 
后退
顶部 底部