Switching weapons.... too fast.

[Captain Black]

I think the weapon changeing is much too fast. There is no way a guy can put away a spear/sword/axe/etc, and ready a bow in the time we do now.

Does anyone else find that changing weapons is too fast? I mean as a playing decision do you think much about if there is time to change weapons? Or do you just look at the situation and chose the best weapon without thinking about the time that will be used (which is actually leaving us defensless)?

I think there should be atlest 2-3x the current time required to change the active weapon. Hell it takes me more time to find the key to change weapons than it does to actually switch. And the AI doesnt use a keyboard hehehe. NOT FAIR! sniff

C.

 

[GreenKnight]

It is too fast, but I think this is just one area in which I'll allow a lapse of realism in favor of gameplay. Honestly, do you think it's going to make it realistic if it's slowed down a bit? Look at the guy! He pulls a friggin great lance from nowhere! So no, I see what you're saying, but I'd prefer to leave that part as is.

 

[Captain Black]

I dont think it will improve the realism primarily, I think it will require more thinking from the player. Is that guy closing the distance slow enough to make it worth while switching to a bow? Maybe, maybe not, as it stands now there isnt a choice to be made aside from "will my current weapon hit from this distance". Look at it as an opportunity to provide more thought to the combat.

Then there is also the frustration of, while charging a bowman, he shoots you with an arrow at very close range (20-30 feet) and has time to whip out a sword and shield in time to block your attack.

Just a suggestion.

C.

 

[GreenKnight]

Ah. Well, an interesting suggestion, but as one who is decent but not fantastic at this game, I'm generally not too enthusiastic about changes that make the game harder simply for the sake of making it harder.

Edit: Oh, maybe I missed your last bit last time. That is an interesting point...I dunno, I'm still not too crazy about it.

 

[DaLagga]

I think it could make it more fun. Not just raising the difficulty a bit...but it does seem a bit odd to be able to fire an arrow at an enemy 2 feet from you, then whip out a sword and cut him down before he recovers from the knockback. Perhaps this could be related to your agility, higher agility = faster weapon switch. Always made me laugh on CS when someone would fire an AWP, switch to a sidearm, then back to the AWP to avoid the rest of the animation and thus fire faster.

 

[Captain Black]

Perhaps this could be related to your agility, higher agility = faster weapon switch.

Theat sound very reasonable to me, and it would be in keeping with the skills system.

C.

 

[ironpants]

I agree that the weapon switching is much too fast. Just slowing it down will not wholly address the issue, however. I'd like to see carried weapons on the player model (already being done with arrow / bolt quivers) - and have to actually sheath that gigantic two handed sword before readying my shield and a jarid from the [insert historical jarid container here]. Animations only need to approximate the action, and large / unwieldy weapons should take longer to put away.

As is, there's no penalty for using a two hander - I can whip out my shield and a throwing weapon of choice straight from ye olde ethereal weapon slot the instant I need it.

I support anything that requires more tactical thinking in combat.

 

[GreenKnight]

If this IS implemented, I suggest it be tied to the difficulty level. You people want to make it harder? Fine. But I can't be the only one who's not terribly bothered by my failure to play it "hardcore".

 

[Wanderer]

have to actually sheath that gigantic two handed sword.

Realistically, those giant swords were carried in a Baldric, and you wouldn't sheath it so much as have to re-tie it back into place across your back...

In battle, you'd stick it in the ground until you were ready to pick it up again, and it'd be gone if you wandered away from it.

I'd have to agree with GreenKnight here. There's only so much hardcore I want to get in a game.

 

[JohnathanStrange]

If this IS implemented, I suggest it be tied to the difficulty level. You people want to make it harder? Fine. But I can't be the only one who's not terribly bothered by my failure to play it "hardcore".

I agree, if one needs to be hardcore then let it be part of some optional features.

There's already a certain amount of abstraction inherent in the combat system: no levels of fatigue, no decline in abilities due to wounds, enemy reinforcements "beaming" in, no morale influences - everyone fights to the death, etc.

However, by making combat harder it could make it more interesting for the very proficient player. As a default standard feature, I don't like it.

 

[Captain Black]

In a combat with 25-1 odds having a longer weapon change will make combat easier, it will affect all of the enemy troops. Yea it will be a bit more difficult for you to select a weapon in some situations but that situation is 20x reversed on your opposition. You guys are looking at the half empty side of the glass.

Oh well, you can lead a horse to water....

C.

 

[ironpants]

I'm generally not too enthusiastic about changes that make the game harder simply for the sake of making it harder.

This idea does nothing of the sort; it simply adds some more tactical pacing to the combat. It doesn't only affect the player; everyone on the battlefield would simply take a little longer manipulating their weapon changes. The element of surprise is lacking at present, and I think this might add a dash.

Can you explain how you think this is harder simply for the sake of making it harder? For every example you think of, mirror the situation and realize that it applies to both sides.

 

[Eird-Way]

I have to admit that in a game feeling so heavy and solid, the cartoony insta-draws do feel a little off.

I think if proper animations were developed so that you could draw your blade with a flourish and a satisfing SHING! noise, it would add a nice feel. Also, playing as an archer is currently pretty unrealistic for the player, because I can hit the toggle key when the enemy raises his axe and have my shield out in time to block the blow.

Even being quite realistic, a simple delay wouldn't have to be too long. I liked the idea of the strange delay between weapons in daggerfall, but I think they were just a little bit unrealistically excessive. Something a tad shorter would be good, with some sort of audiovisual confirmation so you don't accidentally swap too many times and get yourself killed.

 

[Tyreal the Imperishable]

It is unrealistic, yes. But this again comes down to just how realistic you want the game to be. Complete realism rarely makes for a fun game. Personally, I would find a long weapon-switching time mildly frustrating rather than realistic. Realism is all well and good, but I prefer 'fun' over realism in games and the weapon-switch speed time is not something that bothers me. To each their own.

Perhaps an option could be included to turn longer weapon switching times on or off. Then we can have the option depending upon our preference.

I like the idea of better weapon drawing animations and a different sound effect for drawing them. It would be nice to flourish the weapon a bit.

 

[Captain Black]

It's not about realism, so much as its about not getting screwed by 40 AI NPC's switching weapons faster than you can even recognize they need to be switched.

Look, here it is spelled out.

When I go from axe to bow I have to:
1. realize the bow is better
2. find the key
3. tap the key (actually starting the switching animation)
4. and then ready my attack.

Generally takes about 1-2 seconds. Sometimes more cause my keyboard kind of has crappy action, but anywhoo.

When the AI does it, it skips 2 and it takes a fraction of a second. If the AI had to wait longer from 3 it would be more fair. Especially since the AI almost always outnumbers you, it is a fairly big disadvantage.

A simple lengthening of the weapon change animation levels the playing field in that regard. The added realism is just a bonus.
The extra thought that will be needed by players is also a bonus.

There are planty of first person shooters out there that are having medieval combat mods made for them. I own the base game engines for most of them, not playing them, but I own them. I am playing M&B. You do the math.

C.

 

[Tyreal the Imperishable]

You do realise you can set the switch weapon key to any key of your choosing, right? I can't say this is a problem for me. I have it set as E and can easily switch weapons twice per second just like the ai. I found the idea of it taking 2 seconds somewhat...odd, so just loaded it to test and with my current setup it took half a second to switch weapons.

Basically, as I said, to each their own. I prefer the current setup. However, I generally prefer quicker gameplay and can do it in about the same time as the ai. I find being able to change weapons faster rewards fast reflexes and quicker thinking.

But the option should be there for those who prefer to take their time or, for whatever reason, can't do it or are experiencing difficulty with it, sure.

Until that is added, I recommend trying to set it to a key you can reach quickly and remember. It makes it much easier.

 

[Eird-Way]

I'm not so much concerned with REALISM as I am with BELIEVABILITY. I personally like the way it would make the game feel, not because I just worship history.

And honestly, the delay wouldn't be very much at all.

If you're so against realism, why play a game where one good blow can kill you? I'm so tired of DnD fighters withstanding chainsaws and rocket bombs. The sense of believability is what makes me love M&B.

Too much realism can be a bad thing, sure. Like someone said elsewhere you don't want your gun jamming in an FPS, and the regenerating shields are definitely a good thing in M&B (although, honestly, shields should just be way cheaper instead). But this is the sort of abstraction I really don't like.

 

[Captain Black]

Dude I have it bound to a freakin mouse button now and it still doenst mitigate the situation.

Plays out like this...

Get hit with arrow from across the skirmish, locate archer, trun horse to face archer, archer hits me again, raise shield to block, start closing distance, archer sees me coming and lets another arrow go when I am 20 feet in front of him (at full gallop too btw), as I close to striking distance he switches weapons and gets his shield in place before I close the last 10 feet.

If I am lucky I will get charge damage to knock the shield away and get a chance to hit.

If I am not lucky it cost me the pass and I have to go around again while he gets the bow back out and repetes the senario. He is not really commited to any attack because there is no delay for him between deciding to switching weapons and the weapons getting switched.

With a longer switch time, if I commit to switching weapons then I lose the ability to attack/defend the instant before a strike.

With the short switch time he gets to lay into my back before I can ready a ranged weapon or turn to face him with my shield. He can go from bow to sword and shield and then back to bow before I am fully passed him in many instances.

Yeah believability is key, and realism sure does go a long way toward believability. I really hope this isnt going to turn out to be a twitch game, that market is already pretty well saturated.

C.

 

[GreenKnight]

Well, I can't speak to the condition with a less than fully functional keyboard, but I can generally cycle through my weapons pretty fast, and it has real tactical applications. I'm not a master at this game, right? Sometimes, I screw up a lance charge, and my damn horse ends up whinnying on its hind legs while the entire enemy force is little more than a jump away, and I've got a dark hunter right next to me, swinging away with that axe. In that case, I'll want to immediately break out a quicker weapon, like my fighting axe, to get that guy off me, and fend off anyone else as I'm trying to retreat to a better position. Or what if an enemy knight closes in a bit behind me? A lance is an awkward weapon for trying to fight him off with. I'll want to get a better weapon out, and in a hurry. I'm fine with the addition of some sort of slider governing how fast your weapon can be changed, but no, I fail to see any use in mandating my own sluggishness.

 

[Captain Black]

I fail to see any use in mandating my own sluggishness.

But you have no problem with weapon attack speeds being based on agility? They do, in fact "mandate your own sluggishness". Same with running speed etc.

C.