'Tweaking' hitboxes (separating horse + rider hitbox discussion)

[Volkier]

Initially I wanted to post this in one of the old threads regarding the matter, however after reading all of them, it turns out that none managed to stay on the actual 'suggesting' path and ended up as a heated argumenting discussion, in which people were trying to state which is more realistic. Therefore, an attempt to making a thread, in which I hope we could avoid such a debate, and actually come up with a solution which would please everyone, by the means of understanding the opposing party's problems, and thinking of a suggestion which would solve those problems as well as your own.

Once again, I apologise for making yet another thread, but could we all NOT argue in this (like we did in every single other one) and actually come up with a relatively constructive suggestion(s) which would be easy for Armagan to impliment should he choose to do so? Therefore, whether you are pro or con the idea, it would be good if you state the problems you would personally experience (ie. WHY you are against the idea of separation / joined up hitbox). I'm sure that once we understand everyone else's problems, we would be able to think of a solution which, hopefully, armagan would put in place.

Personal problems I have with joined hit boxes is:
1) I felt that M&B was unique because the two hitboxes for horse and rider were completely separate.
2) I want to be responsible for where I hit. Meaning I want to hit the horse if I'm aiming for the horse, and the rider if im aiming for the rider. Currently I just swing anywhere and hit both
3) I can't imagine how it is possible that a lance could go through between the legs of the rearing horse, through the chest, rib-cage, shoulders and come out in the withers hitting the rider. (that is if the horse is rearing)
I can't imagine how it is possible for the lance to suddenly change direction INSIDE the horse, and come upwards once again hitting the rider.
4) When you have a lance vs lance on a horse, currently its basically the person with a longer lance, since all you and your opponent has to do is stick it infront, aiming at the horse. The longer lance would hit both, first, so hence the victor. There is no skill involved, in actually aiming at what you want to hit.
5) Overall, I feel that this removes the depth of combat, where you actually have to aim your hits carefully, and choose the target which you wish to hit, thus removing the strategic thinking of the combat as well..

The counter-reasons I have seen in other threads are mostly -
1) Footman player is not able to solo more than 2 or 3 cavalry due to
- hitting the horse, while rider carries on the swing
(I can't remember anything other than that, since that was the main argument re-phrased in many different ways, please add on to this)

Proposed suggestions:
- Universal solution would be to have a 'double damage on / off' button.
- Hit boxes are 'tweaked', so that you would actually hit what you are aiming to hit, and not a random 50/50 chance of whether its the horse or rider.
- Only a certain weapon (eg. a hooked axe) is able to hit both, while the rest of the weapons act with a separate hit-box.
- Executing double-hits could only be achieved at a very specific angle
- Horses react to pain in different ways, thus giving more options to the footmen
- Horses footsteps / breathing is brought up in volume, so that footmen are able to hear a horse charging from behind
- Sidestepping is improved to par with forward / backward speed, hence dodging is easier.

Please avoid heated arguments, and state the problems you would face should the hit boxes be separated, or like myself in current case, joined up. Then try to understand the reasons other people provided, no matter how lousy they may sound, and think of a solution which would benefit both. Hopefully we could have a single sensible thread on this subject without flame-wars, and put this matter to rest once and for all :

 

[jrawlings]

I'm for separate hitboxes, for precisely the same reason you stated... I want to be able to the horse or the rider.

However, I do agree with the footman issue as well. I think the problem lies in the current mechanic for swinging weapons. When you line up a swing, the type of swing you execute has to do with the way you are looking in relation to your target. Since the mounted rider is above you and may be coming in at an angle, it would be impossible under certain conditions to execute the appropriate swing that would hit the rider (the overhead poke/thrust if you are using a sword). If the mechanics were changed to where you could somehow control the type of swing you execute, regardless of your opponent's location, then the separate hitboxes would be no problem. If you don't understand what I'm talking about, go to the training room, STAND STILL and try and execute a given swing against your opponent. You'll find that it is tough because the swing you end up getting is depends on where they are in relation to you.


On a separate note, I've noticed that when I am charging down a hill (this is with a great lance) against a footman with even a short weapon (like a mace), they are often able to hit me (and my horse) even though my lance is WAY longer than their weapon. The reason for this is that there is no "tilt" when you go downhill, so you have to actually LOWER your lance to hit the hitbox. The result is an overall shortening of the effective range (see pythagorean theorum if you don't understand) of the lance. Not too realistic. To see what I mean, trot down a hill and whil you are half way down press the ~ key and rotate the camera. I haven't done this myself, but what I am betting you'll see is that you are still sitting upright relative to flat ground and not the angle of the slope. Now, I understand that a rider must lean back slightly to keep balance but the effect here is too drastic I think.

 

[Manitas]

However, I do agree with the footman issue as well. I think the problem lies in the current mechanic for swinging weapons. When you line up a swing, the type of swing you execute has to do with the way you are looking in relation to your target. Since the mounted rider is above you and may be coming in at an angle, it would be impossible under certain conditions to execute the appropriate swing that would hit the rider (the overhead poke/thrust if you are using a sword).

Diagonal swings would be nice for that purpose.

 

[jrawlings]

Just better control of the swing would make me happy. Maybe the swing mechanic would be that if you wanted to do a slashing side to side swing, you click and hold the mouse button while moving the mouse horizontally. Other swings could happen in a similar fashion.

I know morrowind used a system where it was the direction you were moving, so if you pressed A or D while swinging it was a side to side slash, where as W was a thrust etc... That kind of system would work.

To make things intuitive, the blocking system would also need to be changed to match.

 

[DaLagga]

I know morrowind used a system where it was the direction you were moving, so if you pressed A or D while swinging it was a side to side slash, where as W was a thrust etc... That kind of system would work.

That system was not used because of its obvious limitations. You can't move forward and sideswing for instance. So i have to say M&B's directional attack system is far more advanced than morrowind, well done armagan! But as for the topic at hand...here's some points i'd like to make.
1. As has been stated before dozens of times, foot combat is alot harder than mounted combat (about 10 fold), so why make it even harder?
2. The main purpose of damage passing through to the rider is to interrupt his attack.
3. I don't like having to look at the sky to hit the guy instead of the horse.
4. I fail to see how seperate hitboxes adds to the strategy or tactics of combat. Actually, it takes away from it since you ALWAYS, with no exception, aim for the rider if you're on foot.
5. If you're mounted and dismount an enemy, he's still a challenge to kill and very battle ready, especially since under your system he would be at full health. However, if you're mounted and dismount the enemy he's as good as dead, since not even 200 infantry can't touch a mounted pc.
6. If hitboxes were seperated you'd almost never see a dead horse. I know this for a fact after playing under that system for a couple of weeks.
7. I'd just like to add that hitboxes were only seperated for a very short while, so people like Volkier who joined during that period need to realize that it has returned to the way it has been for the longest time.

Possible solutions:
1. Riders should have a knockback effect if their mount is hit, but perhaps no damage is dealt. (i feel very strongly about this one).
2. Piercing attacks really shouldn't hit both horse and rider, especially the lance, but most 2handed slashing weapons should certainly deal damage to both.
3. Riders should take fall damage if their mount is cut from under them. As i suggested before, damage could be between 1 and 1.5xhorse speed. So if you were traveling at a speed of 10, you would take between 1 and 15 damage from the fall. And please don't try to say this is unrealistic, falling from a horse can hurt like hell, cause injury, and even death. If you were to fall off of a horse in real life, around people who regularly rode them, do you really think they'd just stand there going "ha, that was funny, lets watch him do it again!". No! They'd run over to make sure you were ok because they know there is a real significant possibility of injury. And yes, even breaking your pinky finger would impair your ability to fight, and should be represented by damage. Not to mention the tremendous blow to your morale, which since that is not present in the game as of now should also be represented as damage.
4. It should take much longer to stand up after being dismounted. Something like current time to stand up + .1sec per encumberance. So if you're wearing full black with an encumberance of 40, it should take about 5 seconds to stand up (assuming the current time is about 1 second). Being dismounted should = death if you're surrounded by enemies. Right now all being dismounted means is you have to whip out your 2hander and solo the rest of them on foot.
5. I also agree mounted units need to have a bit more sound to them. I have a nice set of surround sound speakers, and unless i have the volume so high it hurts, i can't tell when one is riding up on me.

 

[NikkTheTrick]

.4. I fail to see how seperate hitboxes adds to the strategy or tactics of combat. Actually, it takes away from it since you ALWAYS, with no exception, aim for the rider if you're on foot.

Bull****.
Do you try to hit the rider when he has his shield up?

Reasons to hit the horse:
-It is charging at you, so you hit wit a pike (to stop the horse) and, once the horse is stopped, hack the rider (or finish the horse to kill the rider while he's down).
-Horseman has his shield up. Hit the horsie.
-You want to ride the horse or to use it as a "shield" against another horseman.
-You try to take a nobleman prisoner. Much easier to knock him down while he's on foot.




As for foot being "10 times harder", just get a big group of footmen (or dismount mounted troops) and watch what happens when cavalry charges: most passes through while some are trapped in your groop. They are slaughtered in seconds. After that, horsemen charge again. Some pass, some die.

That way, you will win with little or no losses with evenly matched groups.

 

[Wood]

I always aim for the horse, it was a very popular tactic for English archers. French knights are not nearly as tough without their horses.

 

[Volkier]

It would actually be a reason to kill a horse, in order to give yourself a fair advantage against the now horseless opponent. NOT a dead horse, without any reason, other than you swinging anyways just to hit both.

Yes, as stated before foot soldier is harder than mounted, BECAUSE a horseman would have a horse. Having a shared hit-box between the two, just takes it equilavent to a faster foot-soldier - nothing more. I would also tend to ask how would something hitting your horse would interrupt your attack if you think about it? If we start thinking like that, maybe we should have a key which would automatically interrupt whatever the enemy is doing?

I understand that you wouldn't want to look at the sky, and I completely agree infact, as well as I suppose everybody else. So why not think of something which would benefit everyone? I think so far the idea was for the player to look at the rider, if they want to hit the rider, not the sky...

I would tend to argue with your next statement, which says that you always try to hit the rider if you are on foot, (which actually in my oppinion explains why you find foot combat so difficult). It is precicely BECAUSE there is strategy involved in who you are going to hit, that you would have to think of what your next target would be. Currently, it is just a matter of clicking your mose as much as possible in the relative direction of the enemy, which I personally find disturbing.

Your statement in '5' then actually says that under my system, after you have dismounted an enemy and he is now on FOOT, while you are now on a HORSE, the FOOTMAN would have an advantage. I am sorry, I am confused, since you say that it would be the other way round. Or you are basically saying that you want things easy for yourself when you are the footman, but want things just as easy when you are the horseman?

I have no idea how you played without ever seeing a dead horse, but that would bring us back to the point number 4. Furthermore, you can always do an experiment - load V0.702, (or 0.703 can't remember which one), send 20 of your hired blades against 20 khergit raiders. You would for one thing notice many dead horses....

I know hit-boxes were separated for a short while, however, that has nothing to do with my oppinions. I admit, that the main reason why I found M&B to be so stunning, is the actual separate hit-boxes, which no other game has. I am sure, that a lot of things did not exist when the game was just released, as well as there are plenty of people who want to see separate hit-boxes and actually started playing earlier than me.

----

Regarding the solutions, a knockback effect would be a possible one, althought it would not make sense. Would it be slightly better if horses reacted to pain in terms of rearing, veering off to one side, maybe falling (and recovering) or leaping forward, all of the above depending on which part of the body the horse was hit. It would make more sense, and would achieve a relatively same purpose, if not even better since the player (or enemy) would have to take time to regain control of his horse.

I would tend to argue that whereas yes, slashing attacks could certainly hit both, such would be relatively rare, and ought to depend on the angle at which the attack is executed. Currently you can just slash anywhere, and hit both, which is what is actually the problem...

Having damage handed out to the riders at the end of the horse's fall, is probably the same as having a shared hit-boxes. And yes, I would say this is unrealistic since although there were many accidents with people being hurt after falling from a horse, there have been just as many accidents of people falling from their appartment window and such. What I am trying to say is that it would be a very rare act, and is actually the reason its called an 'accident' - meaning you don't normally get hurt. Its like when you say 'car accident' you refer to the car, in which case the accident would involve the car hitting something, thus causing hurt to the person. 'horse accident' would be reffering to the horse actually hurting itself, not the rider. I have fallen, seen people fall, seen horses roll over people, etc. and trust me, people DO start laughing, and that including the guy who fell, unless you are some tourist and the people are afraid you would sue.

4 and 5 are suggestions I would really hope to see implimented however. Maybe, a fallen rider can 'black out' for a second as well, since this is somewhat similar to becoming 'disorientated'.

It would be good if we actually not started another major argument by the way, and sticked to the original idea of making valuable suggestions to solve all problems for everyone. Speaking of problems, DaLagga, you haven't mentioned what problems you experienced with the split hit boxes, (although you mentioned 'points' which I replied to above, but didn't really make your problems known :)

 

[Copy_con]

Just better control of the swing would make me happy. Maybe the swing mechanic would be that if you wanted to do a slashing side to side swing, you click and hold the mouse button while moving the mouse horizontally. Other swings could happen in a similar fashion.

I know morrowind used a system where it was the direction you were moving, so if you pressed A or D while swinging it was a side to side slash, where as W was a thrust etc... That kind of system would work.

To make things intuitive, the blocking system would also need to be changed to match.

Yes, but actually Morrowinds combat system is quite bad, but the first thing you mention sounds very good.

When mouse button is down, you'll "lock your view and mouse movement controls the sword. The same should go for parrying.

Mounted combat - with swords - is good as it is though, with one exception. When you're not charging, you're a sitting duck, and that's a problem.

 

[jrawlings]

I agree with Volkier. Separate hitboxes would be better, IF, like I said before, you could have more control of your swing.

As an aside, take a mounted unit vs. a footman unit. Similar armament and armor and skill. Mounted unit will win every time. If you are a foot unit, you have a clear disadvantage on the battlefield. Give that footman a pike and a way to set it, then the odds even out somewhat, but still in favor of the mounted unit. You get a group of footmen who stick together, then the odds get better as they can trap a mounted unit during a pass as was described earlier in this thread. If you want to make footmen vs. horseman favor the footman, change the damage difficulty.

 

[quixotecoyote]

I agree with Volkier 100% and hope they seperate the hitboxes. Its rather disconcerting when I lance a rider and his horse dies, or vice versa

 

[Volkier]

So yes, you can hit both, but hopefully this explains a bit more why it would be difficult to achieve, as well as how it is easiest to hit a moving object with a sword. If you don't believe me, feel free to try it, but make sure the object you are hitting is really really heavy.

 

[Ryuta]

My feeling is:

Horse shoud have 'head and neck' hit box (that doesn't mean it's headshot) and legs.
Rider has leg hit boxes on the side of the horse's body.

It could be too complicated but well, it's my feeling. at least it's nice to have rider's leg hit boxes, however it's small.

I have nothing against and I must say it makes sense. But that diagram show exactly why not to try to attack a horse with cutting and piercing weapon. with such mass and momentum, any weapon would be lodged into horse too deap and could not be recovered. Also The shock of impact would disarm you (or even injure your arm). If the slash was angled (phenomenon which shouldn't happen to expert swordman), the sword would be bend, or worse.

But basically, I agree with separate hitbox and I must confess that my foot archer character shot horses deliverately. It has bigger hitbox (I think?) and once dismounted, they are very easy to aim.

 

[Orion]

leg hitboxes on riders should be hit, cause, unlike you're little diagram, you probably wouldnt aim directly for the middle of the horse's chest. If you want to hit the rider, you would aim more to the side, so that your sword/axe/whatever would slice the side of the horse, and hit the rider.

Grounded pikes were supposed to pierce horses, swords were not.

 

[Volkier]

Well yeah, actually its to show that like Ryuta said, you will loose the weapon. I doubt the sword would go THAT deep, due to the force of impact actually, ie. it would not have the time to penetrate deep enough before momentum is reversed.

Orion, I agree, actually thats what I showed in my last picture, if you want to hit the horse, you would 'slice' with the sword, rather than just hit with it like a baseball bat, making it more difficult to hit the rider with the same swing. Or you would aim more to the side, but because you are aiming at the rider's legs, not really the horse. (there would still be the same force exerted by the horse on impact, and actually more leverage to 'turn' the sword, if its further by that impact of the horse. Although if you 'just' clip the horse with the sword, and manage to hold it, it would still go to the rider's legs, while the horse has a very shallow cut on it's side.) I know that in reality you would not be doing what I shown in first two diagrams, I was merely pointing out what happens in game at the moment :

Anycase to clarify things, are the ideas from Ryuta and Orion:
- Horses hitboxes includes neck and rider hitbox includes legs.
- Implimenting 'grounding' of pikes, so that footmen can use that for a sort of 'reversed couched lance' on the horse - providing their pike's range is further than the horseman's lance range.
- Distance control is implimented, hence if the footman stands far enough, they are able to hit the rider's legs, but if they stand too close, they hit just the horse.

If yes, I agree with all of the above. Makes sense, improves combat, and ultimately, improves the hit-box mechanics :

 

[NikkTheTrick]

- Implimenting 'grounding' of pikes, so that footmen can use that for a sort of 'reversed couched lance' on the horse - providing their pike's range is further than the horseman's lance range.

Yes! Yes! Yes! Grounded pike! Give me more!

 

[Ryuta]

Volkier's summerly is very neat and precise to the point of discussion.

 

[Volkier]

Thank you Ryuta, not much discussion going on however, so it would be good if we would all eventually come up with something we all agree on? I believe theres plenty more people who feel strongly towards either side of the discussion, hopefully we would arrive somewhere in the middle so we would all be happy ::\

EDIT IN - 14/01/06

Anycase, I was going to do this sooner, but was too lazy. As we all know a picture is worth a thousand words. So here are the problems I have with shared hit-boxes, (and reasons why I am against this)

I'm not saying that it is impossible or anything, it just de-balances game (in my oppinion).

What about this - since horse + rider = 2 targets, then these 2 targets should apply to any other unit as well. Meaning you can hit up to 2 targets, whether those are 2 horses or two humans? It would just be a bit less biased to horses, and the game would be a bit more unique since it would see horses + riders as 2 different objects?

Any case gonna add in a poll... Personally would prefer to have a toggle option to end this dumb argument ::\

 

[Lu Bu]

I´m with you Volkier!

The pics are really great btw.

 

[NikkTheTrick]

I've just played the weapons expansion mod where infantry is armed mostly with polearms (as they should be!). Cavalry gets raped there. No more running through infantry on your charger: charger will be stopped by a loke of a halberd and killed by 2-3 swings.

Please introduce those halberds and remove the joined hitbox (since cavalry and footmen will be balanced anyway - in a realistic and a historicaly accurate way!)