PlaneShift
Gameplay => General Discussion => Topic started by: haplo on January 08, 2007, 02:37:13 pm
-
I wish that super powerfull weapons didn't exist. It detracts from the combat experience when one combatant can hit you with a weapon for more damage in one hit then maxed Str Agil and End can give you.
I am presently lvl 27 sword. Lvl 16 LA. and max stats (agil strength endurance). I battled a person with 1 knife and his first hit did 246 damage which of course killed me. There are swords and daggers available which have a quality of 1000/1000 and do massive ammounts of damage, about 4-5 times that of a standard weapon. These seriously detract from the game when you get these little *&^&* dueling everyone and killing you with one hit. You can not tell that they are armed with them and when you evaluate their character it says that they a weaker then you. This is not a close to fair senario. At the very least could you make high qualuity weapons glow so everyone is aware the other person is using them.
If the GM's wish to evaluate these weapons I have had two swords made by our guild member who can make such things. My character name is Hiros
-
This is a bug. The quality of weapons should not exceed 300.
-
What happens if someone is using them then?
-
What happens if someone is using them then?
They get a telling off for making them and for using them. We were told a long time ago that it was against the rules..... Infact I thought the problem had been fixed ???
-
this reminds me of uber, highslash weapons ;P
Well, even now, the combat isn't without flaws, even if you ignore the 1000/1000 weapons
I repeat one thing which should greatly fix many issues:
The skills of fighting warriors should be compared and then damage calculated.
A] The best model of a fight is when you let fight two gues with 1 rank in their weapon. This is alright.
B] Another correct example is skillful 80 rank knight fighting with 1 rank novice. The novice dies almost instantly (high damage hits). This is also right.
c] What isn't right, is when a skillfull warrior fight with another skilled guy, like he was that 1 rank novice. The damage is high, while it should be the same as in the A] example. And it should change proportionally, as the skills are at different ranks.
This is done through comparing of the skills.
-
I'd say weapon skills shouldn't affect damage in any way, they should affect hit and block ratios. Damage should be affected by armor (skills) and weapon type and quality.
So I agree with you Nikodemus but not in ways of damage, your concept should be used in ways of hitting and being hit. Equally skilled oponents have an equal chance of hitting and blocking.
-
Good weapon skills can help you to know the correct spot to hit to achieve the most damage, or to handle the blade better to increase the damage.
-
Good weapon skills can help you to know the correct spot to hit to achieve the most damage, or to handle the blade better to increase the damage.
So the better skill the higher should the damage to any opponent and always equally high?
-
I don't like his mentality.
Because then it would force people, who are rank 30, or 40.
To train to 50, for daggers, or 80 for swords.
Why force people to do that?
Right now, at level 30, in sword, and dagger, and axe, you can kill a rank 80/50.
I believe that is o.k.
If we put this much emphasis on training, alot of people won't be able to duel, JUST BECAUSE they didn't train emmensley high.
Some of us don't like maxing certain skills, and we shouldn't be forced to.
Because this scenario will obviously make it harder to hit, and more hits will be blocked.
Our current system works, to win you need a good weapon, and average training, by average I mean rank 30 and higher.
You can even do it at rank 20, if you know how to duel well.
IF ANYTHING, armor needs to be toned down, HA is a BEAST, and a SW hitting HA only does like 50 damage max!!!
That's too powerfull, and unrealistic, the axe/sword/dagger needs to be able to hit harder than that.
~~Datruth
-
yeah, the hit and run must be the tehnique directly from the gods of idiocy, let their glowy bless us. All you say datruth make me think we don't need any skills at all. All we need is swords, good keyboard for smashing it, and connection to trick others while lag monster gets them. That the is system of ultimate uberness of doom.
Datruth, change your nick, or start talking with sense, because everytime i read this kind of post and see your nick near, i want to swear ther with complete diregard to any rules.
Yeah, i'm trying my best to not offend you.
/me read the initial post
Funny discussion. I hope what I or Zan said will be taken under consideration by someone smart. These ideas are better than nothing, nothing - this what DT proposes.
Yay, since now i shall call you DT.
I wonder what may be said directly on the initial topic.
-
yeah, the hit and run must be the tehnique directly from the gods of idiocy, let their glowy bless us. All you say datruth make me think we don't need any skills at all. All we need is swords, good keyboard for smashing it, and connection to trick others while lag monster gets them. That the is system of ultimate uberness of doom.
Datruth, change your nick, or start talking with sense, because everytime i read this kind of post and see your nick near, i want to swear ther with complete diregard to any rules.
Yeah, i'm trying my best to not offend you.
/me read the initial post
Funny discussion. I hope what I or Zan said will be taken under consideration by someone smart. These ideas are better than nothing, nothing - this what DT proposes.
Yay, since now i shall call you DT.
I wonder what may be said directly on the initial topic.
I don't mind you hating me really, it's not that important to me.
AS for the topic:
If you truly want 1 hit weapons gone, this is what you want to ban:
Swords
/10 sword = SW ss
/8 sword = Iron SS
Daggers
/7.5 = SW dagger
/6 = Iron Dagger
Axes(I'm pretty sure these are right)
/10 =Iron Axe
/8 =SW SBA
Crafted
None that are 1 hit, that are allowed.
Currently all are allowed are 300/50 quality and lower, which hits like a /5.5--6
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So you go ban those weapons.
That's NEVER going to happen.
Here is the realistic approach:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tourney Style duel
1 ruined weapon, 1 shield
Then you hit each other till the opponent gets to zero.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just do Tourney style duels!!!!
Don't complain about DIEING in 1 hit, have a different type of duel.
Use different weapons.
~~Datruth
-
I can only use light-armor and haven't been around long, but I'm assuming heavy armor is like full plate-armor with chain mail underneath. In that case, I wouldn't expect any dagger short of a small light-saber to get through. High skill (in real-life) would let you maybe jamb it through in a weak spot if you're very strong and fast, but it isn't likely. Bigger weapons, like an axe, would be another story.
Good weapon skills can help you to know the correct spot to hit to achieve the most damage, or to handle the blade better to increase the damage.
So the better skill the higher should the damage to any opponent and always equally high?
I just mean that skill should influence damage. That's apart from the high level vs. high level argument. It wouldn't be a huge influence, but it would factor in, especially in the lower levels. How the game is programmed, I don't know if it can be made to have less impact on damage as it increases, but there should be an increase at first. As you become familiar with how to wield the weapon correctly, there is less room for improvement in terms of damage.
Come to think of it, there's less room for improvement in the other areas too, but the damage would flatten out much sooner than the speed, accuracy, and parrying skill. So maybe there should be curves to it, where higher levels aren't as effective. On the other hand, maybe that's why the PP requirements increase.
I'm not very far in the game yet (rank 2 for swords, 50 strength) so I can't really comment about the one-hit kill. If it's that bad I do agree that something should happen to balance it, but I don't know how bad it really is.
-
its a difficult thing, I got seriously bored of PLing and stopped. Maybe a better system can be created but im not sure.
My thoughts go like this:
(Assuming a standard SS is /1)
Player 1: Lvl 80 in sword
Player 2: Lvl 20 in sword
P1 hits P2 with the equivalent of a /4 SS because he is 4 times more skillfull than P2
P2 hits P1 with the equivalent of a /0.25 SS because he is 4 times less skillfull than P1
(effective damage ratings would need to be lowered)
As for armor; make it simple, LA gives you 25% decrease in damage at max skill and reducing proportionaly based on the LA skill.
MA gives 50% decrease in damage at max skill and reducing proportionaly based on the MA skill.
HA gives 75% decrease in damage at max skill and reducing proportionaly based on the HA skill.
Simply do the weapon damage calculation and then deduct the defense modifier.
I guess STR would affect matters aswell but that would also be simple to calculate, Max STR = Max damage based on the above, lower STR becomes proportional to the original skill calculation.
I have a feeling that im missing something because this seems very simple to me and very easy to implement....... do any other stats effect weapon damage caused?
Also, I wrote this on-the-fly so I may very well have said something really stupid ;)
-
I again am in total opposition to this.
This would force people to train 80 sword.
Anything that forces us to train to max, especially since it's that hard level(80) is wrong in my opinion.
That type of system would cause us to lose LOTS of members, due to frustrations of training.
Our system right now, allows level 80 members to have an edge, but still let's level 30 members, beat them with good skill.
Your system, would never allow a level 30 person, to beat a level 80 with HA armor.
~~Datruth
-
I again am in total opposition to this.
This would force people to train 80 sword.
Anything that forces us to train to max, especially since it's that hard level(80) is wrong in my opinion.
That type of system would cause us to lose LOTS of members, due to frustrations of training.
Our system right now, allows level 80 members to have an edge, but still let's level 30 members, beat them with good skill.
Your system, would never allow a level 30 person, to beat a level 80 with HA armor.
~~Datruth
Im afraid to say that is exactly my point. If this was an FPS I would agree with you that we shouldnt be heavily influenced by skills and such and it should be placed solely on the shoulders of the player to be the quickest and have the lowest latency.
However, this is PS (not FPS ;D). I personally dont think that player skill should be involved at all, when you are IC the 'C' is all that should matter, the 'P' is not involved in the equation ;)
Admittedly one of the reasons I play rarely is that its so boring and actually rather pointless to PL, at least in WoW you can say 'I want to get to this level so I can get/do/buy/kill this'. Currently that doesnt happen in PS, and from an RP perspective that is a good thing, it changes peoples focus to RP from PL. Although you then keep those who RP and enjoy it, or those, like myself, who are actually not fans of RP (blasphemy on this site I know, but I just feel stupid and uncomfortable about it) but love the people they meet. And lose those who only are interested in PLing.
Back to the main point, if you are wearing plate armor and i attack you with a dagger the end result is me ending up in the DR and I think that has some realism.
-
So in otherwords you want people's hard work over many years to master sword-handling to account for a small edge over more normal people? Aside from the cap-issue of course, because in real life you can never cap out, though you could approach an asymptote. When I'm in shape, I consider myself to be moderately fast. Should Olympic sprinters have a slight edge over me, or should they leave me in the dust?
I understand that you don't want people to feel pressured to hit max levels, but that can be dealt with in other ways, such as making the high levels much harder to attain and having their impact diminish, but somebody twice as skilled should definitely have a major advantage. What should keep ordinary people from "mastering" it is a combination of large amounts of work, very high caps (if any), lesser affect, and other things to do. You wouldn't need to be maxed out to fight, unless you want to fight other maxed out people. You don't go out and challenge a karate master when you only have moderate fighting ability and expect to win. Besides, why shouldn't people practice and hone their abilities? If you want to be the best, you need to do the work.
-
Face it: RPGs can't be realistic.
In real-life, you cut someone with a sword, no matter how much 'endurance' they have, and they convulse in pain, fall to the ground and bleed to death, whether you just found the sword a few seconds ago, or have been training for 20 years.
Fights are won by the first person to make a decent hit, which is dependant mostly on luck. And no matter how 'skilled' you are, you can't compensate for inferior weapons or armour. But almost contradictorily, a person with a broken toothbrush has maybe a 40:60 chance of killing someone with a broadsword. That's the way life is.
Fighting with lethal weapons in RL just isn't fun. That's why most people don't do it. There's no such thing as 'special agents' that can kill a hundred grunts without taking a scratch. An active special forces operative has a life expectancy of about 2 years or so.
Now you can have realism, or you can have fun. Which do you like?
-
You do realize you don't know what you are talking about in most of your post? ;P
There are answers waiting on you on this forum and what you just said, was said already and arguments was brought.
In short, you are wrong and this has been proven.
-
You do realize you don't know what you are talking about in most of your post? ;P
There are answers waiting on you on this forum and what you just said, was said already and arguments was brought.
In short, you are wrong and this has been proven.
Proven how? Sure, the army invests a lot in training because it's been proven to help people to kill - their reactions are sharper, and their technique is more comfortable.
That doesn't prove that a 'newb' with 3 sword skill and 3 Light armour skill could be absolutely creamed by a veteran with 80 sword and 80 Light armour.
Yet that is a staple of RPGs. There's no reason you shouldn't be able to severly damage or kill someone by cluelessly swinging a rusty dagger at them, no matter the 'skill' involved.
Sure, I could kill a fully-trained, fully armed SAS man with a screwdriver given the right circumstances. He could be distracted, drunk, on drugs (both supposing he's off-duty), sick, diseased, injured or anything else that an adventurer in Planeshift might have occur. In order to make combat realistic, you have to account for all sorts of factors, not just 'skill' and equipment.
-
In dueling and with two fully armored opponents ... you're not very likely to hurt someone with a dull blade when you're unskilled. Your examples are modern ones where we don't bother to wear protective clothing anymore. On equal ground when it comes to equipment and physical condition, skill matters gravely. Luck becomes a large factor when the skill of both opponents are relatively close to one and another.
If we want realism there is no way a short sword or dagger will stand up against a longsword though, let alone a claymore. You'd be slashed, pierced and gutted before you get within range.
-
In dueling and with two fully armored opponents ... you're not very likely to hurt someone with a dull blade when you're unskilled. Your examples are modern ones where we don't bother to wear protective clothing anymore. On equal ground when it comes to equipment and physical condition, skill matters gravely. Luck becomes a large factor when the skill of both opponents are relatively close to one and another.
If we want realism there is no way a short sword or dagger will stand up against a longsword though, let alone a claymore. You'd be slashed, pierced and gutted before you get within range.
It's all about skill, You can't tell me that the longest swords always won against the average sized swords.
That's not true.
A medium sized sword actually works better than those big 2 handed swords held by medieval knights.
A Good example of this sword is the Katana, versus let's say your longsword.
A Skilled Katana Master, and a skilled Longsword Master, would ultimately lead to the Katana masters win.
How do i know this? The Katana flows alot easier, and is more than long enough and strong enough to do what the master wants.
While the longswords is alot more bulky and limits movement of the master to a few slashes.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So i understand if you say, a Dagger beating a longsword is very very hard, yet very easy in game.
But you can't act like Longswords are the end all be all.
I'd actually take a short sword, anyday, to a Longsword, or maybe a Broadsword which is about the same size as a katana.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here's a nice picture of the weapon i'm talking about
(http://www.arscives.com/bladesign/Images/katana-blade3.jpg)
~~Datruth
-
Length matters, if you ever sparred with weapons you couldn't disagree with this.
I beat your short sword or katana with a simple broomstick with ease ;)
I'm not saying that the longer the sword the better in all situations ... throw a shield in and the entire equation changes, dual weapons .. same thing. One on one the longest weapon has the advantage as long as the person knows how to wield it somewhat.
Your discussion of Katana and longswords is a bit off since they are practically equal in length. A katana is not a japanese short sword, a wakizashi is. Between a katana and longsword it would depend on the combat skill and armor type. Heavier might mean less maneuverability but it also means more speed and strength in a swing.
Also please next time don't insult me with showing me a picture of a simple katana .. who doesn't know what a katana is nowadays? :P
-
Who doesn't own a Katana these days?
-
I don't .. I only own three crappy reproductions :P
*drools while dreaming of an actual handcrafted katana*
-
pretty picture though :P
-
Point of interest, armies started using the spear because it didn't take a lot of skill to use and reduced the edge highly 'trained' men with swords and axes and such had.
That having been said, one of my primary beefs with any discussion about weapons in combat is people frequently forget that battles between armies require different training than duelling. If you had an armored knight against an unarmored man who used the florentine style of fencing, my money would be on the fencer, every time. He may not win every time, but I give him at least a 70%. You put a hundred fencers on the battlefield and put them up against a hundred knight on foot with their armor, my money would be on the knights. The reason why swords got lighter as time went on was that heavier blades were slower. When everyone ran around in armor, this wasn't a problem, but as armor began to loose its advantage (against crossbows and later, gunpowder) mobility was more of an equalizer. Fighting on a battlefield has way more dynamics than a duel. You've got formations, friends, enemies, differences in terrain, in numbers. All of these affect how you fight. In a duel, you've got you, and yoiu've got the other guy, you're both on the same terrain usually and you're usually in a controlled field that limits distractions. A lot of the random factors are cut down and you can concentrate on the fight.
Also a hundred peasants with spears have a good chance against cavalry, but I wouldn't give you twenty cents for the chances of one peasant with a spear against a cavalryman off his horse. Spears, axes, swords... whatever. Length matters, but not that much. The determiner is skill. I've had enough fights with different weapons to know that your chances of winning are most affected by TWO things, knowing how to use YOUR weapon, whatever it is and knowing what the enemy might do with his. There are plenty of tricks to mitigate the length of weapons in combat. An expert knife fighter is going to wipe the floor with someone of average skill with any weapon, spear, club, sword, dynamite.. whatever. I'm sorry, as far as the broomstick vs katana/shortsword analogy goes, if I'm better with the sword than you are with the broomstick, your first attempt to block me or hit me and you're going to pull away a much shorter broomstick. A spear is better than a broomstick, but well trained soldiers are not just given a spear, but also some kind of sword in order to use when things got too close for spears. The big disadvantage of any pole arm is that they are unweildy. If you're unskilled or not very well trained, you will not realize this until it's too late and you would have been better served fighting with the same skill level with some other weapon. Skill with a weapon is not simply being able to hit the other guy with the sharp end. It's knowing and using your advantages while trying to limit the advantages of the other guy. Whoever can do that better usually wins.
-
er, what most everyone else is saying here
Training matters, look at what happened when the 4 seals took on some 800 insurgents. You look through history and three things seem to matter more than anything else: tactics, training, and morale.
I also took a number of weapons training classes, I've seen people take down opponents with staffs using their bare hands, length of the weapon doesn't matter.
-
Length matters, if you ever sparred with weapons you couldn't disagree with this.
I beat your short sword or katana with a simple broomstick with ease ;)
I'm not saying that the longer the sword the better in all situations ... throw a shield in and the entire equation changes, dual weapons .. same thing. One on one the longest weapon has the advantage as long as the person knows how to wield it somewhat.
Your discussion of Katana and longswords is a bit off since they are practically equal in length. A katana is not a japanese short sword, a wakizashi is. Between a katana and longsword it would depend on the combat skill and armor type. Heavier might mean less maneuverability but it also means more speed and strength in a swing.
Also please next time don't insult me with showing me a picture of a simple katana .. who doesn't know what a katana is nowadays? :P
1) Your wrong
Equal skilled longword, equal skilled katana, Katana wins every time.
2) That picture wasn't soley for you, the universe revolves around us all, and you might want to remember there are others here who don't know what a katana looks like.
3) Anyone who thinks a broomstick can easily beat a katana hasn't studied japanese history.
~~Datruth
-
1) Your wrong
Equal skilled longword, equal skilled katana, Katana wins every time.
2) That picture wasn't soley for you, the universe revolves around us all, and you might want to remember there are others here who don't know what a katana looks like.
3) Anyone who thinks a broomstick can easily beat a katana hasn't studied japanese history.
~~Datruth
Depends on what you mean by equal skill. A samurai was taught to a far greater degree of expertise than most who knew how to use a longsword. On the other hand, if you mean both have an equal understanding of the capabilities and limitations of their own weapons, then there are going to be several factors involved in who wins, not just length or weapon or the fact that the katana looks cooler than the longsword. If I knew how to use a broomstick better than katana-boy knew how to use his sword, I'll probably win.
There are a lot of factors involved in who wins a fight. Length of a weapon AND skill are both factors, but an idiot in possession of the finest sword the world has ever known can and should be defeated by an expert in fighting with plastic sporks. I will always bet on training more often than what kind of weapon is being used.
I have sparred with weapons... lots of them. I used to teach. Nine times out of ten, the best man won, not the best weapon.
-
*ignores Datruth's glorification of the katana*
Of course training matters but it also takes time and effort, the more training you've had the more effort you need to improve. Changing weapons to gain strategic advantages over your opponent does not take any effort, providing they are present.
Skill only becomes the deciding factor when there is a rather large difference. Of course I'm not talking about completely untrained people here, they should be holding mining picks instead of swords :P Any fighter has picked up enough skill at one point or another to stand a fighting chance though .. then it is my opinion that the determining factor becomes the weapon. Even more so when we move away from dueling and into actual battles.
Either way skill is already taken into the Planeshift equation, in my personal opinion a bit too much ... I'd like to see weapon types gain substantial advantages over other weapons and armor. Eventually other things that have been mentioned like morale or terrain could also yield certain advantages and disadvantages.
-
A peasant is causing trouble in a bar. He's rather drunk, and he's knocking over beer and insulting folk. He's unarmed and unarmoured, but rather strong so the guards are still called.
The guard walks in, sporting a full set of finely polished steel knight's armour and a big magic claymore. He spots the peasant and moves grimly towards him.
But then he steps on a puddle of beer that was spilled earlier - it's in the shadow of the table, so it's completely invisible.
The guard's feet slip right out from under him and he falls backwards slamming his head hard on the table and stonework floor. The razor-sharp, magic claymore clatters to the floor next to him as the guard lies dazed on the ground.
The strong peasant then staggers to the guard, picks up the sword, stands over him and plunges it into the guard's chest. The highly trained, heavily-equipped guard is now very dead due to the magic claymore lodged in his chest (which magically pierced the armour, obviously).
That's a perfectly logical occurance. Highly trained people die of freak accidents all the time. Just look at Steve Irwin.
But, of course, that would never happen in an RPG.
-
I have a dagger and no armor, you are a knight, full armor and a VERY big heavy sword.
I charge at you, you swing your sword but I dodge it. you are busy following through with your swing and now youre screwed, im too close to you for you to swing at me again. I stab you through your helmets eye holes (kinda thinking there is a proper name for the ;)).
Another example of short swords being more effective is a Gladius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladius) it helped conquer europe, and used it quite effectively against spears and other longer weapons.
-
A peasant is causing trouble in a bar. He's rather drunk, and he's knocking over beer and insulting folk. He's unarmed and unarmoured, but rather strong so the guards are still called.
The guard walks in, sporting a full set of finely polished steel knight's armour and a big magic claymore. He spots the peasant and moves grimly towards him.
But then he steps on a puddle of beer that was spilled earlier - it's in the shadow of the table, so it's completely invisible.
The guard's feet slip right out from under him and he falls backwards slamming his head hard on the table and stonework floor. The razor-sharp, magic claymore clatters to the floor next to him as the guard lies dazed on the ground.
The strong peasant then staggers to the guard, picks up the sword, stands over him and plunges it into the guard's chest. The highly trained, heavily-equipped guard is now very dead due to the magic claymore lodged in his chest (which magically pierced the armour, obviously).
That's a perfectly logical occurance. Highly trained people die of freak accidents all the time. Just look at Steve Irwin.
But, of course, that would never happen in an RPG.
I wish that could happen in an rpg. Mostly luck is simulated by a die roll that is a catch-all for all those variables we can't take the time and effort to define. On the other hand, luck didn't play as big a role as your example would lead us to believe. It wasn't luck that made the puddle invisible, and maybe someone with sharper eyes would have seen it and avoided it, or maybe a guard who had more experience in bar fights would have known where not to step, or maybe he might have chose not to go in fully armored because metal feet slip more. A lot of experience related things might have kept him alive. Luck came into play when he stepped on the puddle. It also might have been possible that he wouldn't have fallen when he stepped on it. He might have had enough experience in a fight or a good enough sense of balance that he might only have stumbled, or if he fell he might have kept hold of his sword because hey... in a fight, people might fall, and the more experience he had in fighting, the better his grip might have been.
In your example, the guard didn't die necessarily die in spite of his experience or because of bad luck. He may have died because he was inexperienced in that kind of situation. He might also have died simply due to dumb luck. But if you are exerienced or well trained, you are able to take better advantage of good luck and reduce the consequences of bad luck.
*edit*
I have a dagger and no armor, you are a knight, full armor and a VERY big heavy sword.
I charge at you, you swing your sword but I dodge it. you are busy following through with your swing and now youre screwed, im too close to you for you to swing at me again. I stab you through your helmets eye holes (kinda thinking there is a proper name for the ;)).
Another example of short swords being more effective is a Gladius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladius) it helped conquer europe, and used it quite effectively against spears and other longer weapons.
Point of fact, the gladius was used as a SECONDARY weapon by the Romans. They would first lodge their spears in the enemies shields to slow them down and when(if) they got close enough, they would use the gladius to stab at close quarters where the spear is less effective. It was not effective against spears on its own. It was effective against spears because of the way the Romans used their own spears (ie as one weapon in an arsenal, not their only weapon as a lot of armies did in those days) I highly doubt that if the Roman front line legions had entered battle armed with ONLY the gladius, that they would have conquered Europe.
Also, you are using the gladius in combat between armies to justify the effectiveness of a dagger used in one on one combat. The two are entirely different. Besides that you skipped passed one basic assumption in your example: "You swing your sword but I dodge it" That is an assumption that you need to define. Why did he miss? Did he miss because he's unfamiliar with fighting unarmored opponenents with knives? Did he miss because he misjudged his swing? Did he miss because he's unfamiliar with his weapon? He could have hit you in spite of you dodging. You are trading increased mobility for less protection. He is trading mobility for increased protection. With a dagger unless you DO hit some place vital, like under the arm or the thigh or the eyelet, then he is pretty much invulnerable to your weapon. If he's any good wth his sword, he pretty much only has to hit you once.
Who's going to win? Look we can all come up with specific situations where one person X with Y weapon will have an advantage over person A with B weapon. If the argument is: does the length and speed of a weapon matter? then the answer is: yes. If the argument is does the length and speed of a weapon decide the battle? then the answer is no. Training and experience is the biggest influence on the outcome of a battle, and NOT just with the kind of weapon you happen to be using. It's using it in combat, whether its single combat or battles between armies, in using it against other types of weapons, fighting in different terrain, in different armor, weather, moods, degrees of health. Some of these things we can't simulate in a game, others we can. Anything we can't simulate is turned into a die roll and collectively called "luck"
[ Please avoid making one post right after the other in the same thread. Just "Modify" your first post to add more information. --Karyuu ]
-
I'd just like to say, that I am thoroughly enjoying watching people talk about stuff they probably, when it comes right down to it, have no real idea about.
Now, proceed.
By the way, the pillum was more of a javelin than a spear, correct me if I'm wrong of course. Made of soft metal so that it would render the opponents shield useless.
Get in close with a dagger and you win.
-
Wasn't the pilum actually designed to bend so that those that missed shields (or more importantly people) couldn't be picked up and thrown back?
I would think that in the heat of battle the bard on the end of the pilum would stop someone removing it for a shield (or more importantly a person).
And yup, we are obviously talking about a subject we know very little about, I doubt many of us have had a duel to the death in RL ;)
-
I'd just like to say, that I am thoroughly enjoying watching people talk about stuff they probably, when it comes right down to it, have no real idea about.
Now, proceed.
By the way, the pillum was more of a javelin than a spear, correct me if I'm wrong of course. Made of soft metal so that it would render the opponents shield useless.
Get in close with a dagger and you win.
If it was used to throw, the momentum would almost always make it break off in the opponents shield, and yes, it was designed that way. When used in battle, that was always the goal, but it didn't always work that way. The gladius was long enough to reach past your shield and into the opponent, but if you're in formation with an army, a dagger is not what you'd want to use. In order to make it an effective weapon, you'd have to break formation, which was a tremendous advantage. Otherwise every army would have used daggers in battle. They didn't. There are very good reasons for that.
In one on one combat, there is also the law of diminsihing returns. My favorite weapons is a sword somewhere between the length of a broadsword and that of a short sword. It doesn't put you at much of a disadvantage with opponents with heavier blades and it still gives you reach, plus its lighter. If the blade is too short, the required skill to use it effectively goes up faster than the inherent advantage the extra speed would give you. Also a smaller weapon becomes primarily a stabbing weapon because it's not heavy enough to slash against an opponent with any sort of armor. To use a short sword against an enemy with a longsword requires you have to know what you're doing and play your advantage against his disadvantage. To win against the same opponent when all you have is a dagger, you have to be better.
On the other hand, it doesn't take much skill to be dangerous with a polearm, except the problem is you're a danger to most people around you and probably yourself if you don't know what you're doing. It's fine for an unskilled fighter to use a spear or pitchfork to keep a wild animal at bay, but it's quite another to try to defeat a warrior who knows what he's doing.
I'm no expert. I expect someone who's good with a dagger could wipe the floor with me, but if he's an expert in knife fighting and has never run into anyone with a sword, I'll probably wipe the floor with him, because I HAVE used a sword against a knife.
Idoru: The pilum didn't have a barb on it, but it was designed to snap when thrown and usually did even if you missed. I suppose an enemy could have used the end (which was around two feet give or take) but it wasn't going to be as effective as the weapon they already had.
On the subject of experience, no I've never duelled to the death in RL, but I've had plenty of brutal experience with the advantages and limitations of a wide variety of weapons. I have the scars and memories of nasty bruses to punctuate that experience. I've used pole arms, swords, maces, axes, daggers, shields, worn a suit of plate armor in battle (although I've never rode a horse in one) fought with and without a shield, used two weapons and one, been in knife fights, one on one, wild melees, ambushes, battles with tactics and strategy and I know a little Akido. I've fought opponents who know fencing (florentine which is actually a very good style) and competition fencing (which isn't) Kendo, Karate, Akido and used and had used against me a variety of unclassified weapons (including a rather ingenuous two bladed dagger designed for throwing)
As I said, I'm not an expert (although I have been up against experts), but I do know something of what I'm talking about.
-
The pilum did have a thicker head on a thiner metal pole so that it would stick in the wooden shields and was unable to be removed. The handle was made out of wood but a large part of the pilum was made out of .. bronze I think. The wood could be removed but the bronze, even if it was hammered on in force would usually bend. End result a shield with a pilum sticking out of it has become utterly unmanageable. That was their purpose, disabling the enemy's shields. Short swords were 'in fashion' in that era but them being short had probably nothing to do with Rome being so powerful. After the romans these swords practically vanished and were replaced by longer weapons which seemed to be more effective.
We're really dwelling off topic though .. we should be talking about Planeshift here :P
And I agree with swordsbane on his last sentence .. I'm also no expert but I wouldn't be talking about something I don't know much about.
-
I'd just like to say, that I am thoroughly enjoying watching people talk about stuff they probably, when it comes right down to it, have no real idea about.
Haha, no kidding. When was the last time you visited 100 B.C. or the Dark Ages and got into a fight?
I mean, I'm not denying that you know everything and probably have, in fact, invented a time machine, I'm just saying that you can't expect us, with our inferior intellects, to come out with something that compares to your vast experience.
:P
Anyway, Swords - my point is not the actual example I used, my point is that there's things that a skill level, a weapon-quality index and a dice-roll can't account for. If we're going for finely detailed realism here, we should at least come up with a system other than "I hit you, you hit me, I'm more skilled so you die."
[ Edited for language. --Karyuu ]
-
Anyway, Swords - my point is not the actual example I used, my point is that there's things that a skill level, a weapon-quality index and a dice-roll can't account for. If we're going for finely detailed realism here, we should at least come up with a system other than "I hit you, you hit me, I'm more skilled so you die."
Agreed! But what system?
-
Is it confirmed that quality 300+ weapons are forbidden? I know it was so in the old crafting system, because they were made due to bug-abusing i think.
But in the new system, quality of stock is completely different from before (i was barely able to make quality 10 stock before, now i can make quality 200 stock at the first attempt).
Today I made 3 daggers, quality 114/114, quality 203/203, quality 731/731. I don't think I abused of any bug. Anyway, what should I do now? Is there a way to decrease quality? I tried stacking them but it doesn't seem to work. Or should I just sell the better one to NPCs?
Quality varies a lot during the crafing process, it's close to impossible to hit 300/300. One may start with low quality steel (i'd have to remelt some stock in order to lower the quality, or hope for some very low quality to appear so i can stack them), but quality increases during the process in unpredictable ways.
-
Anyway, Swords - my point is not the actual example I used, my point is that there's things that a skill level, a weapon-quality index and a dice-roll can't account for. If we're going for finely detailed realism here, we should at least come up with a system other than "I hit you, you hit me, I'm more skilled so you die."
Agreed! But what system?
That's the million dollar question. In order to make it 100% realistic you'd have to remove the RPG elements almost entirely - training a skill would allow you to learn new 'techniques', but wouldn't effect the actual skill's performance. In other words, it would be up to the skill of the player in how he uses what he learns, rather than the character.
Then you would need about 50 other systems within one combat system including environment interaction, 'accidents', wound effects, stress levels, physical exertion (including muscle fatigue, blood pressure - things other than simply 'stamina'), morale (or how 'scared' you are of your opponent), etc.
But that could get very not fun for people, especially the coders :P But also the newbies and anybody else who aren't interested in a micro-management game...
-
Most of the swords I've made are over 400/400. It's hard for me to make a sword under 300/300 now. So you guys want to tell me that I can't have and sell my 400/400's while there are people running around with iron shortswords and silverweave? Oh, You want me to sell them to an npc? OK, here Harnquist what can I get for this shortsword? WHAT? 160 tira? I would have to buy my stocks for 16 tria or just mine for practicaly nothing! I might as well just mine gold and loot. This game just got really pointless. Oh, what's that? Ah, roleplay! Yay! Maybe I will just pretend that Harnquist is paying me more.
This "problem" has been around for a while. If we aren't alowed to have that high quality weapons than why the heck are we able to make them?
-
My goodness! Give the people a break! Its a pre-alpha! Is the only reason you play to make weapons and sell them so that your virtual money counter will go up?
-
I guess you're right. I'm lucky to be crafting anything at all in a pre-alpha.
-
I know I'm right :P
But seriously, I understand that it can be frustrating but it's to be expected. Plus even if it wasn't a pre-alpha, its still just a game. Just have patience.
-
No, Parallo is lying to you ;P
But seriously, if i were you, i wouldn't care and just sell these swods. It is pre-alpha. We test stuff and when this bug will be fixed, maybe devs will delete all weapons over 300 quality, as they did once with weapons over 10dmg and we all will live happy again.
EDIT: i suppose there are few factors which decide of the final quality of the weapon and thats why it is hard to find a proper equation and code it. But there is one general pattern: the higher the quality, the harder it is to make and the curve is getting closer and closer to an Asymptote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymptote)
-
My goodness! Give the people a break! Its a pre-alpha! Is the only reason you play to make weapons and sell them so that your virtual money counter will go up?
The same logic could be applied to why 400/400 weapons should be sold and used. It's only pre-alpha; there's no actual use for duel points yet; why does it matter if weapons are stronger than they should be? Is the only reason you (one) play is to duel?
-
Is the only reason you (one) play is to duel?
Weapons are not only for dueling.
-
Is the only reason you (one) play is to duel?
Weapons are not only for dueling.
Maybe not, but that's the only context in which I would remotely care...
-
The disparaging comments about the alpha state aside, it does raise an interesting point, as to what the purpose of the limits are, or what the correct limit should be. The way crafting was before, it was possible to craft a 1000/50 weapon by working your blade a silly number of times. When a rule was made that 300/50 was the limit, the explanations I heard (right or wrong, this was from other players, not GMs ) were either that 1) it was exploiting a bug to make anything more or 2) It was using too much of the server's resources to create. Either sounded like plausible explanations, so no problem there.
But now, things are different...as has been stated, one can make a 300+ weapon without doing anything particularly special. It can, in fact, be difficult to stay _under_ 300. It is very frustrating to walk to the NPC and sell your weapon for 40 tria, when so much time has gone into making stock and mining. So, I wonder why have such limits at all, when they seem arbitrary now?
I'm trusting that soonTM updates will address these concerns, so probably tis a moot point in the grand scheme of things...but I do appreciate Jonandtice's frustration.
-
question is, will i get banned/punished if i make sell or use a 307/307 sword? will they call me a "cheater"?
i tried to stay low, i even managed to get to a 220/220 sword kit lying on the table -- which was not easy, i had to sharpen a Brittle blade (q already well over 340) in order to get such a drop -- that jumped over 300 only at the very final step. And i'm at level 0 sword making, i can only imagine what happens at level 10... ::|
someone (well that's me) mined 80 ores in order to get that sword done. should i just throw it away (or sell for 160 trias)?
can i use just as long as it's 306/307, repair it and repeat till it's 300/300? Will a GM hit my hands with a stick for "using" that +300 sword that way?
-
I made 27 daggers all over quality and that's 140 steel stock and 1400 ores, It took a LONG time to do and yes after a discussion with a GM I sold them to Harnquist, why? Because 300 is the limit and it wouldn't look good having 27 daggers at 640/640 quality in my inventory.
If it's only 307 then I can't see why repairing to 300 would be the problem but you'd still have to use it to reduce quality so who knows... ::|
-
Well i made about 15... the last ones were attempts (more or less successful) to make them low... then some math and some happy stacking provided me with 10 300/301 daggers. that's no cheating on current quality and about 0.3% "cheating" on max quality (will anyone ever try to repair them up to 301/301? most likely he'll get a 300/300 dagger, if not worse).
I'll put them for sale, after i spent soooo much time trying to keep quality low :(
BTW, getting the y right in x/y is much harder. You need to make at least one of quality y/y (exactly). Then you can play with stacks. The x, being the average, is somehow easier to trim.
But i still have some 345/301 daggers in my inv, waiting for a 255/255 dagger to be made in the (near?) future. And i'm not a dagger user (skill = 0) so I hope they don't get mistaken as if they were for my use.
-
After losing 2 Short swords I spent hours making because of it, I decided to stop crafting until this damnable bug is fixed. Waited months to see crafting back in this new version, now I will wait even more to see it become workable. By the way, making a short sword of 2 pounds with more than 200 pounds of ores is simply absurd!
X-/
Testers First, Players(And Roleplayers) Second
:@#\