PlaneShift
Gameplay => Wish list => Topic started by: Silavur on January 27, 2007, 10:48:32 pm
-
I agree that not alot can be done about daggers and their speed to slash ratio. I took me a while as a sword user to accept this, but I have. I still had a nagging feeling that there was an unfair advantage to them though. After a while, it struck me that the dagger has too far a range. It strikes from a ridiculous distance for such a short length of blade. And in a Silverweave duel, it has the supreme advantage at being the first to strike at a similar range to that of a sword or axe. Is this a too fine of a detail to change or compensate for in the next update?
-
You only need what? Two, three inches of blade to kill someone with a single stab?
If you actually land a hit with a dagger, then I don't see a problem with a one hit kill. The problem is that if someone else has their swords at the ready, they should have an added defensive modifier. Presently, that modifier isn't included in the game, but it will be eventually.
-
Errrm..... /me points at the range idea. That was my major point. Their range is too similar to a swords. If I am running directly at you with a sword, and you are running at me with a dagger, I should be able to reach you before you reach me with similar skill levels, even if the dagger is faster.
-
Technically the sword would be heavier though giving the dagger wielder quicker movement.
It does need work though :]
-
/me sighs and points again Weight would factor into the speed of the weapon. But speed refers to striking speed. The dagger should be faster aye, but if it quickly strikes the air in between you and the person slashing their sword into your throat.... then that doesn't matter.
-
Yeah, the longer weapon generally hits faster. It would work in PS better, if after attacking, you char would move to the target, and hit as soon as in range. Then the longer the weapon, the sooner you hit your enemy. After this the speed factor starts matter and the rest of the attacks goes as currently.
This is partially right, because sword vs dagger combat is far more complicated. But it give some image of what should be changed.
Currently after pressing attack you have to wait the time it is for the speed ration of weapon you use. I think it is mainly to stop even bigger hit and run tactic exploiting and being friendly to lagging people.
Further, the "one hit kills" rule is right, but not in PS for now. There should be much more parrying, dodging and similiar. Usually this is represented by the damage, but since most people refuse to see it this way and want damage to be like health, things gets complicated and thus more complicated system is needed. With simple system, like now, a fight is a joke.
Silavur, all this is known already, there were numerous posts about it, but if you want you may make another one. The system, as the whole game is being worked on, but it isn't happening really fast.
-
Daggars like the Sai were designed to hook the enemy's sword, or other weapon, causing it to be jammed, while the other daggar was free to deliver a death blow. The sai was so effective, that the samurai began to carry it. Daggars like these were a perfect match for anyone with a sword. The only problem was that it didnt offer anywhere near as much power over mechanical advantage as a sword or axe. This ment that daggar weilders had to be prescice in their attacks. Daggar-weilders had to know every point of the body that could be punctured for a one-hit-kill.
In the game, Daggars could be employed similarly. The higher your level in the daggar attribute, the more of a percent chance you have of scoring a death blow like this. The added overall damage of a daggars critical hits and non-critical hits per minute compared to a swords damage per minute on the same level should be about equal. The Daggars would just be based more on chance and less on the points you have on the daggar attribute.
-
hmmm Discusions like this are so pointless most of the time becuase of the simple fact that we dont have any people with experience. Also there are simply to many variants in swords and daggers to just throw them all on one heap. Tactics that may be true for a longsword will most of the time not apply for a shortsword obviously.
Do shortswords really have a range much larger then a dagger? In comparisen to a longsword I think it's nearing nitpicking.
Also it's impossible to tell for someone who has never wielded a weapon how much "bonusses" a daggeruser gains when becoming an expert with the weapon. Definately the fact that expert martial artist useally chose different weapons then a normal sword would imply that a normal sword has several disadvantages at the expert levels atleast.
The sword is ofcourse a simple metal club sharpened to be more deadly. It is the massproduced weapon of choice and massproduced weapons are useally not the best weapons, just the weapon easiest to learn how to use.
-
I have 10 years of japanese weapon/kumite training. Not all that much compared to an expert, but prolly more than most people here. Anything besides japanese weapons, Im not farmilliar with, however.
Shortswords usually have a larger range than daggars because they are heavier in the blade, and have more of a mechanical advantage while swinging. Thrust-wise, it all depends on the hilt for a shortsword. The more weight backing the blow, the more damage done. Daggars' power comes from the user's own strength.
Swords themselves are used because, like you said they are easy to produce and easy to learn. But they can be alot better than other weapons depending upon the skill of the user. Like If we gave an expert pilot an old WWI Biplane, and have some hobo off the streets a WWII airplane. Who would win.
-
Glad to hear some of us have experience Shimmabuku *smiles*
I mean hard to make things realistic if we are not even sure what that is ;)
-
Well, In Japan, the people noticed that their warriors were often caught in a battle in which the enemy had a sword and all that the defendant had was a daggar. This is how the greatest daggar ever was invented: The Sai. Daggars like the Sai were designed to hook the enemy's sword, or other weapon, causing it to be jammed, while the other daggar was free to deliver a death blow. The sai was so effective, that the samurai began to carry it. Daggars like these were a perfect match for anyone with a sword. The only problem was that it didnt offer anywhere near as much power over mechanical advantage as a sword or axe. This ment that daggar weilders had to be prescice in their attacks. Daggar-weilders had to know every point of the body that could be punctured for a one-hit-kill.
That sounds like a posibility for a custom weapon. Probably another thing for devs to base ther ideas about new weapons in Yliakum.
But this may not count for every dagger currently in the game. There is no dagger which is shaped like this and so what you said can't count. But yeah.
-
Samurai carrying sai ... they were rice planting tools :P Very effective in the hands of the farmers that constantly used them day in, day out but I haven't heard of samurai fighting wars with them. A sai isn't quite what I'd call a dagger either, it's an unique weapon which can be very effective against a sword but still not useful in full scale battles because of the short reach. The use of daggers is limited to one on one duels without much armor being in the way.
I'd say keep the weapons as they are but make armor a more important factor. If a dagger goes up against someone clad in medium armor they should have seriously reduced damage/chance of hitting. Different weapons have different uses .. that's what's missing in PS. No one weapon is allpowerful.
-
Well of course daggers are impractical in scale battles. They were used soley for close quarters, self defense. An enemy with armor isually had some gaps or weak spots in the armor that could be prenetrated. But One-on-one is a dagger's specialty. If your fighting two people, you're screwed unless your really really good. Unlike a good old hammer, where you can swingit around a couple of times and the enemies are all dead.
I think Daggers can be deployed as a game aspect effectively if we keeps things like this in mind. Only good for one on one, close quarters situations. Works best if enemy has armor that you cant puncture. Better for defense than anything. The only problem is ( as Nikedoems said) Not all daggars are developed like the sai, which could bring up a problem with the whole "Good for self defense" thing.
I think we should leave it as it began:
High attack rate, little damage.
So other weapons could basically be equal, but have advantages in different situations which, I guess, is the roots of a weapon system in any MMO.
And also like Nike said, some custom weapons could give you a defense or attack bonus becasuse of it's shape. Just a thought.
-
I think range is important, i mean when we have pole arms is it really a good idea to have daggers hitting at the same range as them? They lose their main advantage.
-
Yeh, you're right. Range is also an advantage in combat. So maybe We would have to have a 3 way weapon balance system.
Speed, power, and range.
Daggers being fast speed, mediem to small damage and small range.
Swords Being medieum power, medieum speed and medieum to long range.
Axes being Medieum-high power, medieum-low speed, and medieum range.
Hammers being High power, Slow speed, and medieum-high range.
Other long objectt like spears being: medieum power, medieum speed, High range.
Or something like that. I know in some games, every weapon class has a few sub-skills, like thrusting damage, slashing damage, blocking power, etc.
-
Currently range doesnt mtter almost at all. Having swords, you wont stop a guy with a daggers from coming closer. You can do nothing about it.
We can walk through ourselves and currently, if every weapon will have different range, this will only increase hit and run tactics.
I think it will also make daggers worse, than currently, because while hit and run tactics what matters is also the range of effect, not only speed. The range is maybe even more important, or rather range/speed ratio. Um yeah.... you know what i mean, but it only proves something else have to chage, it is implemented before range may start to matter.
Currently it is pointless
-
Range does not belong in Planeshift. It would turn Planeshift into an arcade game, and people would exploit range when fighting players with pings which aren't as good.
Range should be expressed in a different way - as a general offensive or defensive bonus depending on the weapons the other guy is using.
-
The problem with offensive and defensive bonus based on the weapons being used is that depending on the range, the values would flip. Take the man with the pike and the man with the shortsword. When they first close the pike has an extreme advantage over the shortsword. Simply put the pike user can hit without being hit initialy. But if the pike user misses and the shortsword user moves inside the range of the pike the pike becomes almost totaly useless. Now all the pike user can do is to use the pike as a staff and only defend until he can open up the range again.
It is this fluidity of motion that is so hard to define in a game. So much so that you would have to implement range and collision checks. No longer would you be able to allow characters to pass through each other. And you would have to have three sets of values for each weapon. Beyond range, At range, and inside range. Values used internally not displayed to the players. For the player he would see speed,slash,range listed on the weapon. Also in some cases such as the pole arm's you would have to allow for uses as a staff when inside the pole arm range as now that they enemy is so close that you can't bring the point to bear, all you can do is use it as an off balance staff. And thus if you add staff's as a class of weapons you would use the staff values for the pole arm when inside range.
As your system currently is set you don't have to have range as a factor except on intiial contact. You can assume that the two combatants will be constantly moving trying to reach optimum range for their respective weapon. In such a case you can assume that the user with the higher skill level will reach optimum position more often than his opponent. If anything what you can do is to magnify the offensive defensive bonus gained from skill level by the difference in the two weapons range's. Thus the skilled opponent would be better at taking advantage of a range difference. In such a case The offensive and defensive bonus for a sword user would be greater for using a longsword vs a dagger than for using a shortsword vs a dagger, and in the case of the dagger user, his offensive and defensive bonus's would also be magnified by the difference in range. Thus the more skilled user of the two would have more to gain from having a bigger difference in respective ranges than the less skilled user. The net effect of this is that at low levels the weapon of choice would be a shortsword or sabre, and as you gained skill you would be more likely to use a longsword, claymore, pike or dagger. Again this would also be realistic in that there is a weapon that the masses will use that the expert will eschew in favor of a more custom combat weapon.
And we haven't even gotten into the area of mounted and ranged combat. Here the pike and the bow come to dominate the battlefield especially the pike in the hands of the peasants. As it was the most effective method of dealing with the mounted knight. And in the hands of experts the bow can be devestating. Case in point the battle of agencourt, where Henry the II with 4000 archers, and 1000 men at arms with pikes devastates the 25,000 to 30,000 french calvary.
-
Range is not the only problem with the combat system but it is something needed for it. With no conception of range there can be no realistic missile weapons, range is already factored into magic why not combat? The other real problem with combat is no concept of facing being implemented. The fact that you can stand 3 feet behind an enemy, facing away and still kill it with your sword never once turning to see it is truly bizarre. I doubt that these will be easy to code and will take a while. I am sure they are planned.
-
bilbous: nope, in this case you ay that long range and short range is one and the same thing. like long=short. This isn't true. There is huge difference beatwen combat range and shooting range.
Also, you write about the need of facing enemy while fighting. I believe before this would be implemented, we should have strafing and working mouselook
-
Actually I am beginning to think that some kind of "Weapon Comparison" value should be implemented.
The idea behind it is pretty simple:
Additionally to it's slash/speed value a pair of values are added representing the offensive/defensive usefulness. At the beginning of combat (or with every hit, should factors like Quality alter these values) the two values are cross compared and added in on the hit/evade rate.
To clarify this further, I'll try explaining it with an example:
Player Bob and Player Hugo are dueling. Bob wields a hypothetical dagger (/1.5, Speed 1.5, Offensive 30/Defensive 40) while player Hugo is clutching a hypothetical huge battleaxe (/5.0, Speed 3.0, Offensive 90/ Defensive 10). Having the faster reflexes Bob gets to strike first. Hugo's axe's(10) defensive value is subtracted from Bob's dagger's(30) Offensive value and the result is added to Bob's chance of hitting. As the battleaxe is pretty useless for parrying bob get's a bonus chance of connecting the hit of 20%. With this bonus barely manages to penetrate Hugo's defense. Now the time for Hugo's counterstrike is at hand. Attacking brutally with his axe, Hugo storms onwards. Bob's dagger's defensive value (30) now is subtracted from Hugo's battleaxe's offensive value (90). With an additional chance of hitting of 50% Hugo easily penetrates Bob's defense.
Additionally to the weapon's "natural" Offensive/Defensive Values the player's stance, skill, health and stamina might affect the actual value.
-
Genieus! Strafing! Like maybe we could make it so you could lock on to your enemy and use the D and A keys to circle the enemy, and W to charge at them, and S to back away. They would make combat at least a little more interesting!
-
As for range, summon missile has a long range, freeze and flame burst is shorter and weakness is touch, these could relate to missile weapons, long and short swords, and daggers and melee. Thus a dagger would only be effective in touch range, a sword would be good for another 5 feet or so and a missile weapon would only be effective outside that range.
I was talking about the finished combat system and not even "Soon(tm)"
-
bilbous, then you are saying obvious things... but the difference beatwen combat and missiles is way too big to make trivial comparisons like these.
-
Eh, this is just my two cents, so feel free to ignore it, but hey, worth a shot, no? =P
Like someone said earlier (I forget who) , the mechanic, while nowhere near the point of being a realistic battle system, should work a little something like this: Two people fighting, you've got one with a Longsword and one with a Dagger. The guy with a Longsword obviously has a range advantage. That being said, it will be harder for the guy with daggers to close the distance, because if you have a guy/gal with a longsword swinging at you, you aren't going to have a chance to get close unless you dodge, and take the advantage of his off-balance state and close the distance while he's coming around for another swing. Some weapons would have longer opportunities to get in close and strike than others. And some weapons, like the pike and in some cases the axe, would have problems swinging when the foe is up in the users face (due to the blade only being at the tip), but a sword could, while not as easily as a dagger, use the base of the blade (the part near the hilt) to strike, albeit it would not be as strong as if done at normal range.
Another thing, there should (and maybe will be) more than just offence when wielding two blades, or one and a shield (I think there already is, but what I mean is varying degrees, i.e. Bloody- no blocking with either of your weapons and reduces blocking with your shield, Normal- Attack with your primary weapon, parry half and strike half with your off-hand weapon, defensive (not full defensive)- Swing with your primary, but always parry with your off-hand, Full Defense(the mages best friend)-Never attack, parry with both primary and off-hand). There should be a riposte mechanic, meaning sometimes you simply deflect the blow from your body (a block) and sometimes, based on the skill gap betweent he two fighters, you knock the weapon away, knocking your foe off balance and giving yourself an chance to get in an extra attack. Obviously different weapons would have different values. A dagger is hardly the weapon of choice for parrying (or so I believe, don't quote me, I've never actually fought with weapons :sweatdrop: ) because of it's small size. but a smaller weapon, not heavy to move quickly, but not too small to parry effectively, such as a short sword, would be better for parrying, and the best thing for parrying would be the shield (having different values based on size and weight. (I.E. an infiltrator, should he so choose to use a shield, would like a buckler, but a knight, who isn't going to move fast anyway, would like a tower shield for the coverage)
Honestly, I believe the only way to make the fighting system as close to perfect as it can get is to make it similar to Rakion. Not exactly like... there would be alot of conflicting between the skills system and the ability to control every swing you do.
Anyway, I'm done ranting now :sweatdrop: . I don't really care weather the game ever gets to the point of perfection combat-wise, I love the game simply for the RP and the ability to live without killing, but I will admit... it would be nice.
P.S.: If at any point this does not make sense, that's cause I went through once, went back and added more, and did it again. So if it seems spotty or jumpy at some points, there's why, folks :P
-
If you are going hyper on range I feel you have to go all the way and make different sword ranges aswell. I mean I already mentioned the differance between a shortsword and a longsword or claymore. Claymores and longsword I feel should indeed have the advantage of longer range. I mean the sword is called a *long*sword for a reason ;)
However to give the same range to a shortsword as a longsword would just make the fix more ridiculous then having no range yet in my eyes.
Anyhow there is also the question of balancing. daggers already have the disadvantage of lower damage. The biggest reason for their effectiveness is the onehit kills we have in dueling atm, but this has been said is becuase of unbalanced combat. If you give daggers to many disadvantages it might be argued it's more realistic, but you would also make sure it's no longer a realistic choice to go with a different weapon then swords. At the moment most people are using swords, so I don't feel dagger as a skill is overpowered at the moment. If it was everyone would be using them.
PS: daggers have one advantage not mentioned yet. They are a lot faster to draw then a longsword. I mean we walk around town with drawn weapons. Would this really happen if Yliakum was real?
-
The Game Masters can fine us if we're in town with our weapons drawn.
-
Actual physical range is just stupid. In-game the issue is so fleeting that you'd have to begin all combat in slow-motion just to factor range into your strategies. The few feet that you guys are talking about could be covered in a split second. Nobody would really notice it. Nobody really pays much attention to exactly what their characters are doing, or where they're standing anyway.
Which is why it'd only make a difference if range was factored into combat as a simple attack-bonus. Which for all you know, it already has been, and swords get a +0.3 bonus to slash because of it, which nobody really knows about...
-
Another thing to consider is whether or not you're indoors. If you're in a tight passageway, using a claymore isn't exactly practical.