cRPG
cRPG => Suggestions Corner => Game Balance Discussion => Topic started by: Rumblood on February 12, 2012, 06:23:37 pm
-
As the topic says, a raised shield should be able to absorb the impact of a charging horse and allow the shielder to stay on their feet.
For the record, I am an archer.
-
lol
-
:?
So shields should be able to stop arrows, stop horses and virtually provide a perfect defense against melee?
Somehow I expect this would be quite insane if implemented.
-
:?
So shields should be able to stop arrows, stop horses and virtually provide a perfect defense against melee?
Somehow I expect this would be quite insane if implemented.
Nobody said anything about rearing horses. The knockdown shouldn't apply against a raised shield. and :lol: at perfect defense against melee.
-
Still being able to simply hold right block and avoid any knockdown from a charging horse seems insanely op.
Shields are nice, but I really don't see a reason why they should be able to void knockdown.
A key part of my post was "virtually", I would never suggest a shield is a perfect defense against either melee or ranged. That being said with some shield points, shields are very useful as it is... :wink:
-
balancing aspects aside, imagine trying to block a car using a shield
-
Maybe you could get staggered like polestun instead of being knocked entriely to the floor?
-
lol
-
If you time your jump you can go over the horse and only get a minor bump by the rider. Do this all the time with my shield up.
-
I suggest grannpappy stop making suggestions.
-
balancing aspects aside, imagine trying to block a car using a shield
I'll put it this way, I blocked a car with my left arm and leg and laptop, arm was shattered, leg ligaments were ripped from the bone and the laptop came out with a couple of scratches and worked fine.
Putting that to a shield situation, you'd break you arm if a horse slammed into it, depending on the curvature of the shield, if it was concave, you'd probably worsen your injuries through having pressure points on the areas where the shield are slanted inwards (i.e. Around the rim that'd be pushing down into you) and but you'd probably come off with less broken bones. That's by my logic though, which is flawed.
-
Laptops, the shields of modern age.
-
buckler Vs plated charger
-
With the recent buff to horse leg damage, cav is already taking a severe risk getting into bump range. I can two-shot a plated charger with 30c swings from my long espada (assuming a decent speed bonus; tested in the duel server). High risk, high reward.
-
A raised shield should also make you invisible.
-
lol
This.
-
I think it would be unfair if shields could withstand horses any better than an other weapon. If shields would help, just holding block with a weapon should work too. Anyway, I think horses bumping people down is great as it is. However, I think the damage from horse bumping should be at least divided by 5. It's not good for the playability/fun that cavalry can kill most players in 2-3 bumps. If someone is going to play the "realism" card here, it's perfectly realistic that getting run over by a horse hurts, but it hurts at least as much for the horse.
-
lol
-
a raised shield should be able to absorb the impact of a charging horse and allow the shielder to stay on their feet.
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
-
Oh goddd I'm not sure who is trolling harder
*Original post
*Replies taking it seriously
*People saying lol
-
Yeah sure... horse should break its legs and fall dead instantly of course!
-
No matter how much gold it costs, being able to knock someone over just by pressing W at them is pretty ridiculous, no more ridiculous than being able to prevent that knockdown by pressing RMB with shield.
-
:shock: :o :shock: :rolleyes: :shock: :o :D :oops: :mad: :shock: :evil: :shock: :twisted: I pooped ma pants.
-
As a shielder I have to say no to this suggestion.
The only thing that should changes about horse bumping is some sort of reflective damage back onto the horse depending on the weight of what they are hitting.
So if a horse hits a peasant they will only take a very small amount of base damage that will all be absorbed by the horses armour anyway
Meanwhile if a horse hits a plated knight with a shield, then the base damage will be much larger and only the heavily armoured horses will absorb all the damage.
So armoured horses will be pretty much immune to this reflective damage as they should be. But endlessly bumping armoured people with a rouncey will stop being a possibility. A few bumps with a rouncey will still be useful though.
Finally - if the horse actually takes damage then the rider should be disrupted.
-
As a shielder I have to say no to this suggestion.
The only thing that should changes about horse bumping is some sort of reflective damage back onto the horse depending on the weight of what they are hitting.
So if a horse hits a peasant they will only take a very small amount of base damage that will all be absorbed by the horses armour anyway
Meanwhile if a horse hits a plated knight with a shield, then the base damage will be much larger and only the heavily armoured horses will absorb all the damage.
So armoured horses will be pretty much immune to this reflective damage as they should be. But endlessly bumping armoured people with a rouncey will stop being a possibility. A few bumps with a rouncey will still be useful though.
Finally - if the horse actually takes damage then the rider should be disrupted.
As a cav player, I like this. Maybe not the action disruption, because then bumpslashing won't really be possible, but the damage reflection seems good.
-
As a cav player, I like this. Maybe not the action disruption, because then bumpslashing won't really be possible, but the damage reflection seems good.
Bump slashing would still be possible but only if your horse has high enough armour compared to the target. Obviously the actual balance of this is completely open to debate. I'd take the reflective damage on its own as a start though :D
-
I lol at the op.
-
only when high riding will add AOE horsebump
-
I think there should be a shield with a spike on it that rears horses and impales people when you kick :twisted:
-
No matter how much gold it costs, being able to knock someone over just by pressing W at them is pretty ridiculous, no more ridiculous than being able to prevent that knockdown by pressing RMB with shield.
Just so. Not every horse charge is a 100% full frontal unavoidable trampling, and in fact most of them aren't. Most are deflections and a shield is more than adequate for a warrior to absorb a deflected impact without losing his footing. It is worth noting that a shield does not absorb the shock of the blow. Rather, it redistributes the shock over a larger area, making it possible for the human body to absorb the force of the blow with reduced risk of injury. He might be knocked back, but people are a lot better at keeping on their feet than you people seem to think. I realize real life experience in walking and maintaining your balance and such may be beyond some of you. :P
-
Still your suggestion needs a game-balance-wise reasoning, never mind what is possible in real life and what not. (And in my opinion a raised shield would indeed lower the injuries you suffer, but you would still have exactly the same kinetic energy hitting you, knocking you over nonetheless).
Unless you show us some kind of disbalance between cavalry and shielders, I have to disagree with your suggestion. WHAT I would agree to is to make rearing horses actually interrupt the rider. I hate stabbing a horse in the chest, stopping it, and then being stabbed into the face myself by the rider.
-
Joker, you take a shield for defense. It is unbalanced for cavalary to be able to bump slash the shielder, negating the defense of the shield. There already is a mechanism for cavalry to take down a shielder. It is called a couched lance or an axe with speed bonus.
Basically, these two classes should be nearly immune to each other unless they try to do something bold. Pressing 'W' isn't bold.
-
Joker, you take a shield for defense. It is unbalanced for cavalary to be able to bump slash the shielder, negating the defense of the shield. There already is a mechanism for cavalry to take down a shielder. It is called a couched lance or an axe with speed bonus.
Basically, these two classes should be nearly immune to each other unless they try to do something bold. Pressing 'W' isn't bold.
Your suggestion said only that shielders should remain on their feet, but I understood it that way that they would still get bumped, so nothing would change concerning bump slashing. If you remove the bump at all horses should either go through shielders like ghosts or be stopped liked running into a wall, which can't be a good solution.
I know how lame bumpslashing is. The point is, in this case I think the superiority of one class over another is fine. It doesn't seem unbalanced to me, and god knows I am an infantry fanboy and hate both archers and cavalry.
The point is that, never mind how weird this might sound in the beginning, cavalry is a support class as well. It needs the other classes to distract enemies. Which makes them actually the real Ninjas on the battlefield, because 90% of their kills are unaware people, 9% of their kills are aware people who couldn't react due to different reasons (e.g. fighting someone else) and only 1% are actually a "duel" where the other one tried to defend himself. (Only concerning infantry).
A cavalryman on his own can do little against infantry or archers who are aware. But a shielder is good against everyone. He is absolutely awesome in fighting archers, he is good in fighting anybody else, and the only thing where he is bad at is fighting cavalry. It's a part of the rock-paper-scissors-system of the game that actually works.
-
...a shield is more than adequate for a warrior to absorb a deflected impact without losing his footing. It is worth noting that a shield does not absorb the shock of the blow. Rather, it redistributes the shock over a larger area, making it possible for the human body to absorb the force of the blow with reduced risk of injury. He might be knocked back, but people are a lot better at keeping on their feet than you people seem to think.
Yeah sure, using a shield as an airbag... so a shield is connected to the body by multiple rubber bands to distribute damage evenly. Think again, you would most likely break your shield arm if a horse of a few hundred kilograms runs into you. Take up a wooden shield and try to protect yourself from a slow moving car if you dont believe me. :rolleyes:
PS: KIDS, DONT try that at home!
-
Joker, you take a shield for defense. It is unbalanced for cavalary to be able to bump slash the shielder, negating the defense of the shield. There already is a mechanism for cavalry to take down a shielder. It is called a couched lance or an axe with speed bonus.
Basically, these two classes should be nearly immune to each other unless they try to do something bold. Pressing 'W' isn't bold.
If you don't have something sharp and long braced into the ground a horse will run right over it. You can take the force of a 800-1200 lb horse running into your body at 30 - 50 mph? A shield would protect you from dying, but your ass would still be on the ground (probably with a broken arm and shoulder), and god forbid the bastard stepped on your leg or part of your body as it was knocking you down.
And don't get me started on dead horses flying through the air and magically going through people. Just because the horse was dead doesn't mean you're now safe when that 1000lb carcass is flying into you.
-
Well I think a reduction of bump damage by 50% if the shield is raised would be ok, to prevent shielders from getting bumped to death too easily, but it should definately still bump and damage them, anything else would be ridiculously bad for game balance.
-
I'd be fine if I didn't get fully toppled over by a walking horse.
-
You can take the force of a 800-1200 lb horse running into your body at 30 - 50 mph? A shield would protect you from dying, but your ass would still be on the ground (probably with a broken arm and shoulder), and god forbid the bastard stepped on your leg or part of your body as it was knocking you down.
Why would you take the full force of a horse? Do you people know what martial arts are? Clearly you have no idea of how to deflect a force directed at you. :rolleyes:
-
Why would you take the full force of a horse? Do you people know what martial arts are? Clearly you have no idea of how to deflect a force directed at you. :rolleyes:
Ahhh... now I understand, you're absolutely right as this example shows: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icnDE-HV46o
But on the other side... he doesn't have a shield :mrgreen:
-
Remember that short period of time when horse bumps interrupted the rider? God I loved that. But then all the cav raged hard, so...
-
Remember that short period of time when horse bumps interrupted the rider? God I loved that. But then all the cav raged hard, so...
Well, although I am no cav I agree this is too hard. Especially 1hd cav will become useless, even if they try not to bump slash, often enough it will happen by accident.
I would just like the following things implemented:
- rearing horse interrupts rider
- rider taking too much damage results in falling of the (still living) horse
And perhaps lower the maneuverability of that damn Arabian horse to something like 43 or 44. I already saw riders charge (admittedly bad, but still) spearmen, just to slow down a little bit out of the reach of the spear. While the cavalry is approaching at full speed the spearman will release his stab in time, but only stab air because the rider slowed down in the meantime. This is the moment where he speeds up again, stabbing the spearman into the face. I mean: wtf? Not even on foot you can use this tactic properly, so on horseback it shouldn't be possible, either. But this is just my opinion. I just think the Arabian horse is more of some hovercraft-platform than actually a horse. Feel free to lower the difficulty accordingly.
Oh, and the Palfrey is useless, it should either be buffed or made cheaper, or a combination of both.
-
I don't really like the suggestion, just because the horse is hit doesn't interrupt your kinetic energy of the lance thrust moving forward. I hate when I get hit with an arrow from a horse archer or horse crossbowman right as my lance is 2 inches from their face....me being hit in the non-thrusting arm wouldn't prevent that lance from connecting with your face.
Also it'd be nice if dead horses flying through the air still caused damage to people on the ground.
-
I don't really like the suggestion, just because the horse is hit doesn't interrupt your kinetic energy of the lance thrust moving forward. I hate when I get hit with an arrow from a horse archer or horse crossbowman right as my lance is 2 inches from their face....me being hit in the non-thrusting arm wouldn't prevent that lance from connecting with your face.
With this logic you should get hit every time someone jumps and tries to swing at you but gets stabbed a fraction of a second before he hits you. You know, all those guys with the two handed swords and axes and so on :wink:
Interrupting the enemy by hitting him first is an important part of the game and how melee works in M&B. You shouldn't remove this. And as rider and horse act as one being (due to both being controlled by the player) it is only fair to interrupt riders if you make their horse rear. Remember, I was only talking about rearing, not hitting it in general.
Also it'd be nice if dead horses flying through the air still caused damage to people on the ground.
One reason less to try to attack cav? :?
-
Remember that short period of time when horse bumps interrupted the rider? God I loved that. But then all the cav raged hard, so...
It'd make more sense if hitting the horse stuns the rider from a gameplay perspective compared to stunning the rider during a bump. Doesn't make sense for getting punished for hitting the horse. Of course, there should be a damage threshold before a player would get stunned so armored horses make it harder to stun the rider.
Also, basically what joker said minus the rider falling from the horse and horse stat nerfs. My mind changed when I saw multiple players get couched/lanced after successfully stopping the horse. Have no say on the stat nerfs and maneuver tactics. Even if the horseman can stop on a dime and attack, you know what they're going to do, and you can still stop the horse.
-
I don't really like the suggestion, just because the horse is hit doesn't interrupt your kinetic energy of the lance thrust moving forward. I hate when I get hit with an arrow from a horse archer or horse crossbowman right as my lance is 2 inches from their face....me being hit in the non-thrusting arm wouldn't prevent that lance from connecting with your face.
Well thats a problem for all attacks in this game. If two guys swing a sword at each other only the one who hits first does damage, the other attack is canceled instantly. Even if its only a millisecond earlier. Thats completely unrealistic as a weapon would still have some momentum to hit the other guy.
-
lol
-
With this logic you should get hit every time someone jumps and tries to swing at you but gets stabbed a fraction of a second before he hits you. You know, all those guys with the two handed swords and axes and so on :wink:
Interrupting the enemy by hitting him first is an important part of the game and how melee works in M&B. You shouldn't remove this. And as rider and horse act as one being (due to both being controlled by the player) it is only fair to interrupt riders if you make their horse rear. Remember, I was only talking about rearing, not hitting it in general.
One reason less to try to attack cav? :?
My first suggestion I think would be nice across the board (not just in the instance I described), but the engine is most likely too primitive to be able to decide if the guy hitting you was enough to prevent you from your swing from connecting, or make your swing weaker, or make it so it basically didn't interrupt you at all. Just a pipe dream, maybe M&B2.
Also my 2nd point was more in jest than anything, I see so many people complaining about cavalry lately and wanted to point out there is still some things that should probably be in the game but aren't. so if you don't like cavalry, just thank your lucky stars that the dead flying horses "disappear" as soon as they die.
I think the reason cavalry seems so strong is because ground troops aren't able to use very tightly packed formations and movements. If you're 5-10 feet away from someone I can most likely ride through and "thread the needle" killing the one guy but not getting touched by his buddy too far away. That and the fact that you can't pound stakes into the ground, and you can't just brace a bunch of long spears in front of your infantry wall.
The game's certainly not perfect, but every class and play style has a counter to it's strengths. Everything has at least one weakness, and I think that people should just leave well enough alone and stop constantly tweaking shit (or asking/crying to the dev's to tweak something). Maybe we'd have less buffs and nerfs if people would learn some tactics.
-
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
-
need to nerf cav
-
As a cav player, I like this. Maybe not the action disruption, because then bumpslashing won't really be possible, but the damage reflection seems good.
If there was something they could add that would remove the possibility of bump-slashing if would have been fantastic. Of all the unrealistic, annoying, unbalanced, fun removing, skilless bullshit in the game that people want to get removed, bumpslashing is the worst of all.
-
Or instead of something like this, which is obviously a troll because noone is stupid enough to suggest this, bring back the rider getting bumped when the horse bumps an enemy.
FOR THE RECORD IM CAV
:rolleyes:
-
Well thats a problem for all attacks in this game. If two guys swing a sword at each other only the one who hits first does damage, the other attack is canceled instantly. Even if its only a millisecond earlier. Thats completely unrealistic as a weapon would still have some momentum to hit the other guy.
I agree. There is a MMA video out there somewhere showing two guys knock each other out at the same time. It happens.
-
I think the reason cavalry seems so strong is because ground troops aren't able to use very tightly packed formations and movements. If you're 5-10 feet away from someone I can most likely ride through and "thread the needle" killing the one guy but not getting touched by his buddy too far away. That and the fact that you can't pound stakes into the ground, and you can't just brace a bunch of long spears in front of your infantry wall.
That and horses rotate on a stripper pole when stopped :lol: It should take some minimum forward movement speed before they can turn the horse.
-
I agree. There is a MMA video out there somewhere showing two guys knock each other out at the same time. It happens.
It can happen with ranged weapons (can kill each other), or ranged and melee (usually the melee weapon needs to be long). It can also happen melee vs melee where you kill each other, but the only time I've ever seen this is on horse back and usually one person is couching.
-
Horse charge should instakill raised shield. <_<
-
Horse charge should instakill raised shield. <_<
Because all horses have adamantium bones and kevlar for skin! :o
-
That and horses rotate on a stripper pole when stopped :lol: It should take some minimum forward movement speed before they can turn the horse.
Then horses should also be able to strafe side-to-side like in r/l, and bump that way. That's how horses are used for crowd control even today.
-
[Raised shield should prevent horse bump knockdown]
Yea I tried this irl... didnt end too well.