Animations retested

[Arkonor]

http://forum.c-rpg.net/index.php/topic,25086.0.html

[Snoozer]

  i feel like a fool ive been using such old data Q_Q

wait so does this mean that th 2h is now shorter then a 1h?

can someone verify this?

[Dezilagel]

(click to show/hide)

For awhile now I have been noticing how wrong(outdated) the old animation guide is.

So I ended up doing tests myself. Tests done by using a lot of different weapons on stationary target. Tests then repeated and retested a few times.

End results :

2h polearm

Overhead         +15
Right                +30
Left                  +20
Stab                 +0
Stab (1h)          +45

1h

Overhead         +50
Right                +45
Left                  +30
Stab                 +50

2h

Overhead         +50
Right                +30
Left                  +30
Stab                 +70

These numbers are quite a lot different from the old tests that were done before the animation got changed a bit.
Hope this is helpful to some of you.

See you on the field
Arkonor

The initiative is nice, but the stab on my poleaxe is definitively longer then the overhead :/ (for example, the stabs on 2h and 1h are also much, much longer than their swings)

I'm sorry, but I cannot take these figures seriously.

[Arkonor]

wait so does this mean that th 2h is now shorter then a 1h

Only when you do a right swing with same length weapon.

For example you have a bastard sword and if you equip a shield with it your right swing will reach farther then without the shield.

(click to show/hide)

The initiative is nice, but the stab on my poleaxe is definitively longer then the overhead :/

I'm sorry, but I cannot take these figures seriously.

Sorry but you are wrong even spears without a shield reach further overhead swinging.
You do have to aim for the head though to get a hit from it that far.

[The_Bloody_Nine]

how do you do these tests?

[Arkonor]

how do you do these tests?

You find the maximum length of an attack on a stationary target. Then you find another type of swing/weapon that has almost exactly the same reach and write it down.
After a lot of those tests you end up with this.

Obviously this isn't 100% accurate but it is pretty close. Like I said I did TONS of tests

[Xant]

These numbers seem very wrong. WALTF4 WHERE ARE YOU???

[Arkonor]

These numbers seem very wrong. WALTF4 WHERE ARE YOU???

Why do people keep posting that they "feel" or "believe" it is wrong. Just try it out No religion vs logic here
These numbers are at least way more accurate then the old ones. (that were done with different animations long time ago)

[Xant]

Vast majority of the animations are the same. The old ones back up what I've seen in game, your numbers don't.

1h
Overhead = +0
Left-to-right = +0
Right-to-left = +19
Thrust = +61

2h
Overhead = +15
Left-to-right = +17
Right-to-left = +13
Thrust = +80

2h Polearms
Overhead = -15
Left-to-right = -7
Right-to-left = -2
Thrust = +19

1h Polearms
Thrust = +50

*DISCLAIMER*
This test was done against a dummy, with modified weapon lenghts. Margin of error is probably around +/-3. For your information, testing this with no information about the reaches took a lot of time. If you want more accurate results you'll have to do it by yourself.

[Leshma]

Vast majority of the animations are the same. The old ones back up what I've seen in game, your numbers don't.

You don't even play the game...

[The_Bloody_Nine]

You find the maximum length of an attack on a stationary target. Then you find another type of swing/weapon that has almost exactly the same reach and write it down.
After a lot of those tests you end up with this.

Obviously this isn't 100% accurate but it is pretty close. Like I said I did TONS of tests

sorry I still don't get. you define reach of 1h overhead and left swing on a stationary target as 0, then write down the differences to other weapons/attack types. But what exactly do you write down? what is your measure?

[Arkonor]

Well I'm going afk for awhile so can't answer more questions. I do recommend people at least try the polearm stab vs swings for example and they see straight away that the old numbers are horribly wrong.

[Dezilagel]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2hjLl2Imz8

Not very accurate obv, but it proves my point.

[Arkonor]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2hjLl2Imz8

Not very accurate obv, but it proves my point.

It doesn't work to test this vs a wall. Ask a guy to stand still.

[Dezilagel]

He is right, we tested on persons and the same results weren't shown!

2h stab still outreaches everything, but the swings seem to be much closer to eachother in length than what the other values show.

Still not accurate enough to draw any conclusions, but I think this guy might have a point now.