Alternate Fighting Styles

Spirrwell

I know I don't play anymore, however, an idea crossed my head and I wondered what people might think. "Alternate Fighting Styles" is a little broad, so I'll get to something more specific.

I propose something simple, that could be achieved in a matter of a few days to a week. I've been wondering what it might be like if one could switch between a two and single handed stance for certain\main weapons. I'm not quite sure if it would be something afforded to all classes or not.

Basically, the idea is, two handed attacks are often heavier longer swings that do quite a bit of damage, whereas single handed attacks are often lighter shorter swings that do a little bit of damage, but has the benefit of being quick. Having to hold a weapon with both hands might also slow a person down. Giving up something to gain in another area is certainly not a foreign concept.

Now I'm not talking about something that you would choose as your selecting your class, I'm talking about something that could be changed while fighting, not instantaneously of course, as it would likely have a bit of a delay of a few seconds. The basic idea is there though.

If you think about it, at least when I do, it makes quite a bit of sense to allow for a change in stance. It would certainly allow for more dynamic gameplay and could put everyone on a more even playing field when it comes to parrying. It would all depend on the way such a thing is implemented.

Well, I'm curious to hear what people think of the idea. I'm kind of expecting the "Wall of NO", but I figured it might be an interesting discussion. Have a great day everyone!

Links121995

While it would certainly add depth and would not be a bad idea, one simply cannot use two hands for a one-handed weapon, nor can one use one hand to wield a two-hander.

I'm sure you're aware that one can hold a knife in more than one way. Switching between different grips would be more practical a variation than adding another hand.

I think that with the large two-handed weapons, one could switch from an agressive stance, two-handed, long-reaching, and slow, to a defensive stance. Two-handed with the hands spaced along the weapon's length, short-reaching, and fast(er).

Given that this would be almost completely locked up for the Captain, and that most weapons are used just fine in their current states, stances and grips, I'm not sure if it's worth it.

Also, all classes with a two-handed weapon have a one-handed alternative anyway.

cainsith

Honestly it could be easily done by having classes such as the HK, Husky, and Gestir being able to keep using their swords when their shield breaks.

Spirrwell

Links121995 wrote:

While it would certainly add depth and would not be a bad idea, one simply cannot use two hands for a one-handed weapon, nor can one use one hand to wield a two-hander.

I'm sure you're aware that one can hold a knife in more than one way. Switching between different grips would be more practical a variation than adding another hand.

I think that with the large two-handed weapons, one could switch from an agressive stance, two-handed, long-reaching, and slow, to a defensive stance. Two-handed with the hands spaced along the weapon's length, short-reaching, and fast(er).

Given that this would be almost completely locked up for the Captain, and that most weapons are used just fine in their current states, stances and grips, I'm not sure if it's worth it.

Also, all classes with a two-handed weapon have a one-handed alternative anyway.

The reason I had questioned why such an ability would be afforded to all classes or not was simply because with someone like the Gestir or Sharpshooter, it simply wouldn't make sense to switch between two/one handed. Though a variation on stance could occur. A change between a single hand and two hands is better visible, and that's where my thinking was. As in, it should be noticeable if an opponent changes stances.

You do bring up a good point, as unless the Captain has a replaceable prosthetic, his left hand is useless. Though he might be the only one able to "hold" his actual blade with his left hand without you know, inflicting damage on his own hand from getting hit, and so something like that might be able to be played with.

Also, technically, I don't believe any class wielding a two handed weapon (excluding ranged) that has a single handed one unless accounting for the sword and shield. As Cainsith essentially pointed out, no shield = no sword, so it is effectively a two handed weapon, and the shield obstructs view.

cainsith wrote:

Honestly it could be easily done by having classes such as the HK, Husky, and Gestir being able to keep using their swords when their shield breaks.

Yeah, it doesn't really make sense that if you lose your shield, you lose your sword. However, going with only this, it would leave out the Pirates.

I imagine it like this, a Skirmisher's strength is really the utilization of his speed. If he were to change stances, such as switching to a two-handed stance that would force him to slow down, he would be much easier to catch up to. Giving up speed for a little bit more power. I could see having a bit more power behind a swing being very useful, but at the same time potentially dangerous if you have to give up some speed. I think it would be amazing and would ultimately give way to new strategy especially if such an ability were afforded to the other teams.

Parrying might be different and interesting as well.

schatzmeister

I don't think it would be a good thing to have various stances. I agree with the one handed animations for the weapons withouts shields though - they really are needed.

Links121995

Spirrwell wrote:

It wouldn't make sense for the Gestir or Sharpshooter to add/remove hands, though a variation in stance could occur. However I think a change in stance should be indicated via the number of hands.
There are more ways to wield weapons than either one-handed or two-handed, and though some may be visually subtle in reality, this is a video game.

The Captain might be the only one able to hold his blade without damaging himself.
The Hook's lack of articulation would make the Captain more vulnerable than a cut hand would. Despite wearing nothing on their hands, the Vikings would probably not suffer too badly as their weapon's handles are made of wood. The Heavy Knight has gauntlets to protect his hands, and probably knows how to employ "half-swording".

No class wielding a two-handed melee weapon has a single-handed one, unless the swords and shields are included. As Cainsith pointed out, no shield = no sword, so they are a two handed weapon. Also, the shield obstructs view.
A one-handed sword is a one-handed sword no matter what it's associated with. I can't use a one-handed sword if I run out of health, does that make me a two-handed weapon? Also, the shield does not obstruct one's view too much.

It doesn't make sense that if you lose your shield, you lose your sword. However, going with only this, it would leave out the Pirates.
While true, if your shield breaks then you probably weren't using the sword. The Pirates don't have shields, so while they wouldn't be positively affected by the ability to use the short swords they don't have after the shields they don't use break, they also aren't negatively affected by the current mechanics.

A Skirmisher's strength is his speed. If he were to switch to a two-handed stance that forced him to slow down, he'd be easier to catch. I could see having a bit more power being useful, but potentially dangerous if you have to give up speed. I think it would be amazing and would ultimately give way to new strategies.
I can't judge this bit without a variety of stats.

Parrying might be different and interesting as well.
So, would a Skirmisher use two hands to Perfectly Parry a Heavy Knight's zweihänder? Would the Heavy Knight use one hand to wield his massive sword with greater speed to get past the two-handed light cutlass?

Spirrwell

I'm not really a fan of editing from inside a quote and editing what was said as it made it a bit more difficult to follow, but meh.

To start off with the parrying, I left that bit broad on purpose. I was thinking of the possibility of implementing a new weight tier. Instead of light, medium, and heavy, it could be light, medium, moderate, and heavy. However I left this idea out, fearing it would be overcomplicated. Though I personally like the idea. Like the archer being able to perfect parry the Captain's cutlass seems like a stretch to me, but that's another discussion. Also, two handed doesn't mean it can parry heavy weapons. The Gestir's spear shows this. It's simply something that could be played with.

Stats... Well, I'm game. I used the Skirmisher as an example because he's the fastest class in the game. His current speed is 260, his max speed while walking backwards is 234, ever slightly below the Berserker's forward speed 235. For more perspective, the Sharpshooter, Archer, and Gestir all have a speed of 210. If the Skirmisher were lowered to his backpedal speed in a different stance, he would be much more in range. He could even be lowered more. The slowest the Skirmisher can walk while at a maximum speed is holding the keg walking backwards which is a speed of 144. When walking forward with the keg, he's at a speed of 160. When in the parry pose, he can walk forward at a speed of 182, and backward at a speed of 164. So even if the Skirmisher were lowered to 210 or 200 while in a more defensive heavy stance, he would still be faster than his slowest speeds and in better range of opponents. But that pose would be to enforce more power in a swing.

My point in that just changing the sword and shield limitation was that I was initially proposing the idea of alternate fighting styles. Which I think since problematic to do with all classes, would be good to do with at least one class of each team.

Do you consider the axe+sword that the Berserker has a single handed weapon? I wouldn't, and I also consider the sword and shield to be a two handed weapon. Shield for bashing, sword for slashing. Also, I value screen space. I would love the ability to freely change FOV, but that again, is another discussion. Most weapons are centered to the right hand side of the screen and the shield can obstruct the view of a person to your left and is even worse for the HK with his shield. I find it very difficult to use the sword because I can't really see who I'm fighting as well as I might without a shield. I like the Archer's sword for example, and it doesn't have a shield. Not to mention that getting rid of the shield would still mean you would be able to parry with the sword, it should anyway.



Hm... Nobody around...

Oh hi!

I'm not quite familiar with your use of the word articulation, but looking it up I'm guessing that you mean that using his hook in a conspicuous way, one would be vulnerable to it tearing the arm, though I'm failing to see how that's possible. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding.

Links121995 wrote:

There are more ways to wield weapons than either one-handed or two-handed, and though some may be visually subtle in reality, this is a video game.

Quite a fair point, this is a video game, and other things in it are exaggerated as well. However, my suggestion was that of an alternate fighting style, I'm simply thinking in terms of functionality, and it would be something really simple to animate if it were a change in the hands used. Also, you ever notice how the Sharpshooter when aiming down the sight of his pistol uses a single hand in first person, but two in third person? I'm not sure if this is a matter of functionality, or saving screen space in first person. Functionality meaning that ability for the opponent to tell that he's aiming. I don't know the exact reason, but is something to consider.

Well, that's about all I have for now.

Links121995

I reply to your points with my own, sequentially. I try to cut unnecessary words and phrases in an effort to make comprehension easier and faster. I inserted my replies to your paragraphs directly after said paragraphs to keep them organized. I consolidated your paragraphs in an effort to better understand what you were trying to say, and to shrink the size of the post. As I'm sure you can see, I believe you use a lot of words to say very little.

Firstly, medium and moderate are synonyms. That scale should be light, medium-light, medium-heavy, and heavy. Possibly with "medium" between the other two degrees of medium. Secondly, if the number of hands doesn't affect how the weapon parries, there's nothing to play with in that regard.

At the cost of his speed, the Skirmisher would gain some power. I see. How is this deeper than picking a Captain?

I do indeed consider the axe the Berserker holds with one hand, and the sword he holds with one hand, to be a pair of one-handed weapons. I also consider a one-handed sword used in conjunction with a one-handed shield to be a one-handed weapon, and the shield, a one-handed shield.

That shield takes up approximately 12% of the screen. I suggest that you scan your surroundings more thoroughly. Why would you want to attempt to parry with your tiny one-handed sword when you can use your giant two-handed axe? It parries more weapons more effectively, and the counter-attacks are deadlier.

I'm using articulation in an anatomical sense. As the hook lacks the bones of a hand, it would be difficult to manipulate the cutlass in any practical way.

Fuuju

id liek to see the gestir wield his spear in a manner where he slashes, as oppossed to jsut straight up stabs. like the chinese short spear

Links121995

Fuuju wrote:

id liek to see the gestir wield his spear in a manner where he slashes, as oppossed to jsut straight up stabs. like the chinese short spear

Get a horizontal perfect parry with the spear, and counter-attack.

Fuuju

Links121995 wrote:

Get a horizontal perfect parry with the spear, and counter-attack.

yeh, i know this x3

but i just meant as a standard style.