Vikings need one handed axe!

JosephJoseph Senior
edited 3:40AM in Suggestions
The one handed is a historic viking melee weapon, yet none of the currently released or planned vikings have one! I suggest that, since the Gestir already has a seax, the Bondi receives a one handed axe for his melee instead. This would be really cool. Who doesn't want to unleash a devastating chop with one hand on a Skirmisher's ass or Archers head?

That's my thought anyway. Cheers.

Comments

  • MrMohoMrMoho Senior
    edited 3:40AM
    I'd say that the Jarl is the perfect candidate for a one handed axe. In fact, I'd be absolutely irate if he doesn't get a one handed axe as a melee!
  • edited 3:40AM
    I'm kind of torn as to whether I would prefer the Jarl having a one-handed axe or a really fancy (y'know, for a Viking) sword. As for right now, the Berserker technically has a one-handed axe, it's just that it's part of the Lawnmower combo, not its own weapon.
  • El NegroEl Negro The Genuinely Only Sane Person Guests
    edited 3:40AM
    Bondi using an axe, knowing he's pretty much a ranged class, sounds too OP (at least that's what these kids would say, I just call it "dangerous), ya know?
    I make mods.
    Your soul cannot be saved.
    Like my mods and think I deserve something? It's always money, you can pay me up on PayPal using this e-mail; TheSandhog@outlook.com
    Or just use this link; https://www.paypal.me/TheSandhog

  • BagasBagas Senior
    edited 3:40AM
    Hmm... Nope
    Bondi deserves a fine blade. Besides, the skin for the blade that Corvalho did is beautiful... I dont want an ugly axe :/
    FZkBmH.jpg
  • JosephJoseph Senior
    edited 3:40AM
    Guys, the point is that no unit has a standalone one handed axe. The one handed axe was one of the historically greatest of the Viking weapons. And I'm talking one handed, not those big things that Huscarl and Berserker have. So, basically the sword he has with some tweaks to make it, you know, an axe.

    I feel the Viking team will be missing something without this historically important weapon.

    As far as it being finely crafted........

    big_1_3fbffb5781fa.jpg?lm=1434058374


    But seriously, these guys are super high on mead all the time. Who's gonna need that kind of engraving? :gestirpx:
    I mean, all the viking units now, except the healer are planned to have a one handed sword type weapon. Really? We can't find room for one single single handed
    ( B) ) axe? Come on.
  • BagasBagas Senior
    edited 3:40AM
    That is one nice axe 😮
    I wants it ill call it my precious
    FZkBmH.jpg
  • BeroxardasBeroxardas Beta Tester, Senior
    edited 3:40AM
    Perhaps we could change huscarl sword shield into axe-shield? Would it take much work?
    Team pro-axe here, btw.
    I`m really sorry for my bad English. I`m not a native speaker.
  • edited 3:40AM
    Alright, I think I'm convinced. I think that a one-handed axe would be a great weapon for the Jarl. I don't think the Bondi should get one, since axes feel more powerful than swords or knives, and as a ranged class, the Bondi shouldn't be too powerful in melee range. And as for the Huscarl, a big axe and a small axe just doesn't feel as varied as an axe and a sword. (Plus, I'm not really a fan of changing up weapons for existing classes, but that's just me. Besides, if some people really want it, I'm sure a dedicated modder would be able to change it up rather easily)

    Anyway, in my opinion, a fancy engraved axe like the one a few posts up would fit the Jarl rather well. (And yes, the engraving is needed. He's a Jarl, he can get away with fancy weapons)
  • JosephJoseph Senior
    edited 3:40AM
    Yes, changing the Huscarl at this point would probably not be likely. And I get the point about overpowering the Bondi... Maybe it could happen with Jarl or the Healer.
  • El NegroEl Negro The Genuinely Only Sane Person Guests
    edited 3:40AM
    Changing Huscarl's sword to axe, sounds interesting! I'll ask my friend about it.
    I make mods.
    Your soul cannot be saved.
    Like my mods and think I deserve something? It's always money, you can pay me up on PayPal using this e-mail; TheSandhog@outlook.com
    Or just use this link; https://www.paypal.me/TheSandhog

  • AleihrAleihr Senior
    edited April 2016
    El Negro wrote:

    Changing Huscarl's sword to axe, sounds interesting! I'll ask my friend about it.


    I wouldn't suggest it. For one I agree with the point about variety. Also taking either his sword or Dane axe away would be like taking the Berserker's rage away- both are crucial to the Huscarl.

    The Viking Age huscarl, was an elite both in martial prowess and in wealth. To become one, being proficient with the axe and sword specifically were requirements. As well as -personally owning a sword-, a coat of mail and helm, to prove their ability to provide for themselves.
    They had the right idea in gold pattern welding his axe, as that's what they had to have done for their swords rather, as a show of wealth.

    From the concept sketch, it seems that's what the idea was for the Jarl, and rightfully so given the sword alone is a prestige symbol, especially in the Viking Age. So agreed on the engraved bearded axe for the Jarl.

    But I'm not a hundred percent on this still though myself. On a variety standpoint, that means another hand axe beside his throwing axes, another design having to be made. That is, however, unless they share the design, as if he always has one on reserve for melee combat!
  • El NegroEl Negro The Genuinely Only Sane Person Guests
    edited 3:40AM
    Aleihr wrote:
    *stuff niggarto understands as gibberish for no reason*


    Yeah, axe fer Huscarl be good!
    I make mods.
    Your soul cannot be saved.
    Like my mods and think I deserve something? It's always money, you can pay me up on PayPal using this e-mail; TheSandhog@outlook.com
    Or just use this link; https://www.paypal.me/TheSandhog

  • AleihrAleihr Senior
    edited April 2016
    El Negro wrote:

    Yeah, axe fer Huscarl be good!


    Yes, the two-handed axe. The sword is crucial for the Huscarl, they were the equivalent of the medieval knight of their time, the sword likewise carried by them as symbol of their status. After cross-referencing in a google search on the huscarl, the sword was always mentioned as an important armament carried by them.

    I know its just a video game, but I've also been seeing that for all the cartoonishness, the PVK team has been trying to also give it a feel of historic plausibility. Do you see any horns or wings on the vikings helmets for an example?
    Also the original seaxs they had designed had them reversed, with the angled side on the back with the edge on the straight as many of them were- before the Viking Age. It was about the Viking age that scramasaxs began to have the curvature and angles on the 'proper' side.

    Long story short, they have done their homework, and have been looking to give at least a loose feel of historic value.

    I will give you however, that the sword is even more important for the Jarl, for how high status the sword was. It would be like a cavalry officer without a sabre. For either. And I also see the point on not giving it to the Bondi, and yet I feel it would help differenciate him more from the Archer.


    Hey wait a minute! We've been overlooking the Gesteir! Maybe when the Bondi is released with his seax, the Gesteir's langseax be replaced with an axe? Now that to me, screams 'badass'!
  • edited April 2016
    Most of the weapons the characters have now were based on their PVK1 counterparts. None of the original Vikings had a single one-handed axe, so that's why there isn't currently one. The only thing close to this was the PVK1 Berseker using two axes for his lawnmower combo, but that's not the same.

    I can't really say whether or not any Viking class will get a single-handed axe, but I can say this;
    A healer class would be unbalanced if they got to use an axe, since their role is to, generally speaking, heal and support, not to charge into the fray, so the axe wouldn't work for them. Plus, the Seid-Kona's current quarterstaff concept is nice as it could help defend against other two-handed weapons.
    As for the Jarl...well, we're not there yet, but there's been talk of the Captain/Jarl/Lord being (again, possibly speaking) support/buffer classes, so perhaps we should ask ourselves if a short, one handed axe would fit the Jarl's combat class type.

    I once read a suggestion about the Jarl having a two-handed double axe (or two handed sword) and shield combo, though there's a number of reasons that could be a problem which I've listed below:
    1.It's a bit overpowered, possessing both a large two handed range weapon and a shield at the same time. Plus, when the mechanic where being able to use a melee after the shield breaks gets implemented, the Jarl still has a large two handed weapon to block/parry with which questions why he should even have a shield anyway. Also, if the Jarl is going to be the proposed support/buffer type class, then I wouldn't imagine him tanking too much like the Huscarl. Overall, this idea would be pretty unbalanced.
    2. A double-bladed axe is a mythological weapon, and while not everyone may be bothered by this, there is a respective degree to historical accuracy in the game.


    It's hard to suggest alternative weapons when there's currently only a handful of historically accurate weapons recovered that Vikings have ever used, like these:
    [attachment=1427:viking_weapons.gif]

    EDIT: I just thought of something else; I don't think there's a proper way to do a backwards attack with a single-handed axe, so that might be another contributing reason to why there might not be one.
    “Suppose, in their altruistic passion for justice and order, they had determined to reform the world, but had not realized that they were destroying the soul of man?”
    - Arthur Clarke, Childhood's End
  • DisturvingDisturving Senior
    edited May 2016

    EDIT: I just thought of something else; I don't think there's a proper way to do a backwards attack with a single-handed axe, so that might be another contributing reason to why there might not be one.

    I remember reading in a Norse saga that someone thrust the horn of his axe into someone else's neck. I often see, on pictures of Norse axes, the spike pointing towards the hand, making the axe presumably not good at stabbing, but perhaps excellent at hooking. I've read that (some or all) such axe heads were found without the handles, making that arrangement purely speculative. The backwards attack could be a stab.

    Choosing whether to give the Jarl an axe or a sword would be a trade-off between having the Jarl look like a Jarl, and having the Jarl look different to the other Vikings. The Jarl would be the Viking most likely of the whole team to have a sword, but the Huscarl also has a sword. I think the Jarl should have a long sword that gives him good reach, so he does not have to get really really close all the time with it.

    It would be possible to give the Bondi an axe without it being overpowered.
    English archer - haubergeon and chausses trousers, sword (or german long knife) (with no buckler), bow and arrows, crossbow.
    Norse archer - woollen tunic and trousers, knife, bow and arrows, javelins.
    If you put it like this, it makes the Bondi look like a foolish fool (to me). Here's a way the cunning Viking raider could arm himself to try to equal the Englishman.
    Norse archer - woollen tunic and trousers, axe and small shield, bow and arrows, javelins.

    (I just noticed he's not got chausses)
    The reason why my writing here is so formal is that people inevitably get annoyed at my writing, so sticking to the rules of formal writing is my attempt to avoid people taking me the wrong way and getting annoyed.
    Complaining and expressing disagreement and arguing are very good things to do.
    If something written by me here does not look formal, it may be because I tried to make it look better than it could were it formal, or it might be that it seems all right to me without it being formal.
  • edited May 2016
    Disturving wrote:

    The backwards attack could be a stab.

    True, sounds more consistent than hooking.

    I think the Jarl should have a long sword that gives him good reach, so he does not have to get really really close all the time with it.

    Yeah, a long and engraved sword for range seems to be the best bet for the Jarl, since the Huscarl is the Vikings' tank, aka the more "up-close-and-personal-all-the-time" type fighter.

    It would be possible to give the Bondi an axe without it being overpowered.
    Norse archer - woollen tunic and trousers, axe and small shield, knife, bow and arrows, javelins.

    In terms of game sense, a ranger class focuses most on ranged weapons than melee. Melee fighting is (generally speaking) the balancing drawback for rangers. Rangers should only use melee if absolutely necessary, like a last resort weapon or to fend off an annoying Skirmisher or Man-at-Arms that's in their face. If a ranger has a good melee weapon that they use more than their ranged weapons, then they aren't even fulfilling their ranger role anymore. The same applies with shields. Shields should only be used by tanks, support, and all-rounder classes, not rangers (EDIT: at least that's the case in PVK2; not all video games do this).

    As Captain_Barbarossa said, axes feel more powerful than knives, so for class balancing sake, the Bondi will keep his seax knife.
    Interestingly enough though, from what I've seen from recent WIP posts, the Bondi's seax actually seems bigger than I imagined, barely the same size as the Archer's butterknife, which (if it's going to stay that way, again, it's still WIP) is a good thing, because that way the Bondi can retaliate against the Pirates' cutlasses and the Knights' swords and maces. Heck, it wouldn't surprise me if he could even parry a halberd, though that would be the only exception of two handed weapons to parry.
    “Suppose, in their altruistic passion for justice and order, they had determined to reform the world, but had not realized that they were destroying the soul of man?”
    - Arthur Clarke, Childhood's End
  • DisturvingDisturving Senior
    edited May 2016
    I've got a few questions about what you said.
    1. What is a ranger?
    2. Why is the Bondi a ranger?
    3. Why should rangers never have shields?
    4. How do you know "the Bondi will keep his seax knife"?

    It would make more sense to call him a Viking than a ranger to me.
    If javelins and a crossbow are said to be equal, and both archers are equals at archery, then we have this:
    English archer: Hood, harbergeon, sword or German long knife.
    Norse archer: Hat, tunic, langseax.
    This means the English archer will have the advantage over the Norse one, because of the better armour and weapon. One way to make this not so would be to make the Norse archer be far greater at archery, but that would not be good. Another way would be to fiddle with the numbers, and say that armour isn't really great to have, and the protection benefit is more than undone by the reduction in mobility, so even with his knife, the Bondi equals the Englishman, but that would not be good. Another thing to do would be to say something like "The Archer's got 50 armour points, so he's got 50 life points. The Bondi's only got 10 armour points, so he can have 90 life points", but that would not be good either.
    If it's a small shield, then it will look fine on him because it can be worn on his back and not get in the way when he's not using it (Unless he's doomed to keep that outrageous back quiver, in which case the shield can go on his rear end, because realism isn't the focus), and he's a Viking, so it would make him look Vikingy. He could hold it while throwing javelins, which would be really important and sensible. I don't know why the Gestir puts his shield away to throw them. The axe would be shorter than swords and not as good as them, and a small shield would be less protective than ones with more coverage. Because he would not be able to use his shield while shooting, the English archer would have the advantage over the Norse one at long range, but at medium range the Norse one would be able to start charging in throwing his javelins with the protection of his small shield, and at close range the Bondi would have the advantage over the English archer because of his two weapons against his opponent's one, despite his haubergeon. Or he could just have an axe without a shield and be at a disadvantage at long, mid and close range. He could have a seax and small shield, but it would be nice to have an axe on the Viking team. Or he could just have a seax with no shield (maybe he lost it) and be the shame of his team of what you call "all-rounders". This is pre-industrial revolution, so Vikings might not have been as keen as you are on having each person only be good at one thing.
    Is there another way of balancing the two archers while keeping the Bondi like a Viking? I really wouldn't like it if PVKII became a boring LFG lol need tank & DPS & support & healer. There's no real reason why they have to fit into MMORPG classification.
    I just noticed this is not written formally. I just forgot!
    The reason why my writing here is so formal is that people inevitably get annoyed at my writing, so sticking to the rules of formal writing is my attempt to avoid people taking me the wrong way and getting annoyed.
    Complaining and expressing disagreement and arguing are very good things to do.
    If something written by me here does not look formal, it may be because I tried to make it look better than it could were it formal, or it might be that it seems all right to me without it being formal.
  • edited 3:40AM
    Disturving wrote:

    1. What is a ranger?


    In game-terms, a ranger is a standard RPG class, usually focused on using a bow, one-handed blades and wearing light armor. Lore-wise, they are usually associated with nature, either as a sort of "forest guardian" or at the very least, a hunter or outdoorsman, depending on the game.

    Disturving wrote:

    2. Why is the Bondi a ranger?


    I honestly think that the Bondi isn't really a ranger, considering PVKII isn't an RPG, but he kind of fits the general appearance. (That animal skull and the green clothing makes him look like a hunter)

    Disturving wrote:

    3. Why should rangers never have shields?


    Rangers usually don't have a shield because they are focused on agility and are usually not expected to necessarily fight in close quarters. As for why the Bondi shouldn't have a shield, it's mainly because as a ranged class, he needs to have some sort of drawback when it comes to melee combat, and a shield is just too useful. If he had both a shield and reliable ranged weaponry, it would quickly make him too overpowered.

    Disturving wrote:

    4. How do you know "the Bondi will keep his seax knife"?


    I rather doubt that they'll just change his melee weapon this late into development. They already have a kickass model and as far as I know, are busy implementing the Bondi already. It seems a bit late to just change one of his weapons.


    Also, I admit I couldn't really follow most of what you wrote, but about the last thing you said, how PVKII classes shouldn't fit the standard video game classes, I respectfully disagree. The reason these classifications (tank class, ranged class, healer, etc.) are used in so many games is because they work. They have proven themselves in so many games before this one, so why fix what isn't broken? Also, even if some combinations of weaponry technically make more sense than others, the fact remains that game balance is the single highest priority when creating these classes. Does it make any sense for someone with ranged weapons to carry a subpar melee weapon like a knife? No, but if one class is skilled in melee and ranged combat, and the other just in melee, then people will only ever play one of the two, and that is just poor game design.
  • edited May 2016
    Oh, sorry, let me clarify a few things:
    1-4:
    1. "Ranger" was a term I just used for a video game character that focuses most on range weaponry. I wasn't implying that he wasn't a viking. You can call the Bondi a Ranger Viking. Ranger was just my word.
    2. Because the Bondi has a Bow and Throwing Javelins, two projectile weapons, much like how the Archer and Sharpshooter have two projectile weapons, therefore classifying him as a ranger/ranged class or whatever you wish to call him.
    3. I don't know if you got my edit; some video games allow rangers to have shields, but not PVK2 (not my decision, I'm not a developer). Just think about it; let's say you're playing the game and you keep getting shot by an annoying Archer, and just when you think you're close enough to engage on him, he suddenly pulls... a random shield, and bashes you with it over and over again?! He suddenly has the capacity to block and snipe his enemies at long distances?! See, it's unfair for him to have the best of both long range and defense at the same time. Can you imagine everyone on the Knights' team playing as an Archer with a phalanx/arrow wall? It'd be unbalanced and frustrating to play against.
    4. I know that this is a beta game, nothing is set in stone with the characters or weapons or stats etc. and things are bound to change. I was just saying for now that the Bondi does have a Seax Knife already, and that I'm personally not a fan of changing current character's weapons. That would take up a lot of time and diminish all the hard work Corvalho put into modeling the Seax. Plus this thread mentioned changing the Bondi's seax to an axe, which would seem unfair to the Archer and Sharpshooter because they both have a sword and dagger. I just trust the Dev's concepts when it comes to giving characters weapons and stats.

    I was going to reply to your longer message, but Barbarossa pretty much summed it up. At the end of the day we have to remind ourselves that this is just a video game and that these are just video game combatant characters behind a computer screen. They fulfill classifications that are both fun and balanced. Trust me, I respect that in real life there were real Pirates and Vikings and Knights that would've had extra tools and shields and be better equipped overall, but this a game, not real life, nor is it an actual representation of how Pirates, Vikings and Knights would equip themselves to fight each other if they did. Sure, there are certain degrees of realism and historical accuracy you can put into a game, but too much of either of those can kill the fun and enjoyment of playing a game (EDIT: In fact, fantasy and magic often dominates realism and accuracy. Why?
    1. Because they're more creative and flexible, let alone more fun.
    2. It's literally impossible to make a game as 100% realistic as possible).
    Oh, and to add on your comment about the Bondi's quiver, the Bondi has a back quiver because he has shared bow/draw animations with the Archer; it's easier for the devs to just give him the "draw an arrow from behind" animation that the Archer has rather than take more time to create a new animation for a hip quiver. It's just consistency decision making, not historical innacuracy. Also Disturving your message was formal and on topic, and I respect that, mkay? :)
    “Suppose, in their altruistic passion for justice and order, they had determined to reform the world, but had not realized that they were destroying the soul of man?”
    - Arthur Clarke, Childhood's End
  • DisturvingDisturving Senior
    edited May 2016
    Formality success!

    The long bit might not have been understood because of me calling the Knights' archer and the Bondi, the English archer and the Norse archer. I didn't want to say "the archer and the bondi" because the Bondi is also an archer. Where it says English archer it means the knights' archer, when it says Norse archer it means the Bondi, and where it says archers it means both of them. The general idea of the long bit is that it looks like the knights' archer is going to have the advantage over the Bondi, because he's got a haubergeon versus a tunic, and a sword versus a knife. If the Bondi still equals his opponent in a blade fight despite those two things because of unexplained number-fiddling then it's just going to look silly to me. That is why I like the idea of the Bondi having a better close-range weapon. He would still be at a disadvantage against the knights' archer at long range because of his lack of armour, but he could make up for that up close, which fits the theme of the Viking team, and feels Vikingy. Just a one-handed axe would not be enough to equal a sword and hauberk, so I thought an axe and small shield would be good.

    Not making sure to follow certain classes made up by heaven knows who isn't necessarily fixing what may or may not be broken, it's just doing something because it seems a good idea. The Huscarl has a shield and armour, so he's a tank? No, he's got a two-handed axe too, so he's damage per second? No, he's got throwing axes too, so he's a bandit? No, he's PVKII's Huscarl. I don't see anything wrong with originality. The Gestir throws things and has a shield too (And he wears an iron helmet, which you could count as heavy armour, not befitting a fast-moving class), unconfined by the fear of fixing what isn't broken. It would make it feel like it was limited by having to be a video game about video games. Is the Skirmisher a ranger, or an assassin, or a demolitions expert? No, he's a piratey skirmisher.

    It should be possible for the Bondi to have a shield and axe without being too powerful at close range. It could be a really small shield about the width of his shoulders, you could have to make sure to keep looking at the incoming missiles with your mouse to block them, making it not too protective for your liking at long range, because of the danger of being shot around the shield. Here's an idea for how to give the axe and shield a disadvantage, a representation within the confines of PVKII's fighting system - it could be less good than a sword and shield at absorbing the damage from fully charged attacks. The axe could have fairly short reach, or it could have a long handle to match the reach of a sword but it could be slow to swing. He could then beat the sharpshooter (who isn't really much of a sharpshooter, he fights as mid and close range), and maybe the knights' archer, at close range, without being too good at it and making the huscarl and gestir and berserker and Jarl obsolete.

    If the Bondi just had a one-handed axe, it should still be good. It would be Vikingy, and look more manly than what the Spaniard has. I've got it! The Bondi could have an axe in one hand and a langseax in the other! I once had an opportunity to attend a lesson on tomahawk and Bowie knife fighting, but attended a different lesson instead, so I can't say much about how it should look, but you might be able to find someone who can.

    I agree with PVKII not being 100% realistic. I tried the source mod Age of Chivalry, but didn't like it much because it was dark and muddy and gloomy, but PVKII was colourful and funny and interesting and jolly. I actually like the captain's parrot, and I liked sending out the parrot and calling it back to hear the "Gyarrrr, parrot" sound. It's things like having a "king" class on the knights' team with a parrot, Mjölnir, a solid iron shield, a hoe, and a studded leather crop top inspired by anime or manga that I wouldn't like.
    The reason why my writing here is so formal is that people inevitably get annoyed at my writing, so sticking to the rules of formal writing is my attempt to avoid people taking me the wrong way and getting annoyed.
    Complaining and expressing disagreement and arguing are very good things to do.
    If something written by me here does not look formal, it may be because I tried to make it look better than it could were it formal, or it might be that it seems all right to me without it being formal.
  • edited May 2016
    Disturving wrote:
    The long bit might not have been understood because of me calling the Knights' archer and the Bondi, the English archer and the Norse archer.

    Don't worry, we knew that, though for us it's easier to just say "Bondi" and "Archer" just because those are their official names, and it's less hassling and generic than saying "Viking's bowman guy" or "Knight's bowman guy" over and over again, ya' know?

    The general idea of the long bit is that it looks like the knights' archer is going to have the advantage over the Bondi

    Here, this is what I see:
    Yes, a shield is vikingy, but we already have two Vikings (and soon the Jarl) with shields already and it's unfair for the Knight's Archer and the Sharpshooter since they don't have shields, and the Knights will already have three characters (the Heavy Knight, Man-at-Arms and Lord) with shields. Plus, the mechanic where players can use their single-handed weapons after a shield breaks hasn't been implemented yet, so if his shield broke the Bondi would temporarily be left with only a bow and throwing javelins! Also, I can explain why the Bondi's knife can actually be pretty beneficial compared to an axe/shield combo:
    The three Ranged classes -the SS, Bondi, Archer- each have a melee weapon, and each are used differently.
    Right now, PVK2 has their melee weapons work in a "three porridges" style (bare with me);
    The SS' fancy dagger has the advantage of being the fastest melee that's very difficult to parry, but it's too small and cannot parry any other weapon (and can be parried by everything!)
    The Archer's shortsword has the advantage of being the strongest and biggest melee of the three, but it swings and charges slowly than the other three.
    Therefore, it's only logical to give the Bondi's seax knife a "just right" feel. Not too big, not too small. Not too weak, not too strong. Not too fast, not too slow. Just right and balanced. Plus, as a bonus, it would make sense for the Seax to be a long, bowie-length knife, giving enough range and capability to parry all single-handed weapons, and even the Man-at-Arms' halberd, which gives the Bondi a lot of versatility, and that's just with the knife alone. Also, the knife has the advantage of stabbing, which would be more difficult to implement/execute gamewise with an axe. It's not a matter of "being un-manly" or "un-Vikingy" it's a matter of gameplay balancing. (EDIT): Oh, and about health and armor, knowing the Bondi is on the "versatile team" it's most likely that he'll have a little more health and/or armor than the Sharpshooter and Archer (who both have 100 health and 80 Armor, which is the lowest amount possible).
    It would make sense for the Bondi to withstand an extra hit or two (or even three!). It adds to his versatility, plus in my opinion I don't think that there should be a "weak viking"character, it sounds weird to call a viking "weak." And I know, it sounds illogical for a man in trousers and a tunic to have more armor than chainmail and leather, but again, balancing dominates realism sometimes. Nobody complains about the Skirmisher or Berserker having more armor than the Archer, so there you have it. Overall, that's just my hypothesis.


    Not making sure to follow certain classes made up by heaven knows who isn't necessarily fixing what may or may not be broken, it's just doing something because it seems a good idea.
    I have to respectfully disagree and say that it's not a good idea to not give characters classifications. The Huscarl is a tank, the Skirmisher is a scout, the Gestir is a support etc. They are role-fulfilling characters that also just happen to be stylized as Pirates, Vikings and Knights. Those are the appropriate terms to call them. If you deny that, then you're basically denying that this is a fighting game altogether. Giving characters classifications isn't being "unoriginal," that's just basic fighting game necessity. It's been around for years and years before you and I were even born. These class terms are important to help us get a better understanding of how the characters play and fight. There's no reason to have a negative aspect on it. Heck, just take Age of Chivalry as an example, that's a class-oriented game. (EDIT: I'm not saying all classes like tanks and rangers and whatnot should be treated and labeled the exact same way; the Viking team in particular blends the class labels, giving the Vikings characters that can, quote: "handle themselves in most situations unlike the other teams").

    Here's an idea for how to give the axe and shield a disadvantage, a representation within the confines of PVKII's fighting system-
    Again, strengths and weaknesses isn't a system PVK2 invented, it's been a thing for years in different games.
    (who isn't really much of a sharpshooter, he fights as mid and close range)
    I'm pretty sure a man with the power to headshot someone 100 yards away isn't a "close" fighter. He can literally die in 4 hits if he's not careful.
    I've got it! The Bondi could have an axe in one hand and a langseax in the other!
    One word: Berserker (Although there are randomizer servers lol, you should try those).

    Anyway, I feel the need to re-answer the thread's question of "Vikings needing a one-handed axe." I'm not saying I wouldn't like one, I just personally find it difficult to see any current viking character using one in the current build, and I wouldn't like to diminish the long and hard work of balancing characters and making weapons etc, that the devs have already done. But who knows, maybe someone somewhere in the future can look into it.
    “Suppose, in their altruistic passion for justice and order, they had determined to reform the world, but had not realized that they were destroying the soul of man?”
    - Arthur Clarke, Childhood's End
  • DisturvingDisturving Senior
    edited May 2016

    and the Knights will already have three characters (the Heavy Knight, Man-at-Arms and Lord) with shields.

    If the small iron buckler counts as a shield.


    One word: Berserker (Although there are randomizer servers lol, you should try those).

    Yes, I remember such a server called "Odin's pizza place", and I was a little sad when it no longer existed. True, it would resemble the berserker's lawnmower a lot, maybe too much.


    Again, strengths and weaknesses isn't a system PVK2 invented, it's been a thing for years in different games. I'm pretty sure a man with the power to headshot someone 100 yards away isn't a "close" fighter. He can literally die in 4 hits if he's not careful.

    Yes, I agree that PVK2 did not invent strengths and weaknesses, but do not know why you mentioned it. Although it's true that the Sharpshooter's got a rifle that he can use at long range, I very often encounter him near me, shooting at me with his rapid-fire pistol while running backwards a bit more slowly than I can chase him if I do not dodge, and using his dagger which is so effective because in PVKII the foot is faster than the hand. Recently I tried to catch one but he made his escape at the same time as reloading his rifle. :(


    The three Ranged classes -the SS, Bondi, Archer- each have a melee weapon, and each are used differently.
    Right now, PVK2 has their melee weapons work in a "three porridges" style (bare with me);

    Bear! If it were that way then it would be that way, but also, if it were different, Mr Sharpshooter's dagger would be the feeblest, and Mr Archer's sword would be the just right one in the middle, and the axe and shield would be the father bear's.


    Also, the knife has the advantage of stabbing, which would be more difficult to implement/execute gamewise with an axe.

    It would work fine using the exact same animation as any of the one-handed swords. You can imagine the axe-head having a horn rather than a beard, and someone thrusting the axe forwards. Maybe the animation could be changed a bit.


    (EDIT): Oh, and about health and armor, knowing the Bondi is on the "versatile team" it's most likely that he'll have a little more health and/or armor than the Sharpshooter and Archer (who both have 100 health and 80 Armor, which is the lowest amount possible).
    It would make sense for the Bondi to withstand an extra hit or two (or even three!). It adds to his versatility, plus in my opinion I don't think that there should be a "weak viking"character, it sounds weird to call a viking "weak." And I know, it sounds illogical for a man in trousers and a tunic to have more armor than chainmail and leather, but again, balancing dominates realism sometimes. Nobody complains about the Skirmisher or Berserker having more armor than the Archer, so there you have it. Overall, that's just my hypothesis.

    I did not know that. PVKII doesn't give me the numbers, so I looked at how much armour they were shown wearing, and assumed it correlated with the armour bar, because of its name and the armour-like appearance of the pickup. If anybody reading this does things with the numbers in PVKII, here is my opinion on it. It should be possible to make the classes as mighty as you like while also making it so that players can understand it without having to read a spreadsheet or a website or whatever. If Mr Archer is meant to have the least armour possible, then it should show it on the artwork. Instead of wearing a hauberk, he should just wear clothes, and if Mr Berserker is meant to have a lot of hit points, then it could be done with more life points, and not armour points. Having the Bondi have a lot of hit points could work for balancing if he is to have just the langseax, but it should show. People should not have to happen to read the numbers somewhere to be able to tell that the Bondi has excellent armour or hardly any armour. This could be done while keeping his appearance if he had cloth armour, something made of linen, something making his clothing look thick and bulky, like something ten or twenty layers thick. He would still look like someone with just clothing, but his clothing would look nice and protective.


    I have to respectfully disagree and say that it's not a good idea to not give characters classifications. The Huscarl is a tank, the Skirmisher is a scout, the Gestir is a support etc. They are role-fulfilling characters that also just happen to be stylized as Pirates, Vikings and Knights. Those are the appropriate terms to call them. If you deny that, then you're basically denying that this is a fighting game altogether. Giving characters classifications isn't being "unoriginal," that's just basic fighting game necessity. It's been around for years and years before you and I were even born. These class terms are important to help us get a better understanding of how the characters play and fight. There's no reason to have a negative aspect on it. Heck, just take Age of Chivalry as an example, that's a class-oriented game. (EDIT: I'm not saying all classes like tanks and rangers and whatnot should be treated and labeled the exact same way; the Viking team in particular blends the class labels, giving the Vikings characters that can, quote: "handle themselves in most situations unlike the other teams").

    I am glad that you do not think that all classes like tanks and rangers should be treated and labelled the exact same way. If you had not mentioned that, I would have thought you did. If you don't, then I do not know what your opinion actually is. I will therefore argue against something, no matter who believes in it. I disagree that they are tanks and rangers and whatnot that just happen to be stylized as Pirates, Vikings and Knights. It seems more like saying
    "Let's have a person who can take a lot of hits, and someone speedy, and someone who shoots things. Although they will be different, neither one will be better than the other, and they will be able to work together."
    .. and then...
    "I know of role-playing games in which we have the roles tank and ranger. Tanks can take a lot of hits, and rangers can shoot and throw. The Huscarl's main feature is that he can take a lot of hits, so I will decide to call him a tank. Because throwing axes is not a criterion for my tank category, there is a problem with the Huscarl. The bondi is primarily an archer, so he is a ranger by my reckoning. My image of rangers has them be weak at close fighting, and unarmoured or lightly armoured, so the bondi should be that way."

    You seem to be creating a category in your head with certain common features, and then seeing something with enough of those features for you to want to give it that category, and seeing every way in which it does not fit that category as a problem to be removed. Saying that the bondi cannot be good at close fighting because he is a ranger is just like saying that the Huscarl cannot have any missile weapons or a two handed axe because he is a tank.

    Here's one from me. "The pirate captain is a tank. He therefore should not have a blunderbus or a parrot, because they fulfil the role of a support class. Somebody made a mistake trying to make a tank look like a pirate."

    I think that saying "I reckon the skirmisher makes a pretty good scout, and the sharpshooter fits my concept of a ranger" is better than "Let's have a scout class and a ranger class look like pirates."

    There's a problem. The skirmisher actually makes a better skirmisher than a scout, by my definition of "scout" and "skirmish" at least. My dialect of English is not RPG English.
    The reason why my writing here is so formal is that people inevitably get annoyed at my writing, so sticking to the rules of formal writing is my attempt to avoid people taking me the wrong way and getting annoyed.
    Complaining and expressing disagreement and arguing are very good things to do.
    If something written by me here does not look formal, it may be because I tried to make it look better than it could were it formal, or it might be that it seems all right to me without it being formal.
  • Chedda CheezChedda Cheez Senior
    edited May 2016
    I love talk about class roles. Its one of those things I've put a lot of thought into when it comes to PVKII. Optional read, but applies to the response below.
    As far as classes having "roles" goes, it's largely correct to fit each one into a certain position to fill. The Huscarl indeed serves as a tank because he has the highest total health and armor value for his team, as well as having the strongest shield. However, it's also customary in PVKII for "Tanks" to have a large weapon as well (perhaps the largest or strongest), as another boon in return for usually being the slowest class on their team as well. As an added bonus, the Huscarl gets throwing axes that aren't quite as simple to use nor as effective as other range options. I'd say this is more for the sake of the Vikings being the "all-around" fighters, but I also believe that the Huscarl isn't quite as heavily fortified as the Heavy Knight, and so receives a different advantage. (Mind, I don't know exact values, but all the same it makes sense.) This may not fit 100% into the common idea of the "Tank" role, but all the same it is the "Tank" of PVKII. These terms merely exist to help narrow a playstyle down so they're not exceptional at everything for no reason, and so that we also have a system in which a class on one team can be compared relatively to a class who serves the same baser function on another team.

    The Captain, actually, is not "the" tank for the Pirates. Indeed, he is the hardiest of them as of right now, but the role of "Tank" actually belongs to the yet-to-be-released Buccaneer, who will have the highest total health/armor of the Pirate classes and very likely have a large weapon in return for his low speed. I wouldn't be surprised if he had a ranged option as well, as that tends to the Pirates thing, being relatively mobile and striking outside arm's length. He may also have the least armor of the three tanks, coincidentally, as Pirates don't really wear hefty armors. Interestingly (to me anyway), this will make the HK have high armor and low(ish) health, the Huscarl medium armor and medium health, and the Buccaneer (likely) low armor and high health. This may help justify the idea that he possesses a range weapon, or some other boon that doesn't quite fit the mold that the role would make you believe. There's a trend here, you see.

    To tie up the previous point, the Captain is the "Leader" class. I would call the role "Lord", but one of the classes in the category is the Lord. The "Leaders", at least from the playstyle provided by the Captain, is to be almost like the previously mentioned "Support", in that he fits in more than one situation. They tend to be relatively tough, but not as much as the "Tank", and deal a surprising amount of damage. They seemingly function best when they have an ally nearby, as they bring great support or can lead an attack thanks to their sturdiness. I wouldn't call them a jack-of-all-trades, as they're definitely not the fastest, and it appears that they don't have the greatest ranged ability, if any.

    Finally, the "Scout" serves as the quickest class but doesn't necessarily forego damage for that advantage. They also have the lowest health/armor values but can be devastating if ignored thanks to how quickly they can deal damage as well. This points to the Skirmisher and Berserker. Sure, their names largely describe their playstyle, but for sake of organization we still label them with a role so that we can balance them relatively around the idea that their playstyle revolves around. Not everyone can be as fast as them, so they have to give up defenses. They can't lack defenses and damage, so they keep a fair amount of the hurting.

    I'm not going into detail on the "Support" and "Healer", as they either have little bearing on the discussion (and can't further the point) or have no example to lead from.

    The trend I mentioned is that the characters sacrifice value in an area to increase value in another. The most notable traits in PVKII are then:
    Health / Armor Value,
    Melee Power,
    Ranged Power,
    and Speed.
    These can be used in any combination, really, but classes of a designated role fall into similar ranges of values one way or another. Not precisely the same, but different enough to make the (ideally) three classes properly balanced against one another. Those classes with the best possible value in one area end up having the worst possible value in another, whereas those who can do just about everything tends not to do anything particularly well. Having an unusual weapon (or lack thereof in the HK's case) can be seen as an advantage deserving of a drawback as well. Yet, even with these pluses and negatives, a "Tank" on one team is still closely matched with a "Tank" on another, and the same goes for those of other roles. If not, then it isn't balanced.


    So, the Bondi can't really have a clear advantage over the other "Rangers" or else we have to buff them in return. If he has a shield, he can approach another "Ranger" as much as any other melee-oriented class could, blocking every shot and closing in while also having the strongest ranged weapon on his team, the defining trait of the "Ranger" role. He could be slower, but this would make him even easier to kill by the melee-focused classes, considering he still wouldn't have very great total health or melee power, another trait of the "Rangers". Should he have higher health to offset this speed disadvantage? What about Bondi's who stay at range, plucking arrows and boasting a surprising health pool, uncaring of speed since they have health and a shield to fall back on? His bow would need to be less powerful then, so he isn't a deadly turret with the sturdiness of a brick wall (or even a wooden wall). Why is he a "Ranger", then? They should have a powerful ranged weapon. It's their strongest point, enough so that we put it in their name. So we have to roll back through all these possible changes and just live with the idea that he won't have a shield just like the other ranged classes. Otherwise he'll be unfocused at worst and more of the same at best (in the case of where he falls on his team), considering the rest of the Vikings already fill the general motif of "rounded out" fighters when they really need a strong ranged option. He may be a bit better in some areas and a bit worse in others compared to other "Rangers", but he probably won't have a direct mechanical advantage, particularly the one that negates ranged fighting and immediately makes the fighter more formidable in melee, in PVKII anyway. (Shields shields shields.)

    I agree that someone should have an axe, btw. Not necessarily the Bondi since his weapons are already modeled and I love Corvalho's work on it. The pieces just fit together. Maybe the Jarl could have one. Or when he comes about, he can have a fancier sword than the Huscarl, who can ditch his for an axe. He'd be incredibly axe-heavy but I don't see any Viking worth his salt having a problem with that.
    Welcome to Cheez's PVKII Funtime Class!
    Rule #1: Have fun. [incredulous gasping ripples throughout the room]

    That concludes Funtime Class! We didn't have the funding for a lengthy seminar. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
    Stop by again for our next lesson: "Heavy Knight's Heaving Heart: How to Write Poetry for Swords!"

    76561197993232256.png
  • Links121995Links121995 Beta Tester, Authorized Creator
    edited May 2016
    Axe
    Is it that the Vikings need a one-handed axe? No. No more than they need a two-handed sword, although I see naught wrong with giving them one.

    According to the lore, Huscarls as presented by PVKII are axe-specialists. It has always struck me as odd that they have a two-handed axe, throwing axes, and a... Sword. But two out of three isn't bad.
    According to histroy a disgruntled poster, Huscarls were martial elites. I suppose that's why the Huscarl's sword is the weakest in the game. It's decorative.

    Personally, I feel that the Gestir carries around enough badass for himself and a bunch of foolish young puny veaklings, regardless of his kit.
    That said, a proper one-handed axe strikes me as a tad too serious for him, while an axe intended for removing twigs from branches strikes me as too weak.

    A healer class would not be overpowered or inclined to charge into battle simply because they have a small axe to hand.
    For one thing, anybody picking a healer class would likely intend to heal people, instead of chop them up.
    Such behavior is more typical of the classes designed around the concept of chopping people up, after all.

    Turn axe upside down, swing upwards when least expected. Backwards attack.
    Bondi
    Giving the Bondi a small axe would not make him overpowered any more than the Archer's shortsword makes him overpowered.
    I prefer the knife. I've got a bunch of neat ideas for its animations.

    "It would be possible to give the Bondi an axe without it being overpowered.
    Norse archer - woollen tunic and trousers, axe and small shield, bow and arrows, javelins."

    This is a team game.
    You think the Archer would be wise to carry a shield, I've thought that the Archers on my team would be wise to get behind me and my shield a hundred times over.

    As far as I am aware, a ranger is the class between warrior and rogue, using light weapons, equal parts quickness and quietness, light armor, and a versatile, adaptable approach that lends itself well to supporting more hardline associates.
    It can also mean a whole host of other things. It's jargon, nay, internet jargon, nay again, internet video game jargon.

    "English archer: Hood, harbergeon, sword or German long knife.
    Norse archer: Hat, tunic, langseax."
    You forgot a crucial difference. One of them is a Viking.

    The only reason to favor varied team composition over uniformity is that variability offers more options in the event of unforeseen complications. A team full of Archers has control of the field, right up until the other teams collectively decide to bring shields and surround them. The Archers can still pull a win out of such a mess, but they're no longer dominating.
    PVKII will never be a "lol need tank & DPS & support & healer" kind of game because it's not Players vs Environment. It's not what one brings, but how one brings it.

    "It should be possible for the Bondi to have a shield and axe without being too powerful at close range. It could be a really small shield about the width of his shoulders etc"
    How about he just ditches this obviously worthless shield and stays behind his teammates hmm? That way when enemies are shooting things willy-nilly, he can either dodge about and let his teammates close in to demand enemy attention, or shoot while they focus on his teammates anyway.
    Other
    The Gestir really should be able to use his shield while throwing javelins.

    "He can literally die in 4 hits if he's not careful."
    (As opposed to metaphorically dying in 4 hits if he's not careful...)
    Fewer.

    "It would work fine using the exact same animation as any of the one-handed swords."
    Oh would it now? When I tested it, I came to a rather more different conclusion.

    "If anybody reading this does things with the numbers in PVKII..."
    The Archer has 80 armor. The Berserker has 155 health. If you are confused about how tough the various classes are, you should try hitting them with different weapons and seeing how quickly they die, then you can judge for yourself how strong or weak various weapons and classes are.

    Also, consider that while the Archer may wear a hauberk, the Huscarl also wears a hauberk, yet is significantly tougher.
    Why? A higher pain tolerance, a hardier constitution, heavier mail, or simply more practice getting hit and not-dyin'?
    Maybe it's none of these, maybe it's all of these, but frankly I have no trouble believing that a longbowman (particularly the one in question) from merry old England makes poorer use of similar armor than an elite axe warrior from the lands of ice and snow.
    Also, the Huscarl wears a helmet.

    "I will therefore argue against something, no matter who believes in it."
    Because your post was neither long enough nor hard enough to follow already.

    "The Skirmisher actually makes a better skirmisher than a scout."
    Perhaps that is why he is called a Skirmisher, although this is no barrier to calling him the Pirates' scout.

    THIS GUY GETS IT


    Stop using two hundred words where twenty would suffice please, it's unimpressive and unclear.
    Keep individual points below fifteen words if you're feeling eloquent.
    8gQi4T5.png
  • Chedda CheezChedda Cheez Senior
    edited May 2016
    Off-topic misunderstandings!

    Stop using two hundred words where twenty would suffice please, it's unimpressive and unclear.
    Keep individual points below fifteen words if you're feeling eloquent.


    Ah, my bad. I suppose the length of the previous posts is partially to blame, as is my naturally wordy nature. I'm certainly not trying to impress, but making things clear is important when words are so easily minced to suit a different argument or misconstrue a point. Perhaps if I cut up the paragraphs into two or three sentences at a time...

    Anyway, elaboration is by no means unclear. If anything, trying to remain as brief as possible is unclear. It can work well in creative writing (such as in quotes or poems) but not so much when trying to help people understand a concept that requires more than a single line of thought, particularly when they're stuck in their way of thinking. Maybe it didn't serve you well, but in that shows it wasn't intended for you.

    Thank you for showing me the error of my ways.
    Error being they're different from yours, of course. It's okay though Links, you're so impressive and clear. I love you so much.
    i do like your points though. I guess this is just salty cheez.

    EDIT:: Forums are a dangerous place, kids. Assume makes an ass outta u & me.
    Welcome to Cheez's PVKII Funtime Class!
    Rule #1: Have fun. [incredulous gasping ripples throughout the room]

    That concludes Funtime Class! We didn't have the funding for a lengthy seminar. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
    Stop by again for our next lesson: "Heavy Knight's Heaving Heart: How to Write Poetry for Swords!"

    76561197993232256.png
Sign In or Register to comment.