Perhaps some problems with the Lord's peasant equipment

DisturvingDisturving Senior
edited June 2015 in PVKII Discussion
Thread summary
The discussion started with whether or not the lord's equipment suited him. Mainly discussed were his flail and armour. His shield and hammer were also mentioned, and some other things were too. Several people said that they like having the classes distinct and unique. It was felt that part of having the lord's equipment be good was having it be unique to him, and sufficiently different to that of the other classes. There was also the thought that an important consideration was having him actually look like a lord.

Some felt that giving the lord a flail was a bit silly, because the flail is a threshing tool used by peasants, and they knew of no record of any actual lord using a two-handed flail in battle, and they saw the flail as peasant-like and not lordly enough for their liking. Some other weapons were suggested that would be suitable in the hands of an actual lord, and that some felt would be sufficiently different to the other two-handed weapons in the game to, along with the PVKII lord's other indiosyncracies, make him unique, and were therefore thought to be good choices. These were a pollaxe, lucine hammer, or mordaxt. A few other unusual weapons were shown.

Others were happy with the flail, because it looks quite different to all of the other two-handed polearms currently in the game, and it is fun having the classes be distinct and unique, and it did not bother them that it might seem too peasanty for a lord. It was also mentioned that the flail did not have to remain in the hands of the lord, and could be given to somebody else like the cleric, meaning it would not matter much if the lord had it for a while.

George silver's 1599 book was quoted by me, to say that weapons like the battle axe and halberd and black bill, or such like weapons of weight, appertaining unto guard of battle, were all one in fight, to imply that the flail would still be to an extent similar to other polearms.


The lord's armour in the concept art was objected to because it was thought to make him look poorer than the Knight, and like he could not afford any more plate armour than his armharnesses. The original poster (me) said that he did not look lordly if the knights under his command all had nice expensive plate armour, whereas he had cheap primitive armour. It was felt by him that having him look like an actual lord was important, and so was having him play like a lord, with lordly armour.

There were arguments given in support of the armour in the concept art.
One was that if the lord had expensive armour then he would be about as armoured as the knight. This was seen as a problem because then the lord would be as able to fight in the front lines as a knight (like a real lord). There was the belief in some that there should only be one well-armoued tough guy class in a team (I didn't manage to catch why though, and the Huscarl and Jarl are both to have mail armour).
Another idea in favour of the lord's attire was that it was part of a joke, and that the one who designed him knew that he didn't look like a lord at all with his cheap armour and peasant weapon, or that there was a story behind it of him losing his armour and weapons and money and army, and then looting his current armour off a corpse.
Another idea was that he had time-travelled from the 14th century when the best armour available was partial plate over mail, but only had enough time to put on what we see before being sent through time and space, leaving his helmet and legharnesses and coat of plates and weapons behind.
It was also said that PVKII is pretty silly anyway (in a good way).


Nobody present said it was bad for him to have a hammer. A sword, one or two handed was suggested by one in addition or as replacement, merely for the sake of making him look like a lord. One suggested having his sword be rusted to to the scabbard, thus allowing him to look like a lord with his sword but just never use it, and use his hammer. Another suggested he could have a fancy short sword with a fancy shield. A short two-handed sword was also suggested, heavier slower and stronger than the captain's cutlass, or nimbler and weaker at cutting were possibilities.


A few things were said about the shield. One wanted the shield to be fancy. (My personal opinion is written elsewhere)


Some other things were mentioned. Some things were said about the mace and buckler, and some things were said about sword and buckler fighting, and the Bondi having either a sickle, or an axe and shield were said. Using a two-handed sword with a shield was mentioned, and so was a pirate having a trident.


###########################################################################

Some additional images to make my point: (Added in June 2015)

Some depictions of the sort of two-handed flail currently prescribed for the PVKII lord, a peasant's threshing tool improvised as a weapon, sometimes with iron knobs or large spikes added:
http://1.bp.blogspot...0/luttrell8.jpg
https://upload.wikim...ende_Bauern.jpg

Some depictions of a different sort of two-handed flail, the military two-handed flail:
http://manuscriptmin...-17_gallery.jpg
http://www.myarmoury.../flail3_947.jpg

Some examples of lordly weapons
http://www.the-exile...axe/image10.GIF
https://farm3.static..._225ce5c9b3.jpg
http://i13.photobuck...laxe_15th_c.jpg
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordaxt



###########################################################################


Hello and here are some opinions on the current plan for the Lord class. First of all I would like to give my thanks to the makers of PVKII for improving the historical accuracy over PVK with the removal of the horns from the Vikings' helmets.



180px-Lordfull.jpg

The Lord is to have a flail. This is silly because the flail is more a peasant weapon than a noble weapon. Why would a rich lord use a threshing tool when he could use a much better weapon? He would be the laughing stock of the nobles. It's not even had spikes put in it. Below is a bit of information on flails.
300px-Hundt_088.jpg
"If your grace sees that one comes at you with a Flail, at night, and will strike at you, (how it then is occasionally in use at the Universities, when one goes from the table, and from the guards will be attacked, if often one has previously done something to the guards, and another comes, because of the need to pay for what the other has wrought) then whip your cloak over your left arm, and run under his Flail with great power, so that one then will strike in over you, be mindful of his power your grace, then wrench the flail from his hands, for the protection of your life and limb."
- http://wiktenauer.co...i/Michael_Hundt

200px-Sutor_77.jpg
- http://wiktenauer.co...Sutor_von_Baden


300px-Mair_flail_01.jpg
300px-Mair_flail_06.jpg
- These two images and more with text at http://wiktenauer.co...lus_Hector_Mair



The Lord needs something to distinguish himself from a peasant with his flail who looted some outdated partial plate armour with mail off a corpse. Because they were so rich they would have very good armour. In my opinion his armour should be more protective than the knight's amour, not less. He would wear a helmet if he wanted his head to survive well. His forearm armour is splinted but with half the metal of normal splinted vambraces. Why would he wear early 14th century armour when his Knights are in full plate armour with very big late medieval two-handed swords?
He would be able to afford any hand-held weapon he wanted. He could have a hammer-like pollaxe, but knowing that he is to fight mostly lightly armoured enemies he would probably pick a two-handed battle axe and his sword and his dagger. Having a flail is like having a pitchfork.



Below are some opinions on things that I do not think are very bad, just not as good as they could be.

He will have a hammer. This is not bad, because he can bash people with it whether or not they are armoured, but because the most armour any of his opponents would have would be the huscarl's mail, he would be likely to use his sword. He would have a sword which he would carry in his normal life when not on campaign, to defend himself and to show his status. Judging by his 14th century armour and shield his sword would probably be single-handed, but because all of the men under his command have full plate armour with late medieval/early renaissance swords it would make more sense for him to have a later medieval sword with a longer blade and space for both hands. It is not bad for him to have a hammer, but even if he carries a hammer with him to it would be strange to see a lord without his sword, especially in battle. It might not matter much that his hammer is less effective than a sword against unarmoured enemies because he would be able to largely ignore weapons because of him having attire made of better iron that that of their weapons.

He will have a shield. This fits his primitive armour compared to the knight's nice expensive armour. It would make more sense for him to have better armour than the knight. He could have no shield because his armour is his shield, or he could perhaps have a oblong target. Otherwise his current cavalry shield would be fitting, so it may be all right. He could let go of it to hold his sword two-handed, with the shield still on him because of the neck strap.
143px-MS_Germ.Quart.2020_IIr.jpg
397-4_gallery.jpg



Otherwise he may or may not want to carry his shield like this:
gui_de_plessis-brion_s115_r2166_medium.jpg
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.

Comments

  • Ukyo KuonjiUkyo Kuonji Captain Main Senior
    edited 10:18PM
    I think the Lord needs a fancy sword.
    76561198022443233png

  • NiveNive PVKII Team
    edited May 2015
    Realism should never take precedence over game sense if the game were to suffer for it.
    He has a flail because it would be boring if he was yet another character that just had a sword or pole-arm, all which function similarly in play style from one another.
    The flail can work completely differently and give him a unique play style.

    The Lord should not have better armor than the Heavy Knight, the Heavy Knight is the tank of the Knights, not the Lord.

    Every character in this game wears armor, even the Berserker. While I don't remember the exact ratio, every weapon currently in the game (that I know of at least) deals the same ratio of armor to health damage.The Lord's war hammer could behave differently in that regard. Simply dealing more damage to health by ignoring armor, or something complicated like dealing increased health damage the more armor the target has.
  • schatzmeisterschatzmeister PVKII Team, Beta Tester
    edited 10:18PM
    Excellent point, I too was bothered by the fact that the Lord of all classes is to wield a Peasant Weapon. Then again, this is PVKII after all, where fun overrides historical accuracy. That being said, I would not mind exchanging some of the weaponry in between the classes. Nothing's set in in stone. The knight team lacks a decent pole-axe right now, a weapon more fight for a Lord. I'd also like to see a one handed axe and a war pick. I suppose, it could be added in as custom content if nothing else.

    and Disturving, are you interested in HEMA? Just curios

    Will Turner: You didn't beat me. You ignored the rules of engagement. In a fair fight, I'd kill you.
    Jack Sparrow: That's not much incentive for me to fight fair, then, is it?

  • DisturvingDisturving Senior
    edited June 2015
    Nive, I do not understand your disagreement, so you may have to explain yourself more thoroughly. You speak of realism versus game-sense, whatever game-sense is. My guess would be that calling a wealthy peasant a lord is game-sense, whereas calling a lord a lord, and calling a wealthy peasant a peasant are realism but come at the cost of game sense, which is bad overall. I do not understand.

    You say that having swords and polearms would be boring. The Gestir is pretty much a peasant, and the bondi is too. Pirates can be compared to peasants or bandits. The English and Welsh Archers would be peasants. They have nice weapons, and so perhaps there is a thought that nice weapons are getting boring, and that we need some peasants running around the battlefield. It seems strange that the richest person in the game would look like the poorest on the knights' team. You say that the flail would be more interesting than a polearm, even though a flail used as a weapon is a polearm. Another thing is that if the lord truly is as rich as his name suggests, then he has probably time-travelled from about AD 1250 give or take half a century, and I think swords were expensive then, so of course he would have to have a sword in his personal possession even if he also has a hammer.

    -Images moved to the first post-

    I happen to already have heard of the video game jargon "tank", so I partly understand, but I also disagree. Perhaps you could explain exactly what you mean by a tank in PVKII, why this concept is a good one, and why there can be only one and so forth.

    Damaging somebody's health if he has more armour makes no sense. Perhaps that is the game-sense you mentioned. Safety helmets increasing the risk of concussion and facture. I feel like I'm speaking to an alien. Could you please clarify youself for me please?


    Schatzmeister, yes I am very interested in historical european martial arts, and have been ever since learning of those old books of ancient knowledge and power a few years ago, and I am a member of a historical fencing club myself thanks to the good fortune of living near one.
    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.
  • NiveNive PVKII Team
    edited May 2015
    Perhaps I used the word "game-sense" incorrectly. But what I meant by it is essentially how enjoyable the game is as a game. You mention the Gestir having both a spear and a sword. Yes, but he is in the game before the Lord will be. If the Lord simply had another polearm and sword, he'd behave similarly to the Gestir and now the Man-At-Arms.

    The Man-At-Arms is similar to the Gestir in play-style, but the Man-At-Arms is also similar to the Pirate's Skirmisher, filling the scout-type play style since he is quick to give chase and capable of filling the front lines of battle.

    If the Lord was yet another character with a polearm and sword, what would we have to change to make him different from the already existing classes? What would we have to do to make him fun?
    Simply changing his stats, like health, armor, damage, speed, would be boring. You'd essentially have a clone character that has no identity of his own and is simply a "Stronger Gestir" or a "Slower Man-At-Arms". It would also stifle diversity since you'd have two polearm characters on the Knights team.

    What I mean by polearm in this discussion is both the Gestir's spear and the Man-At-Arm's halberd. In game, they are two-handed weapons with long reach that behave like one-handed weapons. In PVKII, the parrying/blocking system takes into account the "size" of the weapons in use. The Heavy Knight's two-handed sword is considered a two-handed weapon, which can perfect parry any one-handed weapon. The reason why the spear and halberd are considered one-handed weapons despite being two-handed is a balancing decision. They have considerable reach, so preventing them from being able to perfectly parry the Heavy Knight's sword balances them out. If they could perfect parry his sword, they would be over-powered.

    In the Lord's case, his flail could be considered a two-handed weapon despite the fact it is a polearm, as you say. And because it is a flexible weapon unlike every other weapon in the game, it can be designed differently from every weapon in the game. This I cannot explain, as I am not a dev nor do I know their plans for the weapon. All I'm saying is that they can design it differently because it is different. It would add variety to the game, all while giving the Lord a unique play style both when playing as him and when fighting against him.

    A "tank" is a character that can take a lot of damage. There is one tank in each team, the Heavy Knight, the Huscarl, and the Captain. It would not make sense to give the Knights two tanks by making the Lord have better armor than the Heavy Knight. This would impact the overall balance of the Knights team.

    I think my overarching point in this rambling post is that the Lord has to be different than every other class currently in the game, and giving him weapons nearly identical to those already in the game will make reaching that goal very difficult. He has to play differently, behave differently, have access to different abilities and tactics, and add a new challenge to those that fight against him. Simply going by realism in this case is the wrong decision.
  • schatzmeisterschatzmeister PVKII Team, Beta Tester
    edited 10:18PM
    PVKII is certainly not a game where historic realism is a priority, but fun is. Now both goals are not mutually exclusive, but sacrifices have to made along the way (the fighting has to fit into the framework that PVKII provides). It is certainly good to have someone around who can give detailed description of weaponry, armor and clothing so that the artists can maintain their high quality work.

    Is the flail right in the hands of a lord? Certainly not. Is it more fun to have one character with a flail than non at all? Yes. Must the flail be the Lords weapon forever? Who knows, maybe the team will decide to pass it on to another character.

    Will Turner: You didn't beat me. You ignored the rules of engagement. In a fair fight, I'd kill you.
    Jack Sparrow: That's not much incentive for me to fight fair, then, is it?

  • NiveNive PVKII Team
    edited 10:18PM
    Schatzmeister put it better than I did. And he brought up a point I think is worth noting.
    The Lord doesn't have to be the one with the flail. It makes even less sense to give the Assassin the flail, but the Priest could definitely use it.
    Something to think about.
  • Links121995Links121995 Beta Tester, Authorized Creator
    edited 10:18PM
    Reply to first post.
    The Lord is to have a flail. This is silly because the flail is more a peasant weapon than a noble weapon. Silly, eh? I'll take three score and one.
    Why would a rich lord use a threshing tool when he could use a much better weapon? Because the Heavy Knight already has the biggest sword in the game; its power offset by the speed of the class wielding it. Wielding an identical sword would be repetitive.
    He would be the laughing stock of the nobles. It's a team game. In such a scenario, he would probably not be the laughing stock of the team. It's much more likely that as a supporting class, he would be blamed and ridiculed after a loss, but forgotten and ignored after a victory.
    It's not even had spikes put in it. They are small, but they are there.

    300px-Hundt_088.jpg

    Against one with a sword, holding a flail like that would be asking for a quick death. Two counter-points come to mind:
    1: a drastic change in stance and style would be necessary to defeat that sword-wielding nobleman.
    2: in PVKII, standing still and allowing a giant two-handed sword to come down on your head will not instantly kill you, even if all you're wearing on your head is a piece of ordinary cloth.

    The Lord needs something to distinguish himself from a peasant with his flail who looted some outdated partial plate armour with mail off a corpse. Yes, just like the Heavy Knight needs something to distinguish himself from a peasant who looted some heavy plate armor off of a corpse. Perhaps exceptional combat skill, as opposed to the inexperienced flailing of a thieving peasant with only the most basic of ideas of how to fight.

    In my opinion his armour should be more protective than the knight's amour, not less. The great thing about Heavy Knights is that they wear the heavy armor so others need not trouble themselves with all of that unpleasant "getting hit and dying" business. It's true of Archers, it's true of Men-At-Arms, and it will be true of Lords, Assassins, and Clerics if they ever make their way into the game in any form.

    Why would he wear early 14th century armour when his Knights are in full plate armour with very big late medieval two-handed swords? Y'know, I seem to recall that the Heavy Knight's kit is made from pieces separated by a few centuries.

    He would be able to afford any hand-held weapon he wanted. Obviously, he wanted a flail.

    Having a flail is like having a pitchfork and the Archer's short sword is like a butterknife. I see no problems with this beyond the fact that comparing a flail to a pitchfork isn't even slightly funny.

    He will have a hammer. This is not bad, because he can bash people with it whether or not they are armoured, but because the most armour any of his opponents would have would be the Huscarl's mail, he would be likely to use his sword. Or maybe he'd just bash them with his unique hammer because that's more fun.

    He would have a sword which he would carry in his normal life when not on campaign, to defend himself and to show his status. I think the hammer would be pretty effective by itself. One would glance at the class, see the hammer, immediately realize that they were looking at a Lord and hit Ctrl to show their respect.

    Judging by his 14th century armour and shield his sword would probably be single-handed, but because all of the men under his command have full plate armour with late medieval/early renaissance swords it would make more sense for him to have a later medieval sword with a longer blade and space for both hands. You mean, another sword like the Heavy Knight's (Beatrice)?

    It is not bad for him to have a hammer, but even if he carries a hammer with him to it would be strange to see a lord without his sword, especially in battle. It's a good thing he has that skull-bashing hammer instead, then.

    It might not matter much that his hammer is less effective than a sword against unarmoured enemies because he would be able to largely ignore weapons because of him having attire made of better iron that that of their weapons. Guns. Also, those javelins will pierce right through the Heavy Knight's helmet. So much for armor.

    He will have a shield. This fits his primitive armour compared to the knight's nice expensive armour. It would make more sense for him to have better armour than the knight. He could have no shield because his armour is his shield. Given that this is a video game that involves blocking projectiles and bashing with shields, he should have a shield.

    Reply to second post.
    You speak of realism versus game-sense, whatever game-sense is. It's vague and unhelpful. In this context, I would guess that he means how intuitive something is. In that context, I think he means that if something real (getting hit once and dying because you wear no visible armor) would make the game less fun, it should not be implemented. I would define game-sense as "sense of game" as in "situational awareness" as in "awareness of the situation" as in "having an idea of what exactly is going on around here". Which makes no sense in this context.

    My guess would be that calling a wealthy peasant a lord is game-sense. No. That's not even close. Not even remotely close to being close.

    You say that having swords and polearms would be boring. The Gestir is pretty much a peasant, and the bondi is too. Pirates can be compared to peasants or bandits. The English and Welsh Archers would be peasants. They have nice weapons, and so perhaps there is a thought that nice weapons are getting boring, and that we need some peasants running around the battlefield. Every class in that list was listed as a peasant. Your hypothesis follows illogically from your data. It is not the case that nice weapons are becoming boring, rather it is the case that identical nice weapons would be relatively boring compared to what they could have been.

    It seems strange that the richest person in the game would look like the poorest on the knights' team. That would be the Cleric. If anybody is inclined to remind me that the Cleric may not be implemented, you can pretend that I said Archer instead.

    You say that the flail would be more interesting than a polearm, even though a flail used as a weapon is a polearm. This is not the polearm you're thinking of.

    Another thing is that if the lord truly is as rich as his name suggests, then he has probably time-travelled from about AD 1250 give or take half a century, and I think swords were expensive then, so of course he would have to have a sword in his personal possession even if he also has a hammer. Maybe he's a cheap miser.

    I happen to already have heard of the video game jargon "tank", so I partly understand, but I also disagree. Perhaps you could explain exactly what you mean by a tank in PVKII, why this concept is a good one, and why there can be only one and so forth. I'll take a crack at it:

    Tanking is a role based on being hit and not dying. In PVKII it is filled by a given faction's healthiest class (taking into account their armor to determine their effective health vs their raw health). The purpose of a tank is to sit in the middle of a fight either out-lasting opponents, defending teammates, distracting opponents for teammates, forcing opponents back, or some combination. Tanks often have the potential to inflict heavy damage if they are ignored, demanding their enemies' full attention and fulfilling their role. To balance their power and survivability, they are often slow, and require faster teammates to support them.

    Examples include the Heavy Knight (heavily armored; two-handed sword, greatest damage of any weapon in the game; shield, incredibly difficult to break) the Captain (most health and armor of any Pirate class; blunderbuss, close-range shots are almost on par with a swing from the two-handed sword; Captain's cutlass, quick, deadly, and good for blocking all kinds of attacks) and the Huscarl(two-handed axe, very deadly; shield, very tough; throwing axes, deadly at medium range, strongly encouraging enemies to either fight back or flee, fulfilling his role).

    It's a good concept because it encourages teamwork.

    There should only be one tank on each team to allow class diversity in the roster.

    Damaging somebody's health if he has more armour makes no sense. Truth. Simply dealing more damage to health than to armor would make more sense given the context. That, or dealing more damage than usual to armor and less than usual to health until the target's armor was destroyed.

    Perhaps that is the game-sense you mentioned. Safety helmets increasing the risk of concussion and facture. I feel like I'm speaking to an alien. Could you please clarify youself for me please? Firstly, that's not game-sense at all. That goes against his meaning and mine. Secondly, I deny that you feel like you're speaking to an alien, and thirdly, it is possible that trusting one's armor to protect one's self could lead one to arrogantly wade into situations more perilous than the armor was intended for, with little regard for one's own safety. I'm just sayin'.


    Holy healers always seem to get the blunt weapons, so giving a flail to the Cleric would follow an established trend. Whether or not that would be a good thing is subjective.
    8gQi4T5.png
  • NiveNive PVKII Team
    edited 10:18PM
    You're much better at discussion than I am, Links.
    Well, at least I can say I tried.
  • Links121995Links121995 Beta Tester, Authorized Creator
    edited May 2015
    Actually, you made a pretty good effort.

    Try to cut back on "essentially" "well" "what I'm trying to say" and general repetition of your points; it won't make them more valid. If a point comes up more than once in your train of thought, I'm willing to bet that it can be combined with the previous instance in which it arose.

    You should cut your post down to size if it begins to ramble, instead of let your readers suffer and then apologize for it.
    They may not notice and thus appreciate the effort, but I think that if you feel you should apologize for rambling, then maybe you'll appreciate your own effort, and that will be enough.

    Oh, and spoilers help keep the thread tidy.
    8gQi4T5.png
  • DisturvingDisturving Senior
    edited June 2015
    The writing contained within this spoiler box is quite long, and not concise, and as demonstrated by Links121995 easy to misunderstand and take the wrond way in places.

    Wow, I said a lot of disagreable things. The list of what is not disagreeable might be shorter than the list of what is disagreeable. Links121995 has given some criticisms and been quite extensive and clear (edit: Not to forget the contribution of Nive). My favourites are "No. That's not even close. Not even remotely close to being close." and "I deny that you feel like you're speaking to an alien".
    Some people would jump at the opportunity to call it a rant so that they can accuse the other person of being upset and out of control and silly, but that is rude.


    You say that having swords and polearms would be boring. The Gestir is pretty much a peasant, and the bondi is too. Pirates can be compared to peasants or bandits. The English and Welsh Archers would be peasants. They have nice weapons, and so perhaps there is a thought that nice weapons are getting boring, and that we need some peasants running around the battlefield. Every class in that list was listed as a peasant. Your hypothesis follows illogically from your data. It is not the case that nice weapons are becoming boring, rather it is the case that identical nice weapons would be relatively boring compared to what they could have been. Yes, it does seem strange. That is what I was trying to say. It is strange that it is the richest of them all who gets the peasant weapon and uncharacteristically cheap armour, because the peasant-like ones already all have nice weapons.

    The Lord needs something to distinguish himself from a peasant with his flail who looted some outdated partial plate armour with mail off a corpse. Yes, just like the Heavy Knight needs something to distinguish himself from a peasant who looted some heavy plate armor off of a corpse. Perhaps exceptional combat skill, as opposed to the inexperienced flailing of a thieving peasant with only the most basic of ideas of how to fight
    "That is a very good point", I thought at first, but ha. The plate armour would be made to fit the knight or lord or prince or simple man-at-arms, so the peasant would find his agility hindered. His arms and legs may be of different lengths, and his physique and body shape may be different. It was written in 1570 that gentlemen, knights and others were most strong and nimble, in running or leaping, or in vaulting, or in turning on horse-back, and yet were not able by a great deal to bear so great a burden as a countryman or porter, but contrary in running and leaping, the porter and countryman were most slow and heavy, neither knew they how to vault upon their horse without a ladder. A hauberk, however, would easily fit many people, and the partial plate in the concept art looks like it could be made to fit quite easily. So there.



    It seems strange that the richest person in the game would look like the poorest on the knights' team. That would be the Cleric. If anybody is inclined to remind me that the Cleric may not be implemented, you can pretend that I said Archer instead. Quite right. I forgot about the Cleric and Assassin. The Lord and the archer both wear some mail. The flail's cost can be ignored because the peasant archer's left his flail at home. We have bow and arrows and crossbow and bolts versus armharnesses and shield and hammer. The archer left his hammer behind. Crossbows were quite expensive. I've not actually looked up the prices of armharnesses compared to the rest, I just thought that all of those arrows and bolts as well as the crossbow and sword and bow might have been worth more. It felt like a nice guess.
    There is evidence that some monks used swords and bucklers.
    MS_I.33_31v32r.jpg


    The comparison between a flail and a pitchfork was because they are both peasant weapons. The sickle is too. Maybe the lord should have a sickle.

    But there are some of his disagreements that I disagree with.

    So we've got that the game ought to be fun, and that having the classes be unique makes it fun, and that because of those differences the different classes can fulfil different roles. Somebody uses a bow and arrows to shoot arrows, and he then fulfils the role of shooting arrows, for instance. I also agree with these things.
    We've got the helpful concept of a tank. I had also noticed myself that the pirate captain survives more harm than the skirmisher, so maybe he could be a tank as you say. I don't know where to put this so I will put it here, I agree with the attitude of seeing what Vikings and knights and pirates were like, and making them in the video game based on that. I disagree with seeing the current state of the video game, and making the people in it based on that. Here is an example. Let us imagine we want to have a huscarl in the Vikings' team. We look at what a huscarl might have. He would have a shield and a sword and a helmet and some mail, and I think he would also have a spear or a two-handed axe, and some things to throw like javelins and hammers and maybe axes. If he would be more likely than other Vikings to have a two-handed axe, then the huscarl in the video game can have that two-handed axe whereas the other Vikings have spears. He would be rich and have a sword instead of a one-handed axe or a seax, and a helmet and some mail. And a Viking shield of course. A fighting system would be programmed so let the people fight each other. This is a good way to do it.
    Now for what I think would be a bad way. The Gestir's got a shield and the berserker's got a sword, and the gestir's knife looks a bit like a sword, so for some variety we can give the huscarl a single-handed axe. The berserker's already got a two-handed axe, so having the huscarl wield an identical weapon would be repetitive. We give the huscarl a trident. Now for a third weapon. The Gestir throws things already, so we give the huscarl a bow. The English archer uses a powerful military long bow that is really hard to draw but the English archer is strong. To avoid repetition we give the huscarl a weak bow that he shoots like Lars Andersen. We end up with a mail-clad huscarl with axe&shield, a trident, and a weak bow & arrows. But then he isn't a huscarl anymore because he's using an axe when he would be rich enough to afford a sword, and he's using a trident like a fisherman, and his bow is weak whereas real Vikings were using powerful long bows before the English were. Please, mark the difference between the approaches. One is knowing about huscarls and making a huscarl in the game, the other is making something in the game and giving it some name like huscarl or lord that may not match it.
    Back to tanks. This is trying to make them fit the roles you want in the game, but I disagree with this because this is meant to be Pirates, Vikings and Knights, not Tank DPS Healer, Tank DPS Healer and Tank DPS Healer. Here we have the uniqueness thing we both like. Pirates in recent centuries didn't wear any more armour than their clothing as far as I know, but they used gunpowder, so the Pirates are unique with their gunpowder weapons but lack armour, and have no armour-piercing hitting weapons, only weapons for fighting other unarmoured people. The Vikings and Medieval English however had archery and throwing weapons. The Vikings were also pirates, but each longboat was meant to have a coat of mail, and with their shields and the rest I think they would win against later pirates in a meleé, and they could form shield walls too. The Medieval English team with the knights, aah, they are the ones with the best armour of all. Plate armour. Some plate armour could stop muskets. They are the ones who went to battle with better armour than what the Vikings had, and better than what the Pirates later had. I think each team should stay distinctive. This would mean not having the leader of the knights say "LFG Wev got a tank n dps lol im gonna go support" and dress like a poor person when he should look like a lord. The two approaches. Knowing that there were lords who fought, and making a lord in a video game based on that, and choosing some armour and weapons that aren't already chosen and giving him a random name like lord or king or peasant that doesn't really suit him.


    It might not matter much that his hammer is less effective than a sword against unarmoured enemies because he would be able to largely ignore weapons because of him having attire made of better iron that that of their weapons. Guns. Also, those javelins will pierce right through the Heavy Knight's helmet. So much for armor.

    He will have a shield. This fits his primitive armour compared to the knight's nice expensive armour. It would make more sense for him to have better armour than the knight. He could have no shield because his armour is his shield. Given that this is a video game that involves blocking projectiles and bashing with shields, he should have a shield.

    Maybe this is why the knights' shields are covered in iron, because they knew they were to go up against bullets. The knight's sword is very pointed for thrusting through armour, and the warhammer is used because it is still good against someone in armour. The knights' team is armed for fighting people just like themselves. The pirates' swords are for use against unarmoured people like themselves. If they were to actually arm themselves for their enemies, then the knight might sheathe his pointed sword and pick up a cutlass because it's better at cutting down pirates, and the lord would use a sword too. The men-at-arms would use swords with their bucklers, and the pirates would not bother with cutlasses, but use hammers and maces and very pointed swords and maybe polearms.




    Having the knights and the lord have two-handed swords would not necessarily make them the same.

    The knight's sword is like this:

    134px-MS_Germ.Quart.2020_011v.jpg
    6bdf2e17e947338be2cdc7a9b615f6ac.jpg


    This sword is not identical:

    45-17_gallery.jpg


    Like the berserker, huscarl and man-at-arms have similar but different polearms, it is possible for there to be more than one sort of two-handed sword. According to the Englishman George Silver's book published in 1599, the perfect length for the blade of a two-handed sword is the same as that for the one-handed sword, because the speed at crossing and uncrossing is more beneficial than the increase in reach. The lord's two-handed sword could be short like that, short enough to wear in a scabbard on his belt.
    This would fit making the lord like an actual lord, and it would also fit making him unique, and making his team unique as the only team with two-handed swords. The Vikings didn't have good enough steel, and the Pirates didn't want them or couldn't get them anyway.






    The flail would be a bit interesting as a polearm. Here is a quote from George Silver again:

    The Battel-axe, the Halbard, the Blacke-bill, or ſuch like weapons of weight, appertaining vnto guard or battell, are all one in fight, and haue aduantage againſt the two hand Sword, the Sword and Buckler, the Sword and Target, the Sword & dagger, or the Rapier & Poiniard.

    The flail may well be quite similar to the other two-handed pole weapons. The pollaxe would also be different to the others, although possibly not quite as different as the flail. Please, let me say that I am not trained in pollaxe fighting unfortunately, but I have looked at (digital translations of) some instruction books on it written centuries ago by people who were. It would be shorter than the halberd and the spear, and longer than the huscarl's axe. It would have a very powerful chop or bash, and be capable of armour-piercing thrusts, and have both ends sharply pointed. It would be quite capable of blocking the heaviest strike if used skilfully. It would be a bit close-range. I think it would be faster to use than the halberd because of its length, or it might be heavier.


    MS_KK5012_62v.jpg




    300px-Pisani-Dossi_MS_35r-c.jpg 300px-Pisani-Dossi_MS_35r-d.jpg
    Here is an interesting weapon.



    300px-MS_Ludwig_XV_13_37v-b.jpg
    This one throws powder from a plant that blinds people, making him unable to open his eyes and blinding him.



    I mentioned earlier two attitudes towards designing the classes. I do agree with the second attitude I mentioned earlier sometimes, with balancing. I like it that each team has a similar chance of victory, although some maps might be interesting if they favoured one team, making it a real challenge for others. Why then, if the lord had more expensive stuff than the knight, would anybody choose the knight? I had long assumed that there would only be one lord, because he would be the leader, and the social structure was that there more knights than lords (I think). If the lord had a pollaxe and a two-handed sword, they would both be shorter-reaching than the knight's massive renaissance sword, and the lord in his old age may not be as fast or as strong as the knight, nor as good at kicking and rolling. A two-handed sword used whilst holding a shield might be a bit less wieldy than the knight's sword and shield (never tried it myself). Another way of balancing his armour could be by making his sword be rusted to the scabbard so he has to bash with the scabbard (actually that's a bad idea), or having him use a hammer as though he were to fight other heavily armoured people, instead of a sword, could help with balancing. So yes the hammer could be a good idea. Maybe his sword could be broken or rusted. He could be an old man with an old broken rusted sword and he won't buy a new one with his plentiful money because he's going loopy with age perhaps? That way he could have a sword thereby looking like a noble, and have a reason why he never uses it, letting him just use the hammer in the concept art.

    This actually took me a long time to write, and I'm never getting that time back D:

    Edited to fix the many problems with the formatting.
    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.
  • schatzmeisterschatzmeister PVKII Team, Beta Tester
    edited May 2015
    Given the anachronistic and absurd nature of PVKII, introduction of unique weapons and classes will override historical correctness. Comments and suggestions for the model and texture arts are certainly welcome. Do note that the whole game leans on a Monty-Pythonesque humor and all characters would likely try to mirror that kind of style.

    If the Lord has a funny outfit, then maybe he got drunk and went into the wrong dressing room. If, on the other hand, someone can't enjoy a game because the Lord Class has the wrong type of armor on, he's not well advised to play PVKII. I too, enjoy when both history and fun coincide, but this is not necessary here. Let me also reiterate that this mod is under ongoing development meaning that something that exists now might be changed in the future. In the first versions of the game, the Heavy Knight carried a crossbow.

    I for once find it appropriate to use the resources at hand and make the best out of that until maybe later a better version of something is ready to be implemented in the game.

    Will Turner: You didn't beat me. You ignored the rules of engagement. In a fair fight, I'd kill you.
    Jack Sparrow: That's not much incentive for me to fight fair, then, is it?

  • DisturvingDisturving Senior
    edited May 2015

    Comments and suggestions for the model and texture arts are certainly welcome.
    ...
    If, on the other hand, someone can't enjoy a game because the Lord Class has the wrong type of armor on, he's not well advised to play PVKII.

    That looks scary. :( One can have opinions and preferences on things and have favourites, and still like similar things. Liking one thing more than another does not imply only liking that thing. :( For example, I prefer double edged blades, but also like single edged blades.


    Edit: Meaning I would still like the game if there was a lord dressed more poorly than the knight, with a farming tool. That is a good idea about the lord, I had not thought of that, maybe he's meant to be like that despite being a lord as part of the joke.
    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.
  • NiveNive PVKII Team
    edited 10:18PM
    The Berserker and Huscarl fulfill different roles. Yes, they both have two-handed axes, but they use them differently. The Huscarl is the Viking tank, he's slow, healthy, and strong, you'd be dumb to engage him on his terms. His axe is just as good as dissuading battle as it is at ending them, it's slow but packs a big punch. The Berserker is the Viking scout, quick, haphazard, relentless, and more often than not he'll chase you down. His axe is faster but weaker, and with the added bonus of being able to perfect parry the Heavy Knight's sword, defensive as well, something neither of the other two scout classes have access to. All the Berserker has to do is take advantage of his speed and you'll be sorry.

    Now, if there was a THIRD Viking class that had an axe, then I'd agree with you. The Huscarl and Berserker's axes are pretty much on the opposite sides of the spectrum game play wise, and having a third axe would clutter the spectrum and would inevitably be too similar to one of them or even both.

    And that is the issue here. While the two "pikemen" currently in the game, the Gestir and the Man-at-Arms, are not on the same team, they've pretty much exhausted game play opportunities when it comes to polearm-esque weapons. The Gestir's spear is quick and specific, and the Man-at-Arms's halberd has a wider breadth and is a little more cumbersome but the Man-at-Arms makes it work with his quick feet. This is why I don't want a third polearm. It would end up too similar to either the spear, the halberd, or both. And going down this same line of thought is also why I don't think the Lord should have an axe. Too much of the same.
  • MrMohoMrMoho Senior
    edited 10:18PM
    I agree with Nive. Giving the Lord a Polearm or Axe-like weapon would only make his weapon's design clash with that of another. Granted, the Zweihander of the Heavy Knight already acts very similiar to both two-handed axes, but its unique design distance it enough from them. I believe the Flail will inevitably act like the other three heavy wepaons, so a diffrent design should help it stand out.

    Then again, I do not think that it is set in stone that the Lord will use a Flail. The medieval armory certainly isn't lacking in two-handed weapons that look and perform very diffrent from each other, so who knows.
  • Ukyo KuonjiUkyo Kuonji Captain Main Senior
    edited 10:18PM

    If the Lord has a funny outfit, then maybe he got drunk and went into the wrong dressing room. If, on the other hand, someone can't enjoy a game because the Lord Class has the wrong type of armor on, he's not well advised to play PVKII. I too, enjoy when both history and fun coincide, but this is not necessary here.

    Not to ignore what you said right after this, but if it's blatantly wrong it can detract from the experience. For example, the MAA's buckler is child sized, just doesn't look right.
    76561198022443233png

  • schatzmeisterschatzmeister PVKII Team, Beta Tester
    edited May 2015
    Disturving wrote:

    That looks scary. :( One can have opinions and preferences on things and have favourites, and still like similar things. Liking one thing more than another does not imply only liking that thing. :( For example, I prefer double edged blades, but also like single edged blades.


    Edit: Meaning I would still like the game if there was a lord dressed more poorly than the knight, with a farming tool. That is a good idea about the lord, I had not thought of that, maybe he's meant to be like that despite being a lord as part of the joke.


    I did not want to suggest the impression that I im not in favor of variety and historical correctness if applicable. I was only trying to say that if there's any game out there that does not need be confined by conventions of historical correctness, it is PVKII. Maybe the Lord is the most outrageous example of that but I say embrace the absurdity and enjoy playing a game where for once, the Lord can carry a flail and the Captain can shoot an explosive cannonball from his blunderbuss and in the greater scheme of things anything might happen.

    Directly on the discussion of weapon variety: I think weapons like the Lucerne Hammer or the Mordaxt (unsure about the actual translation) would be a neat addition to the game. They would not offer the same range as the spear or halberd (at least not in the game), but deal more damage per hit and would be slower to use. They also offer a variety of attacks whereas the spear in the game is only good for stabbing action.

    Will Turner: You didn't beat me. You ignored the rules of engagement. In a fair fight, I'd kill you.
    Jack Sparrow: That's not much incentive for me to fight fair, then, is it?

  • DisturvingDisturving Senior
    edited May 2015
    Ukyo Kuonji, the man-at-arm's buckler is a good size for a buckler. Buckler pictures aplenty:

    ML_buckler_uncleaned_comp.jpg
    142-8_gallery.jpg
    84-45_gallery.jpg
    431-81_gallery.jpg
    505-4_gallery.jpg
    You can see MS I.33 for more information on sword and buckler fighting.


    The buckler was once common, and it is nice to have it in PVKII, but although I've not tried it myself the combination of mace and buckler seems not very good to me. The mace lacks a hand-guard and is short, and with a small buckler I would be afraid to fight without heavy armour. The sword and buckler combination is something that's not in PVKII yet, but it is probably never going to be :( If it was it would suit the archer.
    In PVKII the buckler is used on its own to block weapons, and it breaks soon despite being solid iron. If sword and buckler was implemented, then it might need to be different to shield and sword, and different to single sword. Here's an idea: There would be four directions to parry in, with the sword and buckler together (you can see the tower of London manuscript I.33 to see what I mean), and it would also be able to be held out at arm's length to block missiles. It could attack in four directions like the other weapons, and perhaps also attack from the parry positions, in a way making the difference between custodia and obsessio (MS I.33). Somebody gets ready to swing from his right, and you approach with a left parry (2nd ward's schutzen). You do this parry position with your point almost pointing at his face. He stays charging up his sword, so doesn't react to you, so you left click and stab him in the face. (Your enemy adopts second ward, you approach in schutzen, he tarries and fails to respond, and you thrust to his face as punishment, or otherwise wheel your sword around to strike the side of his head.)
    You could argue though that the man-at-arms is meant to make fun of the French, which is why he carries is buckler on his back instead of on his hip, uses a mace with his buckler, carries only one spare quarrel for his crossbow, and is infantry in a medieval army with neither shield nor strong armour. Because he's a silly Frenchman.

    Nive you seem to have made a distinction between a polearm and an axe, but something can be both a polearm and an axe.
    I agree with wanting uniqueness in the classes, and am slightly saddened that as more classes are added the classes are to get less distinctive, like how I felt about the similarity between the halberd and the spear when the man-at-arms came. There may well be some polearms that are sufficiently different to what is already in PVKII. The flail is one example, and I believe that some sort of pollaxe with hammerhead like a lucerne hammer, or a blade would also be unique (That modaxt looks nice. I don't know what translation to use exactly, maybe battle-axe or pollaxe). Pitchforks and tridents and really big spiked clubs maybe. Here's another idea:
    http://diglib.hab.de...htm?image=00053
    This weapon passes as both a sword and an axe. There could also be a sword that has a handle as long as its really broad blade.
    There may be scope for a short fast two-handed sword also. Wooden mallets.
    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.
  • schatzmeisterschatzmeister PVKII Team, Beta Tester
    edited 10:18PM
    Directional blocking with the shield would be an interesting feature but you have to ask yourself how to implement it in the game without making it to complex or confsusing. There are certain technical boundaries aswell as limited resources that hinder the implementations of finer details of armed combat. However, it is good to have all this input collected for possible future use.

    Will Turner: You didn't beat me. You ignored the rules of engagement. In a fair fight, I'd kill you.
    Jack Sparrow: That's not much incentive for me to fight fair, then, is it?

  • NiveNive PVKII Team
    edited May 2015
    I don't think directional shield blocking is a good idea. The fact shields ignore that facet of combat altogether is one of their strongest features. It's what allows the shield user to block any incoming attack, even before the direction of the attack chosen. With the addition of directional blocking, shields suddenly become a reactionary tactic, rather than a stoic wall that doesn't care about direction at all.
  • Links121995Links121995 Beta Tester, Authorized Creator
    edited May 2015
    Mostly replies to replies to the first post.
    Most of the classes are peasants with elite weapons, therefore elite weapons are becoming boring, thus the supposedly "elite" classes should wield peasant weapons.
    It is not that elite weapons are boring, it is that recycled elite weapons would be less interesting than brand new weapons, and if the elite weapons are all taken, only inferior weapons would remain. It is nonetheless strange that an elite class should wield poor weapons merely because he arrived late. I agree. However, I will cover this later.

    The Lord is just a peasant. His skills suggest otherwise. His armor supports the contrary. I will cover this later.

    The richest class looks like the poorest. That's the Cleric/Archer. The Archer is wealthy enough to afford bows and arrows, and some monks used swords and bucklers. I will cover this later.

    The comparison between a flail and a pitchfork was because they are both peasant weapons. The sickle is too. Maybe the lord should have a sickle.
    A two-handed flail with spikes on it looks intimidating enough (to the average player) to project enough historical plausibility (for the average player) to justify its position in the hands of the Lord. A sickle is so ubiquitously a farming tool that no amount of jewels or noble blood could hope to suggest otherwise. Same for pitchforks.

    That said, perhaps the Bondi could have a sickle instead of a langseax... Disturving, you're a genius (in this instance)!

    The game ought to be fun, and unique classes is conducive to that end, and because of their differences they can fulfill different roles. One uses a bow to shoot arrows, and fulfills the role of arrow-shooting. I agree with this.
    It is to be expected in a first-person psuedo-historic class-based competitive multiplayer game.

    We've got the helpful concept of a tank. I noticed that the Pirate Captain survives more than the Skirmisher, so maybe he is a tank.
    The Captain isn't really a very good tank. He is merely the closest thing the Pirates have to a tank. I consider him to be a very good distraction, but just as reliant on other distractions to perform well when equally matched in skill. "Rally to me!"

    Class design pipeline.
    I agree with consulting history when designing the classes. I disagree with rigidly conforming to the existing aspects of the game when designing the classes. (I have tried my best to consolidate and represent clearly your sentiments here) I need an example.

    Here is an example. Right on cue, thanks mate.

    Suppose we want a Huscarl on the Viking team.
    History dictates he would have a shield, a sword, a helmet, some mail, possibly a spear or two-handed axe, and some projectiles like javelins, hammers, and maybe axes.
    If he would be more likely to have a two-handed axe, then he can have that two-handed axe while the others have spears.
    He would be rich enough for a sword, and what Viking goes without his shield?
    A fighting system would be programmed to let the people fight each other. This is a good way to do it.
    Yep, that seems about right. You've missed something out though.

    Now for what I think would be a bad way.
    The Gestir's got a shield- You failed to follow-up this point.
    -and the Berserker's got a sword, but the Gestir's knife looks a bit like a sword, so for some variety we can give the huscarl a single-handed axe.
    I really like this idea. I think that I will make a reskin for that. His in-game lore designates the (this particular) Huscarl as an axe-specialist, after all.

    The Berserker's already got a two-handed axe, so another identical one would be repetitive.
    Ah ha, but they are not identical, neither in stats nor appearance. The Berserker's is made of stone, and looks home-made. The Huscarl's is finely crafted and made of metal. That said, they ARE similar, and another axe would cross a line. Unless it were a really big double-headed battle-axe of god-like proportions, because that would be cool, and juuuust silly enough. If nothing like that ever gets into the game, I'll probably make a reskin for that, too.

    Thus we give the Huscarl a trident. Or a sword. Is there any reason he couldn't have a sword? Now for a third weapon. The Gestir throws things already, so we give the Huscarl a bow. The Archer uses a long bow. To avoid repetition we give the Huscarl a weaker bow.
    If simply changing the sort of bow he uses is enough to avoid repetition, then so is changing the nature of the projectile, and the manueverable mid-range slow-but-deadly 6-pack throwing axes could not be more different from the forward-without-fear mid/long-range fast-and-deadly 3-piece-set javelins.

    We end up with a mail-clad Huscarl with a trident, axe&shield, and a weak bow. Appearances aside, in terms of gameplay that's pretty much what the Huscarl wields already. Oh hey, maybe one of the Pirates could wield a trident.

    But then he isn't a Huscarl anymore because he's using an axe when he would be rich enough to afford a sword, using a trident like a fisherman, and his bow is weak whereas real Vikings were using powerful long bows before the English were. Gameplay aside, I can see your point.

    Please, mark the difference between the approaches. One is knowing about Huscarls and making a Huscarl in the game, the other is making something in the game and giving it some name like Huscarl or Lord that may not match it.

    In the first approach, one might give the Huscarl a two-handed axe, as dictated by history. For the next class in line, if history dictated another axe, what then? What if history dictated that all the classes used the same axes? What's the point of classes with different names and hats if they're all basically the same in-game? The value of the variety offered by bending the facts of history outweighs the cost of incurring the wrath of the world's historians.

    In the second approach, any passing resemblance to history is purely coincidental due to reckless disregard for the past in favor of as much variety as possible, which would utterly shatter the illusion and would be self-defeating. Before you pat yourself on the back for an argument well-won, I'd like to point out that this is not the case with the Lord, despite the apparent peasant-tier flail.

    Faction relations and apparent apparel
    Back to tanks. This is trying to make them fit the roles you want in the game. Wait what? There's no "trying" about it. The "tankiest" class will always be designated as a given faction's "tank". Even if that tank can only survive one more strike than the other classes, it's still the tankiest and will still be used as a meat-shield, as a distraction, as a door-stop, and as a buddy class for weaklings.

    But I disagree with this because this is meant to be Pirates, Vikings and Knights, not Tank DPS Healer, Tank DPS Healer and Tank DPS Healer. That was almost a good point, but you're thinking of the wrong genre. In this context, it would be support (Pirates) offense (Vikings) and defense (Knights) II (two).

    Even if it is the case that each faction has classes which fill similar roles, they all fill those roles differently.
    The Pirates are glass-cannons (more "video game jargon" for you), and any tank they have would only work for short bursts (like the Captain).
    The Vikings are consistent, versatile, and adaptable generalists (some more of that sweet "video game jargon") and the Huscarl is a prime example of that.
    The Knights are specialists (jargon hat-trick!) and have crippling weaknesses to balance their great strengths. This encourages them to support each other carefully. The Heavy Knight's lack of ranged abilities, and the Archer's lack of armor, illustrates this well.

    -There was some stuff here about what each faction typically wore, but I found it irrelevant and omitted it.-

    I think each team should stay distinctive. This would mean not having the leader of the knights say "LFG Wev got a tank n dps lol im gonna go support"- But he IS support. Tankiest leader, he may be, but not the tankiest of the entire team. That would deprive the tankiest tank of his status as the tankiest tank!-and dress like a poor person when he should look like a lord.

    Examples of people not wearing heavy armor while still looking relatively posh
    gui_de_plessis-brion_s115_r2166_large.jpg
    Important enough to be illustrated. Basically the Lord minus the beard.
    300px-Hundt_088.jpg Looking very posh without any armor at all. He even attacks like the Skirmisher. Could it be..?
    6bdf2e17e947338be2cdc7a9b615f6ac.jpg Rich enough for all that attire and a giant sword, but not armor?
    45-17_gallery.jpg
    Without that crown, this guy would look just like all the other warriors. All that's needed to indicate that he's in charge is that crown. Gee, that's probably why he's wearing it.

    Equipment (I'm not sure of why this piece was necessary. It seems to make no point, other than that none of the classes are properly equipped).
    He would largely ignore weapons as his attire is made of better iron. He would have a finite armor value in-game. No matter how heavily armored he was, he'd still have to avoid wasting its integrity.

    A shield fits his primitive armour. It would make more sense for him to have better armour than the Knight, so he could have no shield and rely on armor instead. One cannot bash with armor, nor can one block incoming projectiles.

    Maybe this is why the knights' shields are covered in iron, because they knew they were to go up against bullets. Unlikely. I think it more probable that they look and function better that way.

    The Knights are armed for fighting people like themselves. The Pirates are also armed for fighting people like themselves. If they were to actually arm themselves for their enemies, then the Knight might sheathe his pointed sword and pick up a cutlass because it's better at cutting down pirates.
    As far as I am aware, cutlasses were used because they were especially effective in the cramped spaces on and in ships. You should try killing Skirmishers with the Heavy Knight's short sword. It is astonishingly average compared to his two-handed sword.

    The Lord would also use a sword. The Men-At-Arms would use swords with their bucklers, and the Pirates would not bother with cutlasses, but use hammers and maces and very pointed swords and maybe polearms. While that might be effective, it wouldn't be very pirate-y, now would it?

    Two-handed swords
    Having the Knights and the Lord have two-handed swords would not necessarily make them the same. Truth. However, they would be in much the same situation as the Viking axes, and very similar.

    The Lord's two-handed sword could be short enough to wear in a scabbard on his belt. A heavy sword for the Heavy Knight, a medium sword for the Lord, a short sword for the Archer, a dagger for the Assassin, and a staff/flail for the Cleric..? I suppose that's varied enough...

    This would make the Lord look like an actual Lord, and make him unique - no, it would make him completely unexceptional - and making his team unique as the only team with two-handed swords. That's already the case, probably for the reasons you state here. That said, I wouldn't mind an over-sized sword for the Jarl. The Vikings didn't have good enough steel, and the Pirates didn't want them or couldn't get them anyway.

    Closing
    I mentioned earlier two attitudes towards designing the classes. I do agree with the second attitude I mentioned earlier sometimes, with balancing. It was not even slightly related to balancing! Neither of them were! They were related to historical accuracy and in-game variety!

    I like it that each team has a similar chance of victory - Yes! - although some maps might be interesting if they favoured one team - No! Well, maybe! Have you ever player Island?! It's sort of like that already!

    Why, if the Lord had more expensive kit than the Knight, would anybody choose the Knight? Exactly!

    I had long assumed - Assumed?! Boooo! - that there would only be one Lord - Clearly you have never played this game. Teams full of Captains are not exactly one-in-a-million. - because he would be the leader - In terms of team-composition, yes. In terms of actual matches, the leader is usually the most aggressive/skilled player.

    If the Lord had a pollaxe and a two-handed sword, they would both be shorter-reaching than the Knight's massive renaissance sword, and the Lord in his old age may not be as fast or as strong as the Knight, nor as good at kicking and rolling. The Gestir shuts down that argument. As if a less armored class being even slower and less combat-oriented than the Heavy Knight wasn't already a bad idea.

    A two-handed sword used whilst holding a shield might be a bit less wieldy than the Knight's sword and shield (never tried it myself). Now this, this might be something. If he could block projectiles as though he had a shield even when he was using the sword while still being able to parry melee attacks... That'd be cool. That'd be interesting. That'd be unique. That'd be awesome.

    Another way of balancing his armour could be by making his sword be rusted to the scabbard so he has to bash with the scabbard (actually that's a bad idea) - Yes. - or having him use a hammer as though he were to fight other heavily armoured people, instead of a sword, could help with balancing. So yes the hammer could be a good idea. Maybe his sword could be broken or rusted. He could be an old man with an old broken rusted sword and he won't buy a new one with his plentiful money because he's going loopy with age perhaps? I've got an idea that addresses this point.

    This actually took me a long time to write, and I'm never getting that time back D: I, on the other hand, spent a long time reading, analyzing, consolidating, editing, cutting, considering, ordering, and writing this, and would not trade the time I spent on it for anything.


    At the start of my reply, I said that I'd address something later. Well, it's later.

    What if the Lord lost his riches for some reason? It'd explain his relatively poor equipment, and his status as the team's leadership class. Although he lost his army, his fine equipment, and probably his land, he'd still boast years of experience, and command respect through PURE LEADERSHIP. Oh, and he'd probably have looted the armor he's wearing from some random corpse.

    Besides, the real wealthy king of the Knights is their announcer. HE'S loopy.
    8gQi4T5.png
  • DisturvingDisturving Senior
    edited May 2015
    Contents:
    Part 1 - shield
    Part 2 - sword and buckler
    Part 3 - replying to Links121995


    I agree with Nive about shields.
    565_small.jpg

    The size of a shield should give an advantage, and this is a good one. I would even suggest making shield users immune to perfect parry counter attacks from small weapons like single handed swords.

    But a buckler is so small that a sword and a buckler can perhaps be compared to a two-handed sword.
    320-1_gallery.jpg These are small small bucklers compared to shields


    224px-Marozzo_4.pngThis is not a great way to block everything.


    Sword and buckler

    A file attachment:
    [attachment=1385:0001.jpg]
    My apology for the quality


    Here are some ideas for sword and buckler. Although it hasn't got anything to do with the title of the thread, a buckler was mentioned. For lack of knowledge of different styles, I will base this off a style used from a unknown time until the thirteenth century and then until some unknown time later in Germany and probably England and maybe some other places, like in the above image.

    Directional parrying, and "perfect parry" - Like with a sword alone, you parry with the blade of the sword, with the buckler protecting your hand.

    Blocking missiles - If there is no weapon to parry then he could hold his buckler out at arm's length on its own to catch missiles like javelins. Because it's smaller than a shield perhaps it should be harder to do this, so you could have to be looking at the missile to block it.

    No shield-bash style attack - This can be absent because although you can punch someone with a buckler, like you can pummel with a two-handed sword hilt, and do close-range things with polearms, currently in PVKII no lone weapon can do anything like a shield bash, so a buckler punch used like a shield bash to directly attack the opponent as a commencing move can be missed out.

    Or could it? If you are in a parry position that is good to parry your opponent's attack, and you've approached him but he's not attacking because he's charging up his weapon with super sayan power, then like a shield bash you could give him a little poke in the face with your sword while maintaining the parry position.

    Oh and by the way here's a very interesting video about shields and swords by a chap called Roland Warzecha: https://youtu.be/FrzOHN2rzE8


    A reply to Links121995

    You condensed some things I said really well! I should have done it myself really. I had already written a lot and just wanted to stop. I did plan it with a checklist but perhaps it could have been planned better.

    Mostly replies to replies to replies to the first post.

    Yeah.

    Except I think the bondi should have a single-handed axe and a small round shield that can conveniently be carried on his back. The shield being small can be thick without being overweight. This is because a single-handed axe is really Vikingy and nobody else has one yet. The gestir and the bondi are both not rich, so they can have an axe or a long seax. The spearman has the knife so the archer can have the axe. Giving the bondi just a little seax (knife) alone is silly because he's a manly Viking warrior who got on a longboat to raid and pillage.


    Class design pipeline.

    The Berserker's already got a two-handed axe, so another identical one would be repetitive.
    Ah ha, but they are not identical, neither in stats nor appearance. The Berserker's is made of stone, and looks home-made. The Huscarl's is finely crafted and made of metal. That said, they ARE similar, and another axe would cross a line. Unless it were a really big double-headed battle-axe of god-like proportions, because that would be cool, and juuuust silly enough. If nothing like that ever gets into the game, I'll probably make a reskin for that, too. This was in response to you saying "Because the Heavy Knight already has the biggest sword in the game; its power offset by the speed of the class wielding it. Wielding an identical sword would be repetitive," when there could be a two-handed sword that is quite different to the knight's longsword. This is illustrated by the pictures unarmoured guys with massive sword, and the crowned person with a smaller two-handed sword.

    Thus we give the Huscarl a trident. Or a sword. Is there any reason he couldn't have a sword? The berserker's got a sword, and the gestir's large knife is like a sword. Although huscarls were probably rich enough to afford swords, which were better than one-handed axes.

    The Gestir throws things already, so we give the Huscarl a bow. The Archer uses a long bow. To avoid repetition we give the Huscarl a weaker bow.
    If simply changing the sort of bow he uses is enough to avoid repetition, then so is changing the nature of the projectile, and the manueverable mid-range slow-but-deadly 6-pack throwing axes could not be more different from the forward-without-fear mid/long-range fast-and-deadly 3-piece-set javelins. But a bow with arrows is more different to throwing spears than throwing axes is.

    In the first approach, one might give the Huscarl a two-handed axe, as dictated by history. For the next class in line, if history dictated another axe, what then? What if history dictated that all the classes used the same axes? What's the point of classes with different names and hats if they're all basically the same in-game? The value of the variety offered by bending the facts of history outweighs the cost of incurring the wrath of the world's historians. Oh yeah well history doesn't dictate that so there.

    Here's a better explanation: One thing is deriving from actuality. The other is basing on the current state of a video game. Both are good, but the first is the most important in my opinion. The second approach can be good to use, but not if it interferes with the first one. For example, not giving the huscarl a spear is of the second approach. Giving him other huscarl-like weapons is of the first approach. I've just had an idea. The huscarl could have a choice between a spear&shield and his two-handed axe.
    Giving the lord a flail could fit the second approach, but contradicts the first, but yes you have an idea about this.


    Faction relations and apparent apparel

    But I disagree with this because this is meant to be Pirates, Vikings and Knights, not Tank DPS Healer, Tank DPS Healer and Tank DPS Healer. That was almost a good point, but you're thinking of the wrong genre. In this context, it would be support (Pirates) offense (Vikings) and defense (Knights) II (two). I don't know what you mean by thinking of the wrong genre. I meant that it should not be necessary to sculpt the classes so that each team has the same sort of things. If they end up like that then it should be because it suits them, like having knights and archers.

    I think each team should stay distinctive. This would mean not having the leader of the knights say "LFG Wev got a tank n dps lol im gonna go support"- But he IS support. Tankiest leader, he may be, but not the tankiest of the entire team. That would deprive the tankiest tank of his status as the tankiest tank! If there was a limit of one lord then it would not matter. Oh no, coming up with the idea of a tank based on observation and using that observation together with the belief that there can only be one to make the lord not fit your idea, resulting in the lord not seeming lordly enough :(

    Examples of people not wearing heavy armor while still looking relatively posh

    gui_de_plessis-brion_s115_r2166_medium.jpg
    I think this is probably Gui de Plessis-Brion's effigy on his grave. It's got the date 1250. He could have been a knight, but even if we was a lord there would not have been any plate armour for him to wear (as far as I know). He was a century too early.


    300px-Hundt_088.jpgThis image is about a university student being assailed by a vengence-driven guard, so of course he's not wearing full plate armour. He might not even have any at home. Also it was made when the rapier was in use, a different time period.


    6bdf2e17e947338be2cdc7a9b615f6ac.jpgYes well whoever this renaissance chap was, we was not a lord in a medieval army.


    45-17_gallery.jpg
    Yes, the other soldiers are shown with plate armour too, so they were also able to afford it. I'm too lazy to check what's going on in this picture in the probably foreign book, but the king's armour was probably made of very good steel, and very well designed and put together. It's not just a hauberk with chausses and some arm harnesses.



    Equipment

    He would largely ignore weapons as his attire is made of better iron. He would have a finite armor value in-game. No matter how heavily armored he was, he'd still have to avoid wasting its integrity. Well there's what would happen and then there's how well it can be simulated in the game. It is good to mention what we're basing it on, and however it in's programmed can follow. Perhaps there could be a minimum amount of damage required to do anything? The pistol could merely dent his armour, and the skirmisher's cutlass could be useless? But that would be bad for balancing unless there's only one lord in the team.

    A shield fits his primitive armour. It would make more sense for him to have better armour than the Knight, so he could have no shield and rely on armor instead. One cannot bash with armor, nor can one block incoming projectiles. If he had a hand free then he could do something I've been thinking of suggesting on this thread forum for a while, but giving it a nice flash animation to go with it. He could grab people. What's the matter, m'lord? Are you having trouble hitting that annoying skirmisher? Well then grab him with your hand and make him stay there long enough for you to run him through or cut his throat. Or punch him in the face.


    (I'm not sure of why this piece was necessary. It seems to make no point, other than that none of the classes are properly equipped).
    Well it seemed like you said that the lord should have a shield so that he can have weapons for fighting his enemies, so I said what would happen if they actually armed themselves for fighting their enemies. Knights' shields were not actually covered in metal, that was made up for PVKII. Maybe they did it to make the bulletproof? But they still break after some hits :(
    The knight's sword tapers so much that a nice broad cutlass would be better at cutting through pirates.


    Two-handed swords

    Oh.
    Well the lord would be the only one with a short two-handed sword, but perhaps it would be similar to single-handed swords and the huscarl's axe a bit. It would have different animations and numbers and stuff.


    Closing

    Why, if the Lord had more expensive kit than the Knight, would anybody choose the Knight? Exactly! Well I then say things about that.


    If the Lord had a pollaxe and a two-handed sword, they would both be shorter-reaching than the Knight's massive renaissance sword, and the Lord in his old age may not be as fast or as strong as the Knight, nor as good at kicking and rolling. The Gestir shuts down that argument. As if a less armored class being even slower and less combat-oriented than the Heavy Knight wasn't already a bad idea. I don't know how it shuts it down. This is in answer to my question earlier of why anybody would choose the knight if it was not limited to just one lord, and if the lord was dressed in lordly armour with effective weapons.

    If we can actually have as many lords as knights, or more lords than knights (although my preference would be for one lord maximum), then the knight could be the fit young man, while the lord could be the old man past his prime but with nice expensive armour on, and his armour would make him less agile than the gestir.

    This actually took me a long time to write, and I'm never getting that time back D: I, on the other hand, spent a long time reading, analyzing, consolidating, editing, cutting, considering, ordering, and writing this, and would not trade the time I spent on it for anything. Wow!


    Losing his fortune? That's an all right idea for the lord. Another could be that he bought his armour in 13-something, some nice 14th century armour, with early plate armour technology; plate armour for the arms and legs, a coat of plates or a breastplate with a scale skirt, and of course the ancient and important helmet. But then he was suddenly told that he had only a short time to prepare to travel though time and fight pirates and Vikings, and had only managed to put on some mail and his armharnesses and a shield before he was mystically sent through time and space. To get some weapons, he made himself something that looked like a crown and went to oppress some peasants and claimed to be their king. The peasant then said that they never voted for him and started talking about their social structure and complained about discrimination based on class, but the lord managed to oppresses the peasants and steal a flail and a hammer, and went off with them and two coconut halves.
    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 10:18PM
    I like the idea of having the Lord also using two-handed sword but having it be similar to how the vikings have the two varying greataxes.

    The Lord can use a more standard long sword or 'hand and half' sword slightly stronger and slower than the captain's cutlass with ability to block two handed weapons.

    With this type of sword he could use a shield, which would take away his ability to perfect parry and... Wait!


    I forgot that I don't want to have expanded tf2-esque classes in PVK!

    The Lord can have nothing and like it!
  • Ukyo KuonjiUkyo Kuonji Captain Main Senior
    edited 10:18PM
    Lord primary = Fancy shortsword and decorated shield
    Lord secondary = Flail
    Lord ranged = idgaf

    Should have a fancy and regal, yet not kingly armor.

    Go home guys.
    76561198022443233png

  • DisturvingDisturving Senior
    edited May 2015
    Adding to what Mario said about a short two-handed sword, standard longsword or hand-and-a-half sword, heavy and broad and more damaging than the captain's cutlass, here is described a similar sort of sword. Enough space for two hands on the hilt. A crossguard as long as the handle. A blade as long as a reasonably long one-handed sword, about 38 inches, and equally heavy, or perhaps a bit longer and therefore a bit heavier. The blade tapering to a fine point like the Knight's single-handed sword. Like a single-handed sword with a longer handle. This would be faster than the captain's cutlass, but weaker at cutting because of the blade shape, perhaps a bit stronger than the skirmisher's cutlass, and with an potentially armour-piercing thrust.

    Here are some photographs of (I think copies of) a(n) (actual medieval) one-handed sword, scabbard and shield, made by somone called Tod who I've never met:
    AVqCGiqeb_M.jpg
    1E4kxw1viDw.jpg
    z9xawoMb954.jpg
    HI8mJnwtcaM.jpg
    Dh4ugjhh8SY.jpg
    w21dkX8HDHM.jpg


    As for expanded tf2-esque classes, here's how what you proposed could work without. Supposing the number 7 is for a longsword, the number 8 could be for the shield. Pressing 7 draws or sheathes the sword, and pressing 8 grabs of lets go of the shield's handle.
    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.
  • NiveNive PVKII Team
    edited 10:18PM
    They're already planning/working on adding the functionality to keep your weapon out after the shield breaks, so it probably wouldn't be too hard to allow the player to toggle the shield when it isn't broken.
    Unless they rebalance the damages of said weapons (which they might since they're no longer permanently tied to shields now), the current characters wouldn't have that much incentive to toggle their shields off.

    But for this hypothetical Lord weapon, he'd certainly have incentive to switch back and forth.
    If he can use his sword like a two-handed sword without the shield, he could perfect parry two-handed weapons (the Huscarl's and Berserker's axes).
    If he uses it like a one-handed sword with the shield, then he'd be able to block projectiles from the Bondi (soon™) and the Sharpshooter and shield bash people's heads in.

    I like this. But there's no reason why it has to be a sword, right? Are there any weapons like the current warhammer-in-progress that could function the same way? Just in case the devs go down this route, James wouldn't have to drop the warhammer completely to make a new sword.
  • DisturvingDisturving Senior
    edited May 2015
    To quote the website "www.hurstwic.com"

    Stories say that sometimes fighters used their swords two-handed. But the grips of surviving Viking age swords are not long enough to be held in two hands. The grip of a modern replica sword is shown to the left, and of a historical 10th century Viking sword to the right. The grips have plenty of space for one hand, even for a beefy Viking fist, but not for two. It's not clear how a sword with a grip this short could be effectively wielded with two hands.


    One possibility is to use the second hand to cup the wrist of the weapon hand. It seems that this kind of grip would allow substantially more power to be delivered using a one-handed weapon like a Viking sword, while allowing the second hand to be released quickly to do more work as soon as the blade passes the target.
    two_hand_sword.jpg



    A speculative reconstruction of this two-handed grip is shown in this combat demo video, part of a longer fight. The photo and video illustrate our best guess for using a two-handed grip, but other approaches are also workable. Regardless of the details, using a second hand to pull the sword through the cut results in substantially more powerful attacks.
    two_hand_attack.jpg

    Copied from: http://www.hurstwic....iking_sword.htm


    Some more quotes, examples of things that can be done without a shield in the left hand, or things to do with shields, taken from Norse sagas:

    Grímur had two swords, because Gaus knew how to blunten sword-edges. Grímur fought equally well with both hands. He raised one sword with his left hand and struck with the right at Gaus, taking off one of his legs above the knee.

    When Atli's shield was split right through, he tossed it away, took his sword in both hands and hacked away with all his might.

    Gunnar caught the spear in the air and threw it back and it went through the shield and the Norwegian…

    In a single movement, he grabbed the berserk's helmet with his left hand and dashed him from his horse…

    When Bolli saw this, he threw down his sword and took his shield in both hands…

    Tjörvi threw a shield at him, but he leaped over it and landed smoothly…


    As usual, here is a medieval picture on the topic :D

    1004-1_gallery.jpg
    This shows it being done with a single-handed sword and shield. It's german from about AD 1200.


    I think it would be a good idea with the hammer, because it's got such a cartoonishly huge head that it might need two hands.

    England, 1225
    malvern_abbey_effigy_s21_r593_medium.jpgNow that's a good warhammer/warpickaxe.
    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.
  • DisturvingDisturving Senior
    edited February 2016
    I would just like to say that I agree with a some of the people who disagree with me on this. I really like it that PVKII's got such stylish design. The pirate team looks incredibly piratey. The captain's got his coat and hat and cutlass and hook and peg-leg and parrot. The attack parrot is a pretty good idea. It's piratey and fits the theme swimmingly. My only criticism about the Lord design is that it doesn't really look like a lord. It to me somehow lacks the stylishness that the pirate captain has, it does not look distinctively lordly to me. It also looks like its armour was designed in the 20th or 21st century by somebody who unfortunately received a mistaken idea of armour, and it looks impractical and un-lordly. If you know how something looks then if you see something a bit different then you have to notice the differences. The un-lordly aspects of the design are probably just accidental mistakes made by someone who thought that he was making some medieval noble-looking art.
    I wrote lines and lines of text earlier thinking that writing more would make it better but it was not excellently written, so this is a not-greatly detailed thingey.
    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.