J.G. Elmslie
Insider
Anthony, you seem to be entirely missing the point that Don was making.
It has nothing to do with zombies, underworld etc.
The point that's been made about dual wielding is that its not very practical. In the same way that buckets with holes in them arent much use for carrying water, or swimming in a maille hauberk is a rather bad idea...
the game is physics-based. real physics determines how a lot of stuff works (like swords not being practical to draw off the back over the shoulder - the human arm's just not long enough, as we've discussed previously.) Dual Wielding, in that regard, is the same as Final Fantasy-esque giant choppers the size of a door. that sort of stuff just doesnt work.
We're all for having the ability to use two weapons, all we're trying to do is explain the constraints under which is should work.
--
Now, your previous post Some I agree with, some I strongly disagree with.
Now, that does not mean we have to use Ringeck's Zwerchau and Vadi's Posta Del Donna, i.33's custodiae, or Marozzo's fourth guard, or anything remotely like that. But looking closely at real stuff for the animation, will allow it to look far more exciting than something made up out of the animator's head having watched "highlander" last week. And I strongly disagree that "Magic defeats any argument". that's incredibly lazy design. "Hey, its magic, fuckit!" simply doesn't fly.
Conversely, If this were something batshit crazy like "morrowind" with magic mushroom towers and armour made from giant insect shells, and all that? Hell yes! Then's the time to go mad and make stuff magic. A low-fantasy world that's very defined by the real laws of physics, and where a lot of the equipment is inspired by real world stuff, like SG however? No. this is not the place for the "hey, its magic" mentality.
I honestly feel that SG has the potential to do it better than I think you believe it can - but it'll take a good animator coming onboard for that.
-
now, the rest of your post, I generally agree with.
(I'll ignore the equipping/unequipping, simply because that's something for a different thread.)
You list
I would, I think, try to assign a "defensive" set of value to weapons. that would consist of "Mass", "Mobility", and "offense", and I wouldnt simply restrict it to weapons - I would apply the system to all off-hand arms and items.
So, "mass" and "mobility" tend to be inversely proportional. A small buckler or a dagger have low mass, and high mobility. A large axe - or a great wooden tower pavise - have high mass, low mobility. And of course few items, like a cloak wrapped round the arm, might have low mass, but lower mobility. Together, those values roughly equate to your "parry speed" mechanic, but allowing a little bit of tweaking of some values.
Then, you have the offensive rating. You can slam a buckler into the other guy's face. Same with a dagger. But a bigger shield, or a large axe, it then becomes increasingly hard to use offensively - with its mass, its slower to strike with.
Conversely, a weapon with higher mass is better able to resist a powerful blow - so if you're being slammed with a big lucerne hammer, or a zombie with the sledgehammer, you're not going to easily block it with a small dagger... but a bigger, slower axe, or especially a large pavise, is able to resist that sort of blow. So mass there confers an advantage in defence.
So you get a series of options that, when you're able to dual-wield (and remember, its a skill you would pick), you would be able to pick your defensive capabilities - are you wanting that lighter defence that isnt infallible, but with which you can attack much easier with your 2nd hand, or do you want a slower defence that's not as effective in the attacking aspect? Likewise, you can pick an offhand weapon that's faster, or slower and heavier to suit play style.
With that sort of system, you could end up with values that allow off-hand weapons to be used defensively, and then used to make attacks - the sort of use of two weapons that is much more realistic feeling - not historically exact, but based on how real-world, real physics movements were done - and obviously, also lets you pick how much of an offensive aspect you have. A rondel dagger is far more lethal in a offhand strike, than a buckler that only does a small bit of bashing damage, for example.
And at the same time, the offhand weapon as a system also integrates in seamlessly with the basic operation of shields, so everything can be done under one set of mechanics, minimising the headaches of implementing it as a design.
It has nothing to do with zombies, underworld etc.
The point that's been made about dual wielding is that its not very practical. In the same way that buckets with holes in them arent much use for carrying water, or swimming in a maille hauberk is a rather bad idea...
the game is physics-based. real physics determines how a lot of stuff works (like swords not being practical to draw off the back over the shoulder - the human arm's just not long enough, as we've discussed previously.) Dual Wielding, in that regard, is the same as Final Fantasy-esque giant choppers the size of a door. that sort of stuff just doesnt work.
We're all for having the ability to use two weapons, all we're trying to do is explain the constraints under which is should work.
--
Now, your previous post Some I agree with, some I strongly disagree with.
I really disagree. I think we can have a spectacular combat system, later on, when animations are improved upon. And I think that the way to have it realistic, is to look at history.Those of us intimate with the system know that this games will never have a flashy combat system, but we can have a realistic not necessarily historically accurate combat system(history is only a guide not a rule book that the devs must follow, magic defeats any argument)
Now, that does not mean we have to use Ringeck's Zwerchau and Vadi's Posta Del Donna, i.33's custodiae, or Marozzo's fourth guard, or anything remotely like that. But looking closely at real stuff for the animation, will allow it to look far more exciting than something made up out of the animator's head having watched "highlander" last week. And I strongly disagree that "Magic defeats any argument". that's incredibly lazy design. "Hey, its magic, fuckit!" simply doesn't fly.
Conversely, If this were something batshit crazy like "morrowind" with magic mushroom towers and armour made from giant insect shells, and all that? Hell yes! Then's the time to go mad and make stuff magic. A low-fantasy world that's very defined by the real laws of physics, and where a lot of the equipment is inspired by real world stuff, like SG however? No. this is not the place for the "hey, its magic" mentality.
I honestly feel that SG has the potential to do it better than I think you believe it can - but it'll take a good animator coming onboard for that.
-
now, the rest of your post, I generally agree with.
(I'll ignore the equipping/unequipping, simply because that's something for a different thread.)
You list
- Shields
- Dagger
- Hand-Axe
- Short sword
I would, I think, try to assign a "defensive" set of value to weapons. that would consist of "Mass", "Mobility", and "offense", and I wouldnt simply restrict it to weapons - I would apply the system to all off-hand arms and items.
So, "mass" and "mobility" tend to be inversely proportional. A small buckler or a dagger have low mass, and high mobility. A large axe - or a great wooden tower pavise - have high mass, low mobility. And of course few items, like a cloak wrapped round the arm, might have low mass, but lower mobility. Together, those values roughly equate to your "parry speed" mechanic, but allowing a little bit of tweaking of some values.
Then, you have the offensive rating. You can slam a buckler into the other guy's face. Same with a dagger. But a bigger shield, or a large axe, it then becomes increasingly hard to use offensively - with its mass, its slower to strike with.
Conversely, a weapon with higher mass is better able to resist a powerful blow - so if you're being slammed with a big lucerne hammer, or a zombie with the sledgehammer, you're not going to easily block it with a small dagger... but a bigger, slower axe, or especially a large pavise, is able to resist that sort of blow. So mass there confers an advantage in defence.
So you get a series of options that, when you're able to dual-wield (and remember, its a skill you would pick), you would be able to pick your defensive capabilities - are you wanting that lighter defence that isnt infallible, but with which you can attack much easier with your 2nd hand, or do you want a slower defence that's not as effective in the attacking aspect? Likewise, you can pick an offhand weapon that's faster, or slower and heavier to suit play style.
With that sort of system, you could end up with values that allow off-hand weapons to be used defensively, and then used to make attacks - the sort of use of two weapons that is much more realistic feeling - not historically exact, but based on how real-world, real physics movements were done - and obviously, also lets you pick how much of an offensive aspect you have. A rondel dagger is far more lethal in a offhand strike, than a buckler that only does a small bit of bashing damage, for example.
And at the same time, the offhand weapon as a system also integrates in seamlessly with the basic operation of shields, so everything can be done under one set of mechanics, minimising the headaches of implementing it as a design.
Last edited: