Weapons, Formations and their bonuses or draw backs.

[Jenshiye 146]

Okay, after seeing the whole explosion on IRC last night, it seems that weapons are being altered more on people being hit by something new or by opinion, so lets run through logically what weapons should be good at and less proficient with.

 

Pole-arms:

• More reach - bonus against horses (impaling) and rider {& maybe should reach second floors?}
• 
  
• Long and cumbersome - small weapons and close fighting is difficult and incurs a penalty.
• 
  
• No shield - hello arrow pin cushion.
• 
  
• Two handed - unweildy on a horse, should be penalised.
• 
  
• Can reach across between ships - bonus.
• 
  
• Slow
• 
  
• Huge damage.
• 
  
• Low parry
• 
  

5 against and 3 for it.

 

Medium weapons:

• Shield
• 
  
• Moderate damage
• 
  
• Medium speed.
• 
  
• Moderate parry
• 
  
• No mounted penalty
• 
  
• Don't bridge between ships well.
• 
  
• No defense penalty against small, huge or pole arms when on the ground.
• 
  

1 against, 3 for and 3 neutral

 

Small weapons:

• Shield
• 
  
• Smaller damage
• 
  
• Faster
• 
  
• Parries more
• 
  
• Bonus against huge weapons and pole-arms if on the ground and in their ideal range.
• 
  
• Bonus on horses, easier to balance.
• 
  
• Penalty on ships, almost no reach.
• 
  
• Penalty if huge weapons or pole arms are in their perfect range (can't reach them well)
• 
  

3 against and 5 for it.

 

Huge weapons:

• Arrow pin-cushion.
• 
  
• Slow
• 
  
• High damage
• 
  
• Low parry
• 
  
• Mounted penalty - pulls you off balance using two hands and heavy weapon.
• 
  
• Bridges ship gaps okay (neutral)
• 
  
• Bonus against small weapons at ideal range.
• 
  
• Penalty against small weapons if they are too close.
• 
  

5 against, 2 for and 1 neutral.

 

Axes - higher damage, low parry

Mauls - moderate damage, moderate parry

Swords - low damage, high parry.

 

The blunt forte of a sword is a lot of weapon to block with, a mauls head can be thrust in the way to block somewhat.

 

Offensive large weapons put you into a kill or be killed situation. They are heavy and should tired you out more, thus they should require lighter armour or incur further penalties.

Small weapons are defensive, you weather the attack and try to exhaust your opponent before going in for the kill.

 

Now you lot can argue the numbers and I will update this post.

 

Edit: 

Tactics

 

 

 

 

Neutral

First bonus of using a formation, is that if a few singular people step up close or run through, they take all the damage of the group in one hit, i.e. SPLAT!

Secondly, some of the damage is spread across the defense.

Aggressive formation gives you a bonus to attack but penalises your defense (Can your 2 handers punch through those shields before they die to break the formation?)

Defensive would be something you do in reaction to an ambush, multiple formations or aggressive ones, if you can with the timer to make one. Obviously, you get defensive bonuses and offensive penalties. Speed reduced.

Ambush speed bonus, use a few front ones to take the brunt of the arrows, could rush out of a mine, slaughter some innocents or rush out of a back gate, whip off a few arrows and run back inside.

 

 

Notes

2 handed fighters get a small defense bonus, so long as they are sandwiched by a shield fighter on each side.

Attacks against a formation, the damage falls on the front lines, your shields, then 2 handed fighters, take the arrows protecting the poles, ranged and priests. (There would need to be some facing, three point calculations to make sure they are shooting the priest from behind.)

Obviously, poles and melee can all hit the front lines. They can also help heal up the front line.

If the front three of an aggressive formation dies, the formation collapses, needs to retreat and reform.

If 60% of the shields die in a defensive formation then it collapses.

If 50% of the neutral formation dies, it collapses.

If the front two of an ambush die, it collapses.

Being mounted, damage would be split, maybe 70% to riders and 30% to horses. More poles, more counter to horses, so ratio alters.

Weapons determine position, at the time the formation is put together, so, if you want the priest position equip a statuette. If you are a combat priest then have the right weapon.

 

Game mechanics

Ships have formations, we can already move in groups that are controlled by a team leader.

The shapes are simple, we have collision control from houses.

 

Ultimately, formations would help to reduce the hokey-pokey, put your right foot in, take your left foot out dancing around that we have for "player versus player" combat of today.

Edited March 29, 2014 by Jenshiye

[Argustin 249]

I think this is how weapons should act. That would make using weapons more like a tactic than just using my LS on everything. Nice post!

[Xallo 2650]

Agreed on the listing.

 

Coming off of this, I really think Wurm could use more different types of weapons. I know there's already a lot, but different types of huge axes, such as Danish, Bardiche, Labrys, as well as swords (in their own respective categories), such as the falchion, claymores, broadswords, sabres, and others. They wouldn't need to really have anything special to avoid complications, but let them fall into any of the already existing weapon categories for the skills, and just put a different model on them so there's a huge arsenal to choose from.

 

But that's just my personal opinion.

[Klaa 4871]

In a general sense, the weapons do behave in the described manner. With the exceptions of a few points such as 2handers nerfed while mounted.

 

Reach-wise there could be more exaggeration with melee weapons imho, even with polearms, range difference is barely noticeable.

 

EDIT: Course the recent tweaking with weapons is more along the lines of the various armor types and their glance rates against the dmg types.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Klaa

[Joemog 733]

You pretty much just summed up some stuff that won't work in the PvP game at all. As for a total rehaul of that many things it would also have to go deeper and consider variables such as meditation abilities, armours, shields, special moves and so on.

[rosedragon 2282]

I like!

[Jenshiye 146]

... a total rehaul of that many things it would ...

 

It is not so bad. There are only so many weapons and armours at this point. There are distancing calculations. Games with about the same number of developers have balanced worse.

[Jenshiye 146]

Formations added. 

[Alec 732]

Time to remake from zero all the combat system.

 

 

And, here, take my +1 for the formations.

[Jenshiye 146]

Poll added.

 

Going to play Wurm now.  

[Arronicus 733]

Traditionally, polearms were defensive weapons. Most of the suggestions made are reasonable, and potentially helpful, but polearms having low parry, and high damage, sticks out like a sore thumb to me. 

-1 on polearms

Medium weapons, you say medium damage, medium parry; does this mean you would take away any parry  and damage variance between swords, axes, and mauls, in the medium weapon range, or simply that their levels of parry and damage would be in the med ranges, so swords having a high-med parry but low-med damage, vs the opposite for axes and such? 

-1 if the former, +1 if the latter

Small weapons: Gonna have to go with my biggest -1 here, for small weapons not having a massive penalty on horses. With the limited reach, you'd have a wildly difficult time hitting any target that wasn't also using a small weapon, and be leaving yourself practically defenseless against someone with a long reach. The other aspects make sense.

Huge weapons, -1 for not having a bonus that negates the parrying effect of small weapons. You're making a big sacrifice for not having a shield equipped to deal with arrows, and I think addressing just how ridiculous it would be, trying to parry a 2h maul, axe, or even sword, with a shortsword, would gives players real incentive to branch off into 2h usage in group pvp.

As for formations, I think they would be neat, but I'm not sure which would be harder, 
1) Coding it to work properly, so that bonuses were given out without easy exploits to the system
2) Actually getting people to stay in formation

Lastly: Why is your priest at the back of the formations, or in the center? This makes sense for a Fo, or perhaps Vyn priest, but very little for mag priests. Penalizes the mag priest, by forcing him into a ranged role. Would recommend the removal of the priest from the dynamic, and simply have it as a generic player.

Overall, well thought out, good ideas to help out the development team in the right direction with the combat overhaul I think.

 

[Jenshiye 146]

Traditionally, polearms were defensive weapons. Most of the suggestions made are reasonable, and potentially helpful, but polearms having low parry, and high damage, sticks out like a sore thumb to me. 

-1 on polearms

 

Edited March 29, 2014 by Jenshiye

[Arronicus 733]

Charging horse impaled on a spear that is braced with one end into the ground and extending past a foot soldier, would not be both defensive and high damage?

Yes, quarterstaves are meant to be defensive according to TV. Having trained with a Bo, I would disagree and say that reach and attack are far more central to the weapon's function.

 

[Jenshiye 146]

Throw a large ball through the air, get a friend to throw a small one, hit it and alter its direction. Was their arm mysteriously shattered? Being attacked by the cat, back later.

[Arronicus 733]

Throw a large ball through the air, get a friend to throw a small one, hit it and alter its direction. Was their arm mysteriously shattered? Being attacked by the cat, back later.

Was the direction of the ball altered? That depends on the velocity and direction of the two balls, their masses, and the angle of impact. The greater the force of the larger ball relative to that of the smaller ball, the more direct the impact of the smaller ball must be, to have a noticable impact on the larger ball, until there is a point reached where no angle can be achieved where the smaller ball might sufficiently deflect the larger to avoid its target. The same could be said for an overhead slam from a two handed maul coming against a shortsword user. Sure, the shortsword user would likely be able to dodge the attack, but to parry it, would be suicidal. In the case of your two balls, was their arm shattered? I shouldn't think so, but I highly doubt you would toss your sword at an enemy's sword which he tossed at you. I also doubt your life is on the line in this situation.

Please upload pictures of cat. Preferably with ears back.

Edited March 30, 2014 by Arronicus

[Jenshiye 146]

 Sure, the shortsword user would likely be able to dodge the attack, ... to parry it, 

Please upload pictures of cat. Preferably with ears back.

 

Nom, nom, nom. Why not both? 

 

The cat is moderately famous, has been in films and commercials. I'd rather not leave out bread crumbs.

[blizzerd 53]

I want to put money on that circle formation having no actual real life succes, it is a "just as weak on all sides" formation, put pressure on 1 side and the formation will crumble since the men facing 45° away from the enemy will be unable to do anything to attack or defend but still be in the line of battle unless they break formation.

 

the "real" defencive formation is the triple line you call "neutral" but archers replaced by people with spears, its to defend against cavalry and dismount cavalry if they break the lines

 

also how would you acceave these benefits people get when they go into defencive or agressive formations?

 

if one groep gets "+1" (the +1 is a representation of the "benefit" these formations would give) defence and the other +1 attack its just gonna cancel each other out, if its +1 attack for the attacking force but +2 defence for the defending formation then everyone will pick defencive even when attacking and battles will just last longer...

 

dont get me wrong, i like the idea i just feel there should be some "rock paper cissors" element into it to prevent 1 size fits all formations. combined with that wurm rarely has enough people to actually make any cool or interesting use of this (but reducing minimum requirements for formations to no more then 10 people for the largest one and lets say start with formations of 5 for the smallest could fix this)

 

dont use this, i made it extreme to show how it could work, and used damage "distribution" as the mechanic

For example;

 

The neutral formation only makes 60% of the direct damage done to everyone in the first line actually hit on the person, 15% is immediately neutralised and the remaining 25% is spread in 10% to each person to his sides and 5% to the person behind him. (so a total of 85% damage is dealt to everyone in the first line)

 

This would cause the first line to effectively spread the damage they get to the lines behind them as long as pressure (damage) is evenly distributed, this makes the formation strong against other neutral formations and defensive formations but weak against agressive ones that can overwealm a specific point in the formation.

 

-

 

The agressive formation makes the outside forward layers do 200% the damage they normally would do. Also they receive 80% damage and distribute an extra 40% damage to the person behind them on the outside, and 20% for the person behind them that is on the inside of the formation (so a total of 140% damage taken, but 200% dealt, but combined with the fact that the people on the outside of the spear dont all hit the front line compensates for this)

 

This makes it superior for penetrating neutral formations, but weak against defensive ones since they distribute the damage to units not really in combat. neutral's damage spread is not good enough to negate the big damage bonus that is focussed on 2 or 3 units at the front, and even though the formation also makes the aggressive formation front line receive more damage then normally (and thus crumble way faster as people will die fast at the point) it balances out in their favour as long as they arent overwelmed and attack with the tip straight on.)

 

-

 

The defensive formation would make only 20% of damage on the outer layer actually hit on the person, the remaining 80% is distributed to each person in the inner circle (so the inner circle gets 10% damage each, distributing most damage evenly over people inside the inner circle)

 

this makes the formation strong against agressive formations because damage is superiorly spread trough the formation and in this way negates any damage advantage it gives, combined with the fact that the agressive formation will not be able to sustain damage for long and will crumble before the inner circle takes serious damage.

 

as my conclusion i would say this is probably not a good idea for wurm, its a cool idea, but not really worth the hassle in worm, just my 2 ct