Mangoose
Arcane
"Flurry of attacks" lol
Fuck, you guys really don't know the first thing about Chinese history. But by all means, carry on.
(Or, if you like, here's an easy-to-read primer: http://www.amazon.com/China-History-John-Keay/dp/0465025188 )
Enlighten us. Because nobody is going to read that, but there might be people interested, like me.
Very true. Happens in medieval longsword, too, if the manuals are true. Incidentally the pommel is used as a weapon at that point. Well, I guess you use everything you can when your adrenaline is fucking high during face-to-face grappling.Strength is important in boxing, too. Perhaps not to the extent that many guys go out of their way to weight train, but I have to think when they start leaning on one another and trying to force an opening that strength starts playing a bigger role than trying to evade a punch.
Sure, doesnt mean you are not wrong. I find uninformed opinions really distasteful. Especially when they are against something. I can excuse a fanboy, they dont know any better. But if you are hating, it better be because you know what you are talking about.Neither which properly reflect how such things are used in real combat which was the point of the comment.
You get the facts wrong then try to turn it on me? Go play the game before speaking about it and you wont get called on your bullshit.But feel free to be contentious if it brings you any sort of emotional satisfaction.
I disagree.But if you are hating, it better be because you know what you are talking about.
Even in boxing and MMA, where you are fighting with your own hands/feet and not a sharp weapon, strength is not as important as people think. Most old school boxers don't even lift weights, as they believe it makes them slow, and instead just do calisthenics.
Check out actual historical 2 handed axes, they had relatively tiny axe-heads and could be wielded with great speed and little strength.
But what about other stats? Are they going to have similar level of detail and fragmentation? Because if not, your system will be heavily skewed towards physical combat with little room for anything else.I'm doing an ARPG with a realtime fighting simulation that accounts for weapon weight and leverage. Instead of stats for each class of weapon I decided to have multiple strength stats. Nothing overly realistic, just a few simplified muscle groups. Arms, shoulders, and legs.
Arm strength lets you swing a sword faster, increasing hit chance and damage. Stronger arms let you handle a longer or heavier sword. Legs help too.. more so for spears, throwing, running, jumping, kicking. Shoulder strength is key for bow draw speed and steadiness, and helps with swords and shit.
Stamina/endurance (basically your heart muscle strength) also comes into play. So if you mash buttons and run around and swing wildly, or use a weapon that's too big, all your muscle groups lose strength until you catch your breath or get owned.
That's because they keep old stuff that's retarded and replace the rest with freshly invented retardation, rather than the other way around.But what's sad, is that all these decades later, most RPGs still use the same retarded stat approach.
It has, but sure as fuck not for "hurr I strong I swing moar DAMAGE!!!1".As you pointed out, strength has almost nothing to do with melee combat.
Check out actual historical 2 handed axes, they had relatively tiny axe-heads and could be wielded with great speed and little strength.
It even applies if you want to do something as basic and non-combative as chopping fucking wood.All the power in melee weapon fighting and boxing and MMA is generated not with your muscle strength but with coordinated body movements which use physics to generate power.
And weapons are really light, otherwise they would be useless.
It's like Fallout minigun crits, really.What people don't understand about longbow versus plate armor is the concept of More Dakka!! With mass volleys while the first arrow might only dent with continuous fire an arrow will eventually find a weakness.
So the question has been answered and the answer is "yes".Actually in diablo dexterity gave you your chance to hit, and STR mostly allowed you to use bigger weapons.Would Diablo be a better game if the name of the statistics were more pertinent to reality?
But im used to people making these statements, retarded shits that havent played diablo but think they know the game.
Diablo is NOT diablo 2, diablo is diablo, and its p. damn good.
Even with realistically light weapons you will get tired faster with heavier ones if you're wimpier. Fighting living opponent is also different from chopping at a static object as you have to react and the more strength you have the less will mass of your weapon slow down your reaction time.Wielding large weapons has more to do with footwork and learning how your maximize your power upon impact (obviously you need some body conditioning). In essence if you can properly use a Longsword you can properly use a Claymore from a strength perspective.
Obviously. Missing melee attacks is a broken abstraction of attacks not hitting because the target actively prevents that.As for dexterity, even people with basic weapon training don't miss their attacks, they either get blocked or parried. Perception is quite important in fight since even if you are a faster, a block is still a block, thus finding the angle is half of connecting. We can say that dexterity could represent the other half but I am being generous since it is a nebulous term in the weapon handling context (hand eye coordination would be more exact).
1) Assume there are only three attributes
2) STR = damage, DEX = hit and dodge, and CON = HP
3) You can only pick 2 out of 3
Even with a very simple system like this, interesting character concepts can still emerge.
STR + DEX = Duelist type. This guy is deadly and hard to reach, but if you manage to land a solid strike then he's going down. Good in one-on-one combat.
STR + CON = Barbarian type. He's powerful and can take a beating, but not very skilled. Good at AoE and also beating on large monsters/beasts.
DEX + CON = Paladin type. High defense and able to survive more than a few blows, but he lacks true stopping power. Good at protecting teammates and more versatile than the other two.
Perception + Willpower = ?When it comes to abstract combat attributes what do you guys think about this?
Strength - As in overall muscle bulk and fitness.
Perception - As in combat awareness, prediction and accuracy.
Agility - As in overall maneuverability,adaptability,flexibility.
Willpower - As in your determination, wits, concentration, spiritual power.
What I find interesting is by combining you get secondary attributes:
Dexterity/Dodge = Agility + Perception
Toughness/Constitution = Strength + Willpower
Stamina/Endurance = Strength + Agility
Bows/Throwing = Strength + Perception
It also have multiple different attacks equal in value.
Strength can have powerful blows,
Perception can have deadly critical attacks(as in target vitals or chinks in the armor),
Agility for a flurry of attacks,
While willpower focuses on defense.
It even creates a RPS system where Strength<Perception<Agility<Willpower<Strength.
Few games wouldnt be better if they cut the gamey shit. More specifically on this genre.So the question has been answered and the answer is "yes".
Hard requirements are shit, though.
Sure, doesnt mean you are not wrong. I find uninformed opinions really distasteful. Especially when they are against something. I can excuse a fanboy, they dont know any better. But if you are hating, it better be because you know what you are talking about.Neither which properly reflect how such things are used in real combat which was the point of the comment.
You get the facts wrong then try to turn it on me? Go play the game before speaking about it and you wont get called on your bullshit.But feel free to be contentious if it brings you any sort of emotional satisfaction.
In most games strength, dexterity, intelligence etc. can be translated to "the meele dmg stat, the range dmg stat, the magic dmg stat etc.".
Would Diablo be a better game if the name of the statistics were more pertinent to reality? I really don't think so.
NOTE: I am not saying a more realistic combat system would immediately be more enjoyable. Slaughtering things by the thousands in Dynasty Warrios or Diablo certainly has its appeal. I am just saying that using more realistic metaphors for completely abstract combat systems like those is probably unnecessary.
Neither which properly reflect how such things are used in real combat which was the point of the comment.
In the hoary old days, the pnp rpgs didn't have attributes affecting combat like this, and for good reason. Strength was there for your ability to carry stuff (more loot!) and to break stuff open (to find more loot!), and that's all. Bows all did the same damage, because it's the arrowhead that matters most for the damage, not the size and pull of the bow. Size and pull mattered for range and countering wind, and thus were all about the range increments (plus penetration at close ranges in rpgs that factored that in). Melee wasn't that much different, as application of any additional strength than is necessary to cut a hole in someone's vitals is just wasted effort. And in the old days, those kinds of things mattered, back when rpgs were closer to war games.
But all of this is moot anyways. Having Strength affect melee damage as it does is just one of those things that "makes sense" to people. So much so that they endlessly whine and cry about it if it isn't there. More than a BSN dweller who hears there won't be romances, if you can imagine.
Even in boxing and MMA, where you are fighting with your own hands/feet and not a sharp weapon, strength is not as important as people think. Most old school boxers don't even lift weights, as they believe it makes them slow, and instead just do calisthenics. Mike Tyson, in his prime, did not lift weights
Even in boxing and MMA, where you are fighting with your own hands/feet and not a sharp weapon, strength is not as important as people think. Most old school boxers don't even lift weights, as they believe it makes them slow, and instead just do calisthenics. Mike Tyson, in his prime, did not lift weights
Just because they didn't lift weights, doesn't mean they still weren't freakishly strong (Cus D'amato for example built Tyson's punching power by making him use heavier than norm punching bags since early teens).
Small guys beating up on people thrice their size and weight (who've had similar training) with super technique is the domain of anime and Holywood (and well maybe early days UFC when no one knew how to defend against BJJ). In reality, weight classes exists for a reason, a run of the mill heavyweighter would crush Mayweather (one of the best in history) in the ring, let alone outside it. The difference in height, reach and mass would be just too big to compensate with speed, footwork and technique. I mean, Ali certainly wasn't known for his plant feet punching power but put him in lower weight class division and he would have knocked them around silly.
Now granted, things could be very different with medieval weaponry involved but I imagine there's a good chance that two heavily armored combatants would eventually start grappling/wrestling each other.
Not that I think it's that important, there are a number of character archetypes in CPRG that have no basis in reality but are still fun to play for many people like a dual-wielding nimble fighter that evades blows and dances around his opponent or some such.
It's the same with Fallout.2. Most people say directly Diablo when talking about the franchise or the franchise (and you know this)
No game equals diablo 1, except diablo 1.1. Most games doesn't equal Diablo I
Most people havent played diablo 1. also what DraQ said.2. Most people say directly Diablo when talking about the franchise or the franchise (and you know this)
You could have generalized even further and went with the entire genre, maybe naming the 3 exceptions there are to this day.3. Every single game in the Diablo franchise uses stats in a way that isn't pertinent to melee combat (which again, was part of my point) hence I didn't feel the need to differentiate.
Im being willfully obtuse because im tired of stupid uninformed generalizations. Especially from people i expect know better.4. You either have having reading comprehension issues or are being willfully obtuse to rage about a detail that you know I know and which isn't relevant to my point.
Irrelevant, your point was obvious before you ever made it, the least you could do is be precise.5. Maybe my paraphrasing was a bit weird but reading the entire comment reveals my point exactly.
Japanese had longer swords and other deadlier weapons like the Naginata. They were banned in modern Japan, that's probably why the Katana become so iconic. This is what little I know from doing background research for my games.
What people don't understand about longbow versus plate armor is the concept of More Dakka!! With mass volleys while the first arrow might only dent with continuous fire an arrow will eventually find a weakness.true that,but really it wasnt possible for a longbow arrow to pierce plate armour at standard battlefield distances.
Armor is not invulnerable, to be effective in battle you have to have a trade-of between the amount of protection you have and actually going up to an enemy and fighting.
You can make yourself a turtle that is invulnerable but there is no point if you can't kill your enemy. In fact its more easy to grapple you and incapacitate where you will be at their mercy just like a real turtle.
Two, because much Medieval personal combat was essentially grappling and getting in close and dirty with someone else to get past their weapons reach and used yours to vulnerabilities in the armour to shove a blade into or at least bash to cripple your opponent.
To think that personal combat back then was only people keeping a distance swinging their weapons at each other is as silly as when people under valued grappling/wrestling martial arts compared to striking ones until the early UFCs showed how easily they could bypass the strikers attacks and pull them helplessly to the ground.
And the fact that you were in a campaign and had to march all over the place.One, because armour wasn't as heavy or as cumbersome as we commonly imagine it to be today. The tiring effects of armour mainly came from being enveloped in metal for hours doing strenuous physical activity that would make someone naked pour with sweat, let alone doing it under the light of the sun.
That's what I said already.Two, because much Medieval personal combat was essentially grappling and getting in close and dirty with someone else to get past their weapons reach and used yours to vulnerabilities in the armour to shove a blade into or at least bash to cripple your opponent.
I will leave this here though: China has been centrally governed for about half of the time of its written history, and during those times, it has been and continues to be one hell of a difficult country to govern. Over the last 4000 years, it's gone through many upswings and downswings, periods of burgeoning innovation and rigid stagnation, order and chaos.
And the fact that you were in a campaign and had to march all over the place.
Anyways, however accurate your observations are Beastro, I still think the 1 on 1 dueling comparison is more applicable to a cRPG than what an actual battlefield would look like. After all, the combat is usually more discrete 1 on 1 or 2 on 1 than the scrum that was a medieval battle.
It remains the same in 1 on 1 duels, which is why the comparison to MMA is apt. Combat back then wasn't a set match peace beyond jousting, going against someone meant using everything available to you to win and it's why fencing is now so divorced from it's warfare grounded roots. All those silly little rules that keep the duel at range and encourage striking and wins with mere touches would never fly in a real fight just as fancy striking martial arts don't work when the opponent while just tackle you to the ground, sit on you and turn your face into hamburger, which is what become the dominate technique in MMA once the original era of different styles competing against each other died out and was replaced with the first generation of mixed martial artists.
In a Medieval duel there'd be no ref off to the side ready to stop the fight if duelist did that and then tell the two to stand up, stand apart and resume fighting at weapons reach. If the fight went the the ground then firsts, pommels and guards were used to desperately injury an opponent until they yielded and it's why the European sword is so misunderstood and better looked in many of it's forms as a multi-tool where every end could be used as a weapon in the same way the different sides of a polearms head were used for different functions.
The reason why HEMA and older weapon martial arts keep fighting to clinical strikes and at range is the same reason why many unarmed martial arts stick to striking and keeping fights standing up, fighting on the ground is dangerous and one can easily fuck up an opponent breaking bones and causing unnecessary wounds. It's also nasty and inelegant, which is the main reason why MMA has such an odious reputation with people like politicians and the fact that even in duels it was common and not surprising for people to die fighting in them in the Middle Ages, which was half the appeal in much the same way car crashes are in modern racing sports. It was arguably more dangerous to be a dedicated tournament fighter than an actual soldier because you fought far more frequently, but the upside was the pay and fame was thus more regular than campaigning for months on end supporting yourself hoping to fight a battle and capture enemies to random and the equipment of the fallen collect and resell.
It's for that reason that William Marshall gained so much of his fame, winning (and living long enough to win) 500 matches which he effectively made a career of because, despite being one of the best fighters of his time, he had bad luck in combat capturing opponents and making money from it, something so pronounced that he was regularly and openly mocked for it by other English knights as a young man fighting in France.
These are pretty good points. An over abundance of strength CAN make up for having poor technique. In which case, you'd need an equal over abundance in agility/weapon skill to counter it.
Made me think of that fight im GoT with The Mountain and the quick/flashy persian looking guy.
When it comes to abstract combat attributes what do you guys think about this?
Strength - As in overall muscle bulk and fitness.
Perception - As in combat awareness, prediction and accuracy.
Agility - As in overall maneuverability,adaptability,flexibility.
Willpower - As in your determination, wits, concentration, spiritual power.