The Ghost of Christmas Future, II

[jorb]

the possibility of this gap existing in a pvp permadeath game is fucking ridiculous and embarrassing to begin with, but i dont expect it to change. haven will always be hamstrung by it.

You don't engage in the discussion that loftar is offering you, and all you bother to express is some general boohoo about how we refuse to listen to you, reason, and whatever, and about how we in our incurable stubbornness will always make the wrong decisions on the matter.

Forgive me if I have a bit of a hard time taking you seriously.

We have a lot of sympathy for the basic complaint that gaps in character stats make a too big, and perhaps more importantly also a too rigid, difference in combat, and we always have.

[jorb]

here we are, six years later, and a veteran is seriously suggesting a scenario where one dude can effortlessly dispatch five other dudes like this was fucking dynasty warriors except in a pvp permadeath game... this should never occur

Ah, so a swarm of alts should always prevail over actual characters?

Good to know.

[LadyV]

Ill be the first to admit Im no combat expert in Haven. I have listened to these argument s for quite some time now. Personally Im not entirely sure the combat system its self has to change. As I see it the weapons, armor... are at fault.

Every weapon and piece of armor should have an advantage toward a weapon or style. As it stands now you know you have to get steel plate, dragon helm, B12... When in practicality every warrior should be different and skilled toward their chosen gear.

Lets take an opponent with the traditional set up as listed above. As we sit now you pretty much have the same gear to combat him. However in practice a crushing or chopping weapon such as a mace, flail, war hammer, battle axe... would work best against plate armors.

In armor obviously to counter your opponent you want lighter armor to out maneuver him as plate is very heavy.

If we take an archer if equipped with metal tipped arrows he can pierce metal armors. And if used in mass can devastate heavily armored opponents. They can quickly fire and retreat. Obviously targeting metal armor weak spots.

An archers armor should be light or it penalize your aim and movement.

with the introduction of horses we open up a whole field of combats like lances, slash attacks, and mounted archery.

haven has it maneuvers and stances and such but it should also have a unit tactics. If a group is working together toward a goal that gives them a significant advantage over an open field style of combat. Take he classic archer on the front line for opening volleys and then falling back behind heavier troops for support.

Haven need to return importance to whatever weapon, armor, style to choose. A Master archer should be able to fell a armored knight just as much as a armored knight should be able to fell a lightly armed swordsmen... I think we went wrong when we made battle mono style. One set of gear or you fail is just bad. If every weapon and armor has potential with the right planning, skills, and arrangement to kill then you change the whole system to favor the role of chance and skill.

You show up against an opponent who has your perfect counter its going to get bloody. And in that instance all the skill in the world won't negate chance. That lowly new player who invested in his pike and light armor catches you using say a lance with heavy armor on a horse. Oops!

Return strategy to the players instead of the gear. Then maybe the system would be fixed because that mono-battle is no more and you always have a chance of failure, even if slim.

Now about the lets run away situation...what about a simple morale system. Nothing complex just a simple bonus or penalty. Maybe even set min and max... Say +3 or -3? So if you flee combat you are considered in rout and accrue a penalty for it that last for a set period of time. Say you win a battle you then accrue a positive morale that lasts a set period of time. Bonus or penalty during its duration it gives you a modifier to combat. If your moral is low you fight worse. If it is high you fight better. Keep it simple. Punish rout and reward success.

Alright I know this will get picked apart but that's how I see it.

[Massa]

Ill be the first to admit Im no combat expert in Haven. I have listened to these argument s for quite some time now. Personally Im not entirely sure the combat system its self has to change. As I see it the weapons, armor... are at fault.

Every weapon and piece of armor should have an advantage toward a weapon or style. As it stands now you know you have to get steel plate, dragon helm, B12... When in practicality every warrior should be different and skilled toward their chosen gear.

Lets take an opponent with the traditional set up as listed above. As we sit now you pretty much have the same gear to combat him. However in practice a crushing or chopping weapon such as a mace, flail, war hammer, battle axe... would work best against plate armors.

In armor obviously to counter your opponent you want lighter armor to out maneuver him as plate is very heavy.

If we take an archer if equipped with metal tipped arrows he can pierce metal armors. And if used in mass can devastate heavily armored opponents. They can quickly fire and retreat. Obviously targeting metal armor weak spots.

An archers armor should be light or it penalize your aim and movement.

with the introduction of horses we open up a whole field of combats like lances, slash attacks, and mounted archery.

haven has it maneuvers and stances and such but it should also have a unit tactics. If a group is working together toward a goal that gives them a significant advantage over an open field style of combat. Take he classic archer on the front line for opening volleys and then falling back behind heavier troops for support.

Haven need to return importance to whatever weapon, armor, style to choose. A Master archer should be able to fell a armored knight just as much as a armored knight should be able to fell a lightly armed swordsmen... I think we went wrong when we made battle mono style. One set of gear or you fail is just bad. If every weapon and armor has potential with the right planning, skills, and arrangement to kill then you change the whole system to favor the role of chance and skill.

You show up against an opponent who has your perfect counter its going to get bloody. And in that instance all the skill in the world won't negate chance. That lowly new player who invested in his pike and light armor catches you using say a lance with heavy armor on a horse. Oops!

Return strategy to the players instead of the gear. Then maybe the system would be fixed because that mono-battle is no more and you always have a chance of failure, even if slim.

Now about the lets run away situation...what about a simple morale system. Nothing complex just a simple bonus or penalty. Maybe even set min and max... Say +3 or -3? So if you flee combat you are considered in rout and accrue a penalty for it that last for a set period of time. Say you win a battle you then accrue a positive morale that lasts a set period of time. Bonus or penalty during its duration it gives you a modifier to combat. If your moral is low you fight worse. If it is high you fight better. Keep it simple. Punish rout and reward success.

Alright I know this will get picked apart but that's how I see it.

What's at fault is the fact that mobility is king and always will be in skirmishes.
The defence bar is at fault. You won't just shrug off a 70 pound slug of sharp steel and not notice any bodily damage.
That thing will rip you in half.

[LadyV]

What's at fault is the fact that mobility is king and always will be in skirmishes.
The defence bar is at fault. You won't just shrug off a 70 pound slug of sharp steel and not notice any bodily damage.
That thing will rip you in half.

We do agree on mobility being king. And yes if you get hit you should feel it. But if your charging in full heavy gear and come across an equally skilled person in lighter armor with say a flail or mace type of weapon he is going to dance around you more easily. With less encumbrance he may even get more hits on you. And that is the way it should be. The concept I hit I kill is flawed. Chance, skill, armor and weapon selection should all play equally important roles.

As for that 70 pound slug of sharp steel it should affect your agility and dex just as any armor. As I said you take two equal warriors and you choose the wrong gear to fight them with you could die regardless of skill. What was the medieval king that showed up with his grand armor of heavy warriors and encountered lightly armored archers? He died with his men unable to react fast enough.

[LordKefty]

I played Hearthstone a while back, but the fun eventually edged out. I have not returned since then, and came across this video by a pure coinsidence.

Now I want to point out how gratefull I am for this update. It looks absolutely amazing, and I literally can not wait no longer!!! I want to create my character and pick that branch!

Awesome work, keep it up! I trust you, developers! Please finish fast!

-Sincerely, an excited, outdated Haven player.

[TeckXKnight]

I'm not sure if there's anything particularly meaningful anyone can say about combat. The problem with it is that it's combat. You have players who are very obviously not close to on par with one another in terms of skill, practice, stats, equipment, or number of players fighting with one another to a permanent death. No matter how you budge it, in favor of either side, you will create soreness without any real gain. Unless there's some magical way to match people in combat to someone they stand a chance against, this is just the nature of the beast. The only solution that I can think of, and I feel this way about everything so it's not even particularly note worthy, is to take out the all-or-nothingness of combat. Give damage taken some degree of lasting debuff and severity but also make it easier to escape once you've taken damage. This way skirmishes don't end in death but instead with escapees that end up suffering a bit more than just a few hours of bandages and leeches.

This still wouldn't save the brand-newbie against a raider with a B12 and an R-Bow, but your forager isn't totally fucked if someone spots you.

Give people some kinds of unfair advantages for engaging and disengaging or else combat will always end in a stalemate of who can route along terrain/rivers for 3 hours the best.

[Xcom]

Face wrecked. Not a single question answered. : (

[jorb]

Just a few questions about the upcoming combat.

1. Will it be like its now where moves create a deadlock towards the target? or can we get it so all combat actions needs to be targeted. It would make combat a whole lot more reliable.

That's how it is now, at least. What do you mean by targeted? That I actually have to click the player I want to attack every time I want to execute an attack?

2. Will signs have hitboxes and be abused in combat like force fields?

They probably can now, but we could perhaps add some delay to their placement or whatever.

3. Will it be possible to make all combat actions preformed in the same tick, i.e. two people using valor on each other from a distance being able to use the valor at the same time instead of one move going of before the other.

This timing scenario seems like an edge case. Are you sure it is important?

4. Will there be any mechanics similar to einher so combat recovery will be possible and not die and completely become useless in combat for another few grindy months?

I like the Einherjer mechanic as such, although perhaps not everything about its execution, so I should think there'll be something like it. Nothing like it has been implemented yet, however.

5. How will horses play into this new combat? Won't they become extremely overpowered? Will they be able to swim cross rivers and if not wont this create an extreme advantage for the defenders living on a larger landmass? If they can, wont it simply be a perfect gank squad mechanic.

Very good question, and one that I myself loose a fair amount of sleep over.

I would for one thing like to add more hard stealth mechanics of various kinds, where, say, a wee noob can dodge into and disappear and hide in the shrubs, or whatever, to presumably have a chance to elude the cavalry. I would also like to make horses themselves prone to panics and relatively easy to startle into throwing off their rider (with some sort of knock-out debuff applied to him) if not trained extremely well. Generally speaking I feel that horses should imply high risk to compensate the high reward they intrinsically provide.

[dafels]

I like the Einherjer mechanic as such, although perhaps not everything about its execution, so I should think there'll be something like it. Nothing like it has been implemented yet, however.

pls no

I hope the game will be permadeath, not like haven's "permadeath", where many people kill their chars on purpose and respawn it 2x stronger with einherjer and almostly the base same stats, that's not permadeath at all.

please make the game to actually be permadeath, not like this