Combat defense

[Hamel]

And combat will, indeed, be getting a major overhaul. Jorb and I are still in the process of developing a replacement for the current system, however.

http://www.taleworlds.com/

;D

[theTrav]

fisticuffs should always be at a disadvantage to an armed opponent of equal training

My rebuttal is martial arts.

A martial artist is not an unarmed specialist.

A martial artist armed with a weapon he is trained in will KICK THE SHIT out of an unarmed martial artist of equal training most days of the week.

[memestream]

fisticuffs should always be at a disadvantage to an armed opponent of equal training

My rebuttal is martial arts.

Swordsmanship is a martial art.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38sVdx7nzhQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TzdtyMC7ek
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kj4Ng6DB ... re=related

Why do people underestimate European martial arts so often? Seasoned fighters used their weapons in ways that most of us have never even thought about.

[Leonon]

fisticuffs should always be at a disadvantage to an armed opponent of equal training

This would definitely be realistic, but would cut into gameplay fun if the skills were very dissimilar in their usefulness. If UA would always lose to Melee of the same LP investment then there would be no real use for UA to even be in the game, and visa versa.

Useless skills=bad

[niltrias]

fisticuffs should always be at a disadvantage to an armed opponent of equal training

This would definitely be realistic, but would cut into gameplay fun if the skills were very dissimilar in their usefulness. If UA would always lose to Melee of the same LP investment then there would be no real use for UA to even be in the game, and visa versa.

Useless skills=bad

Not really. The UA user doesnt need to constantly upgrade to the newest Q weapons like the melee guy does, and has more inv space for carrying. Seems like a fair trade off to me.

[Axehilt]

fisticuffs should always be at a disadvantage to an armed opponent of equal training

My rebuttal is martial arts.

Swordsmanship is a martial art.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38sVdx7nzhQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TzdtyMC7ek
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kj4Ng6DB ... re=related

Why do people underestimate European martial arts so often? Seasoned fighters used their weapons in ways that most of us have never even thought about.

Hmm, so is this your logic?

• Swordsmanship is a martial art.
• Therefore all martial arts are swordsmanship.

Because that's the only way I could see your post acting as a rebuttal for the idea that martial arts (some of them) are unarmed.

[theTrav]

Hmm, so is this your logic?

• Swordsmanship is a martial art.
• Therefore all martial arts are swordsmanship.

Because that's the only way I could see your post acting as a rebuttal for the idea that martial arts (some of them) are unarmed.

I don't think you're quite following the thread there dude...

The original point was made by me than unarmed < armed where training and competence in your style are approximately equal.

The rebuttal was "martial arts"

Meme and I think that's a stupid rebuttal because martial arts refers neither to just unarmed combat, nor armed combat... Our assumption is probably that btaylor has too high an opinion of kung fu, but he hasn't actually said that.

If UA would always lose to Melee of the same LP investment then there would be no real use for UA to even be in the game, and visa versa

1 - Colour
2 - Delamore claims he was killed because he didn't have his melee weapon on him
3 - You can't have a sword and a shield, AND a scythe wielded at the same time.
4 - I don't really think any fight should have a guaranteed outcome from the outset, but having a weapon you know how to use should be an advantage, currently it's a disadvantage.

[Gaiadin]

I don't understand, unless you're referring only to the battleaxe. Currently block is 50% more effective at avoiding damage than dodge, so effectively Unarmed is 50% worse for defense, right?

[Axehilt]

I don't think you're quite following the thread there dude...

The original point was made by me than unarmed < armed where training and competence in your style are approximately equal.

The rebuttal was "martial arts"

Meme and I think that's a stupid rebuttal because martial arts refers neither to just unarmed combat, nor armed combat... Our assumption is probably that btaylor has too high an opinion of kung fu, but he hasn't actually said that.

If Joe invests 100 in Combat Skill A and Bob 100 in Combat Skill B, and the two aren't almost identically balanced in combat strength, that's a fundamental design flaw. And ideally Bob and Joe's playstyles should be distinct from one another as a result of their different chioces.

So really what you should've suggested is the removal of Unarmed entirely as a skill, because that makes far more sense than leaving it in but having it be a terrible choice.

[memestream]

My rebuttal is martial arts.

Swordsmanship is a martial art.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38sVdx7nzhQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TzdtyMC7ek
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kj4Ng6DB ... re=related

Why do people underestimate European martial arts so often? Seasoned fighters used their weapons in ways that most of us have never even thought about.

Hmm, so is this your logic?

• Swordsmanship is a martial art.
• Therefore all martial arts are swordsmanship.

Because that's the only way I could see your post acting as a rebuttal for the idea that martial arts (some of them) are unarmed.

What? How on earth did you get that idea? Why do so many people around here favor strawman arguments instead of simply asking for clarification?

My point was that 'martial arts' is not a rebuttal to the idea that somebody who was armed should be on equal footing with someone who is unarmed. Swordsmanship is also a martial art. A skilled swordsman will know how to avoid being disarmed and will use the weapon to it's full advantage. Not just referring to swords though, any weapon for that matter. Weapons are going to be more effective in trained hands than bare hands are. There's a reason that weapons exist actually, and I have a good feeling that it's because they improve one's combat ability when used correctly.

From a mechanics standpoint, swords require an investiture of metal(which isn't cheap for most players!) and inventory space, therefore they should be more effective for the amount of LP spent.

And unarmed would still be an excellent choice for many people. It doesn't require you to wield anything in your hands or take up inventory space. This allows you a much greater element of flexibility, as you always have your weapon with you. Have you ever caught somebody ingame who was a melee specialist without their shield? They get tore up very fast...