275 réponses à ce sujet

[ViSeiRa]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Well, isn't that what greatswords actaully are..longer longswords? Not thicker, not wider - just longer.

Allow me:
www.thehaca.com/

That method would produce incorrect results. A swrod is not a iron bar. Even the tioniest difference in shape can affect the balance and weight considerbaly.
www.thearma.org/essays/2HGS.html

That was my argument all along in the leaked gameplay thread, I kept telling them greatswords are not as bulky and wide as they though, I even gave them the arma essay twice but it seems nobody wants to even look at it.... ugh at least they toned down the animations a little bit.

[Lotion Soronarr]

tool_bot wrote...
And yet when we're discussing body proportions everyone's willing to ignore the opinion of experts. 

When did that happen? Are you reffering to the huge hands in DAO? Or the too broad shoulders for femlaes?  Ye Gods, those were an eyesore!

[ViSeiRa]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

tool_bot wrote...
And yet when we're discussing body proportions everyone's willing to ignore the opinion of experts. 

When did that happen? Are you reffering to the huge hands in DAO? Or the too broad shoulders for femlaes?  Ye Gods, those were an eyesore!

That has been fixed in DA2, every race and gender has their own custom rig now....

[jsachun]

Lumikki wrote...

mm.. but speed was never even my issue, it was the japanese anime style. You know character with over size weapon spinning, hopping and rolling in combat.

It amazes me how everybody bags out the unrealistic combat prowess of the warrior, yet fail to see how unrealistic combat skills of rogues & mages are in the game. It seems like warriors have been scaled back somehow yet mages & rogues have been made in to some sort of super duper ninja/wizard fighting machine in DA2. Shame on Bioware for thinking this is the way forward in a fantasy role playing game.  

Modifié par jsachun, 05 octobre 2010 - 08:01 .

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Morroian wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
It doesn't really, aside from how silly it looks swinging a sword that size at the speed of light.

You keep saying this after they've said they are slowing it down.

Sure, aside from actual special attacks/skills will still be most likely be ridiculous looking. I s'pose though thats somewhat of a compromise. Gotta cater to that target demographic doncha know.

I don't think you can take one feature out of the game and paint a picture of what the target demographic is. I highly doubt the target demographic is any different from any other BioWare game. If anything, it's like the ME (or Jade or even KOTOR) series where they just expanded what they are trying to catch.

Actually adding all the announced features together paints a pretty picture of what the target demographic is and I'll give you a hint, its not the old timers.

[nightcobra]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Morroian wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
It doesn't really, aside from how silly it looks swinging a sword that size at the speed of light.

You keep saying this after they've said they are slowing it down.

Sure, aside from actual special attacks/skills will still be most likely be ridiculous looking. I s'pose though thats somewhat of a compromise. Gotta cater to that target demographic doncha know.

I don't think you can take one feature out of the game and paint a picture of what the target demographic is. I highly doubt the target demographic is any different from any other BioWare game. If anything, it's like the ME (or Jade or even KOTOR) series where they just expanded what they are trying to catch.

Actually adding all the announced features together paints a pretty picture of what the target demographic is and I'll give you a hint, its not the old timers.

so i guess i'm not an old timer since i like the way DA2 is going to be even though my earliest gaming experience was playing pac-man on DOS and my first console being the megadrive and even having enjoyed BG2 in it's day. but i guess that is all small potatoes since my age is determined wether i like or not DA2's changes.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

nightcobra8928 wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Morroian wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
It doesn't really, aside from how silly it looks swinging a sword that size at the speed of light.

You keep saying this after they've said they are slowing it down.

Sure, aside from actual special attacks/skills will still be most likely be ridiculous looking. I s'pose though thats somewhat of a compromise. Gotta cater to that target demographic doncha know.

I don't think you can take one feature out of the game and paint a picture of what the target demographic is. I highly doubt the target demographic is any different from any other BioWare game. If anything, it's like the ME (or Jade or even KOTOR) series where they just expanded what they are trying to catch.

Actually adding all the announced features together paints a pretty picture of what the target demographic is and I'll give you a hint, its not the old timers.

so i guess i'm not an old timer since i like the way DA2 is going to be even though my earliest gaming experience was playing pac-man on DOS and my first console being the megadrive and even having enjoyed BG2 in it's day. but i guess that is all small potatoes since my age is determined wether i like or not DA2's changes.

Ok I'll rephrase it, Its not being made for  the people who enjoy traditional story telling in their CPRG's over the Mass Effect style of flash.

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

Yeah, I kinda winced when I heard a description of the rogue fighting style animations a few weeks back. I haven't seen any yet so I won't say anything but it didn't sound like anything I would want to deal with. I hope I'm wrong and they look awesome.

[shootist70]

ViSeirA wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Well, isn't that what greatswords actaully are..longer longswords? Not thicker, not wider - just longer.

Allow me:
www.thehaca.com/

That method would produce incorrect results. A swrod is not a iron bar. Even the tioniest difference in shape can affect the balance and weight considerbaly.
www.thearma.org/essays/2HGS.html

That was my argument all along in the leaked gameplay thread, I kept telling them greatswords are not as bulky and wide as they though, I even gave them the arma essay twice but it seems nobody wants to even look at it.... ugh at least they toned down the animations a little bit.

I had a quick look at it, Pretty interesting. I'm not hung up on ultra-realism - we only need enough for a decent amount of suspension of disbelief. But both the two handed animations from DAO and what we've seen for DA2 break that for me. Bioware seem to have found a happy medium and that sounds fair enough. The DA2 animations look too kung fu movie atm, yet for me the DAO ones were worse.

I'm more willing to believe in a fantasy warrior who can move at lightning speed than one who looks like he can't fight decently with his weapon. As folks have pointed out, these swords weren't that heavy, but balace is more of an issue than weight anyway. Two handers had big pommel weights and hilt-guards to keep the centre of gravity closer to the body. The weight was not uniform across the length of the weapon. That means that you can whip the blade around in a swift and vicious manner.

You'd need to do that. In combat if fighting techniques pull you off balance and out of your combat stance then you're quickly going to die. It's exactly those moments that all fighters look for and jump on as soon as they see them. The two-handed warriors in DAO fought clumsily and off-balance all the time, so it was a bit immerson breaking to watch.

Modifié par shootist70, 05 octobre 2010 - 09:12 .

[Akka le Vil]

The Woldan wrote...

Not really, two handed swords were able to cut through chain mail quiet easily (arrows were able to penetrate it).

No.
Sword weren't able to CUT a chainmail - they would dislocate some rings with a blow, and would hurt the wearer by the concussive strength, but unlike in Hollywood, you don't slice through metal rings effortlessly. Of course, it happened that some very powerful blow would smash enough rings to penetrate the chainmail, but most of the time the armor absorbed most of the damage - which could be enough to have the soldier barely grazed, or not enough and have him killed, but anyway it increased a lot his survivability.
Samely, standard arrows had a lot of trouble penetrating the chainmails - it's why they designed special arrows with small heads to slide between the rings.

In fact, two handed weapons have been invented to give them some extra power to be able to defeat enemies in platemail. Its hard to kill somebody in full platemail with a sword? No, its not. A full power swing to the helmet and the neck is broken, a decent hit on the arm and its broken too, despite the armor.
A full swing to the chest might not penetrate the armor but it will dent the armor and break the bones behind it, your enemy will also have troubles to breathe in a completely dented armor.
Of course, blunt weapons worked even better (hammer, flail)

Actually, two-handed weapons were more designed about range than extra power. Two-handed swords were more about cutting the haft of polearms (though yes, they were ALSO designed to penetrate armour), and most "armor-piercing" weapons were maces, warhammers, halberds and the like (blunt weapons to conduct the energy through the rigid plate or the flexible chainmail, and piercing weapons to concentrate the power of the blow on a small area and get through the armour), many of them being one-handed weapons.

And again, of course that you COULD kill someone in armour (or else the battles would never end...), but it was clearly not as easy as you describe "just land a hit on him and his armour will be crushed !". If they invented such heavy and expensive armour, it's because they actually worked. You required a lucky heavy blow to harm someone wearing one, which isn't easy to do (they ARE fighting you and not just laying low waiting for the strike after all).
As a testament of how efficient armour were, they made shields obsolete with time. You don't throw away your shield if your armour doesn't do the job well.

[jsachun]

Akka le Vil wrote...

The Woldan wrote...

Not really, two handed swords were able to cut through chain mail quiet easily (arrows were able to penetrate it).

No.
Sword weren't able to CUT a chainmail - they would dislocate some rings with a blow, and would hurt the wearer by the concussive strength, but unlike in Hollywood, you don't slice through metal rings effortlessly. Of course, it happened that some very powerful blow would smash enough rings to penetrate the chainmail, but most of the time the armor absorbed most of the damage - which could be enough to have the soldier barely grazed, or not enough and have him killed, but anyway it increased a lot his survivability.
Samely, standard arrows had a lot of trouble penetrating the chainmails - it's why they designed special arrows with small heads to slide between the rings.

In fact, two handed weapons have been invented to give them some extra power to be able to defeat enemies in platemail. Its hard to kill somebody in full platemail with a sword? No, its not. A full power swing to the helmet and the neck is broken, a decent hit on the arm and its broken too, despite the armor.
A full swing to the chest might not penetrate the armor but it will dent the armor and break the bones behind it, your enemy will also have troubles to breathe in a completely dented armor.
Of course, blunt weapons worked even better (hammer, flail)

Actually, two-handed weapons were more designed about range than extra power. Two-handed swords were more about cutting the haft of polearms (though yes, they were ALSO designed to penetrate armour), and most "armor-piercing" weapons were maces, warhammers, halberds and the like (blunt weapons to conduct the energy through the rigid plate or the flexible chainmail, and piercing weapons to concentrate the power of the blow on a small area and get through the armour), many of them being one-handed weapons.

And again, of course that you COULD kill someone in armour (or else the battles would never end...), but it was clearly not as easy as you describe "just land a hit on him and his armour will be crushed !". If they invented such heavy and expensive armour, it's because they actually worked. You required a lucky heavy blow to harm someone wearing one, which isn't easy to do (they ARE fighting you and not just laying low waiting for the strike after all).
As a testament of how efficient armour were, they made shields obsolete with time. You don't throw away your shield if your armour doesn't do the job well.

You can always target the limbs at the right angle and severe them. As you know to make someone  mobile in armour they always made the limbs the Achilies heel. Although they probably had chainmail underneath their plate to avoid this. Besides weren't crossbows made to pierce armour at short distance. I thought it was the crossbows and the guns that saw the end of the metal armour plating on human beings.

[shootist70]

Akka le Vil wrote...

And again, of course that you COULD kill someone in armour (or else the battles would never end...), but it was clearly not as easy as you describe "just land a hit on him and his armour will be crushed !". If they invented such heavy and expensive armour, it's because they actually worked. You required a lucky heavy blow to harm someone wearing one, which isn't easy to do (they ARE fighting you and not just laying low waiting for the strike after all).
As a testament of how efficient armour were, they made shields obsolete with time. You don't throw away your shield if your armour doesn't do the job well.

Well...yes and no. Full plate armour was never designed for toe-to-toe prolonged melee fighting as you see in DAO. It was for shock troops - heavy cavalry and the like - and was about protecting a warrior during a charge that was meant to break an enemy formation. As such it would keep you alive from blows on the way in and was a bit like a car crumple zone, You'd have it repaired after the battle if it did its job and kept you alive.

The reason why it wasn't good in prolonged melee is not just weight (combat plate was much lighter than jousting plate), but heat. Under a padded gambeson and full plate a knight would quickly suffer from heat exhaustion with prolonged combat exertion. So quickly shattering enemy formations with a cavalry/infantry shock charge was the order of the day. Polearms/halberds etc evolved as a way of resisting exactly these sort of tactics.

Modifié par shootist70, 05 octobre 2010 - 09:54 .

[Akka le Vil]

jsachun wrote...

You can always target the limbs at the right angle and severe them. As you know to make someone  mobile in armour they always made the limbs the Achilies heel. Although they probably had chainmail underneath their plate to avoid this. Besides weren't crossbows made to pierce armour at short distance. I thought it was the crossbows and the guns that saw the end of the metal armour plating on human beings.

As said above, the guy in front of you isn't standing still, waiting for the blow. Yes, the joints were the weak point of the armour (and yes they used layers of chain mails and articulated plates to protect them), but it's not that easy to aim at these place when they person is trying to slice you.
Also, yes, the arbalests were able to pierce plate armour (and there is a debate about the longbow being able to do it as well), but again, it's not because it's "possible" that it means the protection was useless. It required a lucky shot, at short range (or a very lucky at medium range), and the armour still offered incredible protection.

Remember that plate armour survived (and actually increased) for several centuries concurrently with firearms (first bombards were in the 13th century, there was the heaviest full plate armour in the 16th and some field plate lingered into the early 17th).

[jsachun]

Akka le Vil wrote...

jsachun wrote...

You can always target the limbs at the right angle and severe them. As you know to make someone  mobile in armour they always made the limbs the Achilies heel. Although they probably had chainmail underneath their plate to avoid this. Besides weren't crossbows made to pierce armour at short distance. I thought it was the crossbows and the guns that saw the end of the metal armour plating on human beings.

As said above, the guy in front of you isn't standing still, waiting for the blow. Yes, the joints were the weak point of the armour (and yes they used layers of chain mails and articulated plates to protect them), but it's not that easy to aim at these place when they person is trying to slice you.
Also, yes, the arbalests were able to pierce plate armour (and there is a debate about the longbow being able to do it as well), but again, it's not because it's "possible" that it means the protection was useless. It required a lucky shot, at short range (or a very lucky at medium range), and the armour still offered incredible protection.

Remember that plate armour survived (and actually increased) for several centuries concurrently with firearms (first bombards were in the 13th century, there was the heaviest full plate armour in the 16th and some field plate lingered into the early 17th).

Actually chest plates were still used in world war1. That makes it 20th century. It was probably the invention of dynamites by Nobel himself that undid all the work of a a truly talented blacksmith.

[Bryy_Miller]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

nightcobra8928 wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Morroian wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
It doesn't really, aside from how silly it looks swinging a sword that size at the speed of light.

You keep saying this after they've said they are slowing it down.

Sure, aside from actual special attacks/skills will still be most likely be ridiculous looking. I s'pose though thats somewhat of a compromise. Gotta cater to that target demographic doncha know.

I don't think you can take one feature out of the game and paint a picture of what the target demographic is. I highly doubt the target demographic is any different from any other BioWare game. If anything, it's like the ME (or Jade or even KOTOR) series where they just expanded what they are trying to catch.

Actually adding all the announced features together paints a pretty picture of what the target demographic is and I'll give you a hint, its not the old timers.

so i guess i'm not an old timer since i like the way DA2 is going to be even though my earliest gaming experience was playing pac-man on DOS and my first console being the megadrive and even having enjoyed BG2 in it's day. but i guess that is all small potatoes since my age is determined wether i like or not DA2's changes.

Ok I'll rephrase it, Its not being made for  the people who enjoy traditional story telling in their CPRG's over the Mass Effect style of flash.

I think you'll need to define "traditional storytelling", because the guy just said that he liked where DA2 was going, but he also liked BG2, which, if this is the standard of being an old timer, must have had your idea of traditional storytelling.

[Lotion Soronarr]

jsachun wrote...

You can always target the limbs at the right angle and severe them. As you know to make someone  mobile in armour they always made the limbs the Achilies heel. Although they probably had chainmail underneath their plate to avoid this. Besides weren't crossbows made to pierce armour at short distance. I thought it was the crossbows and the guns that saw the end of the metal armour plating on human beings.

Whoever wears the armor, won't stand still and let you hit the weak spots. Anyone properly trained and condition in armor usage would fight and move so to minimize your chances opf hitting those places.


Regarding guns and crossbows - partially. Even against crossbows and bullets, full plate was very resillient.
There isn't one big reason why plate mail disappeared - but rather a whole lot of small reasons. Social, econommical, strategic ones. Armies begun focusing more on long-range combat and mobiltiy. Professional soldeirs instead of nobiltiy + conscripted peasants. And full plate was expensive and difficult to make.  It was impractical for  professional armies.

Do we equip our armieswith the best armor money can buy? Not really. We go for best buy.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 05 octobre 2010 - 12:11 .

[jsachun]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

jsachun wrote...

You can always target the limbs at the right angle and severe them. As you know to make someone  mobile in armour they always made the limbs the Achilies heel. Although they probably had chainmail underneath their plate to avoid this. Besides weren't crossbows made to pierce armour at short distance. I thought it was the crossbows and the guns that saw the end of the metal armour plating on human beings.

Whoever wears the armor, won't stand still and let you hit the weak spots. Anyone properly trained and condition in armor usage would fight and move so to minimize your chances opf hitting those places.


Regarding guns and crossbows - partially. Even against crossbows and bullets, full plate was very resillient.
There isn't one big reason why plate mail disappeared - but rather a whole lot of small reasons. Social, econommical, strategic ones. Armies begun focusing more on long-range combat and mobiltiy. Professional soldeirs instead of nobiltiy + conscripted peasants. And full plate was expensive and difficult to make.  It was impractical for  professional armies.

Do we equip our armieswith the best armor money can buy? Not really. We go for best buy.

Full combat Armor piercing bullets of AK_47 would tear through any Medieval Full Plate armor like it's made out of clothes.

[Lotion Soronarr]

So would tank shells...I'm taking about early guns.



And here you bring in modern ammo. Heck we have HEAT, SABOT, AP, EX, HEAP, etc.. ammo types today...It's irrelevant for the topic matter.

[ViSeiRa]

Well, as much as I love to see such an interesting conversation going on, with such detail and historical facts, but let's keep this on topic as much as we can, thanks guys.

[Akka le Vil]

shootist70 wrote...

Well...yes and no. Full plate armour was never designed for toe-to-toe prolonged melee fighting as you see in DAO. It was for shock troops - heavy cavalry and the like - and was about protecting a warrior during a charge that was meant to break an enemy formation. As such it would keep you alive from blows on the way in and was a bit like a car crumple zone, You'd have it repaired after the battle if it did its job and kept you alive.

The reason why it wasn't good in prolonged melee is not just weight (combat plate was much lighter than jousting plate), but heat. Under a padded gambeson and full plate a knight would quickly suffer from heat exhaustion with prolonged combat exertion. So quickly shattering enemy formations with a cavalry/infantry shock charge was the order of the day. Polearms/halberds etc evolved as a way of resisting exactly these sort of tactics.

This is a joke, right ?
Plate armour not designed for mélée fighting ? <_<

jsachun wrote...

Actually chest plates were still used
in world war1. That makes it 20th century. It was probably the
invention of dynamites by Nobel himself that undid all the work of a a
truly talented blacksmith.

Sure, but that's really stretching it far beyond its validity point here. The real use of actual plate armour ended during the 17th century. There was still some use of metal breastplate (cuirassiers for example), some ceremonial armour and some armour for important characters to protect them from sniping, but we just can't say with sincerity that plate armour was still used by this time.

Modifié par Akka le Vil, 05 octobre 2010 - 02:12 .

[darkiddd]

Lumikki wrote...

mm.. but speed was never even my issue, it was the japanese anime style. You know character with over size weapon spinning, hopping and rolling in combat.

No no, the japanese style would be having an oversized weapon (as the one you had in DA) and swinging it effortlessly ala FFVII:whistle: 

[shootist70]

Akka le Vil wrote...

shootist70 wrote...

Well...yes and no. Full plate armour was never designed for toe-to-toe prolonged melee fighting as you see in DAO. It was for shock troops - heavy cavalry and the like - and was about protecting a warrior during a charge that was meant to break an enemy formation. As such it would keep you alive from blows on the way in and was a bit like a car crumple zone, You'd have it repaired after the battle if it did its job and kept you alive.

The reason why it wasn't good in prolonged melee is not just weight (combat plate was much lighter than jousting plate), but heat. Under a padded gambeson and full plate a knight would quickly suffer from heat exhaustion with prolonged combat exertion. So quickly shattering enemy formations with a cavalry/infantry shock charge was the order of the day. Polearms/halberds etc evolved as a way of resisting exactly these sort of tactics.

This is a joke, right ?
Plate armour not designed for mélée fighting ? <_<

Read the sentence again:

Full plate armour was never designed for toe-to-toe prolonged melee fighting

If you need me to explain that for you, just ask...



I'd prefer it if you didn't, though.  
 

Modifié par shootist70, 05 octobre 2010 - 03:38 .

[Akka le Vil]

shootist70 wrote...

Read the sentence again:

Full plate armour was never designed for toe-to-toe prolonged melee fighting

If you need me to explain that for you, just ask...

I'd prefer it if you didn't, though.  

Considering plate armor was developped through hand to hand fighting and was used both for mounted warfare and on foot, I will require detailed sources before believing it was designed simply for charges and short fighting.

I suppose you have some ?

[sanadawarrior]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

nightcobra8928 wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Morroian wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
It doesn't really, aside from how silly it looks swinging a sword that size at the speed of light.

You keep saying this after they've said they are slowing it down.

Sure, aside from actual special attacks/skills will still be most likely be ridiculous looking. I s'pose though thats somewhat of a compromise. Gotta cater to that target demographic doncha know.

I don't think you can take one feature out of the game and paint a picture of what the target demographic is. I highly doubt the target demographic is any different from any other BioWare game. If anything, it's like the ME (or Jade or even KOTOR) series where they just expanded what they are trying to catch.

Actually adding all the announced features together paints a pretty picture of what the target demographic is and I'll give you a hint, its not the old timers.

so i guess i'm not an old timer since i like the way DA2 is going to be even though my earliest gaming experience was playing pac-man on DOS and my first console being the megadrive and even having enjoyed BG2 in it's day. but i guess that is all small potatoes since my age is determined wether i like or not DA2's changes.

Ok I'll rephrase it, Its not being made for  the people who enjoy traditional story telling in their CPRG's over the Mass Effect style of flash.

Aren't we talking about combat systems here, what does that have to do with traditional story telling?