153 réponses à ce sujet

[Fortlowe]

I want a wiffle bat dammit!

[LOLZAO]

I think you can make any weapon effective when your are in a fight to the dead.

[WuWeiWu]

Chris Priestly wrote...

M8DMAN wrote...
I understand that weapons like Whips and Flails would be hard to do in the game correctly. 

But I still don't see why polearms couldn't be added to the game.

For the exact same reason.

Mr. Priestly, you have no idea how excited I was to see in a trailer the use of an Eastern styled polearm. The traditional 'West' polearms were more to combat cavalry while on foot - they were large, bulky, and generally unwieldy. They were used to dismount cavalry and that was about it.

The polearms us sensible folk are asking for, however, are variations much like a bo staff - and, in fact, are often utilized no different from one. I know yadda yadda budget, yadda yadda animation, yadda yadda time; but please, for the love of all that is not the cut and dried Western RPG fetish, reconsider your stance on polearms. I literally began following DA2 because of the trailer featuring Hawke fighting with a spear. Before you tell me that it was a sword, that handle was faar too long and the blade faar too short to be a sword.

I want polearms (specifically the spear in the... Destiny? trailer). kgo.


@all of the people with the silly belief that swords > polearms (such as the one shown in the Destiny? trailer):

Try and use a sword against a bo staff. Now try and use a sword against a bo staff with a sharpened, metal tip. You will fail, and you will fail miserably.

Modifié par WuWeiWu, 24 octobre 2010 - 01:32 .

[AnimaTempli101]

Sorry mate, that's a staff, with a spiky bit.

[WuWeiWu]

...You're right! Staves and staves with spiky bits are much different than polearms, which are lengths of wood/metal/wood covered with metal with a metal, sharpened, tip! How could I have been so stupid.

[nightcobra]

WuWeiWu wrote...

...You're right! Staves and staves with spiky bits are much different than polearms, which are lengths of wood/metal/wood covered with metal with a metal, sharpened, tip! How could I have been so stupid.

he meant that the weapon in the trailer is a mage's staff regardless of it's appearance, to be more precise it's the staff of parthalan 

[WuWeiWu]

nightcobra8928 wrote...

WuWeiWu wrote...

...You're right! Staves and staves with spiky bits are much different than polearms, which are lengths of wood/metal/wood covered with metal with a metal, sharpened, tip! How could I have been so stupid.

he meant that the weapon in the trailer is a mage's staff regardless of it's appearance, to be more precise it's the staff of parthalan 

And I was pointing out that calling a stave with a spiky bit not a spear is hilariously so full of fail I cried tears of exuberant laughter. The sarcasm in my previous past was in case he was also pointing that out.

[AnimaTempli101]

I agree, calling a stave with a spiky bit not a spear would be a fail. But I distinctly said STAFF. Staffs and staves are two different things.

[Sir JK]

WuWeiWu wrote...
Mr. Priestly, you have no idea how excited I was to see in a trailer the use of an Eastern styled polearm.

Your do know there was such things as Glaives and Warscythes which look pretty much like the swordstaff in the trailer? That they weren't much longer and were very similar to these "eastern styled polearms" in both appearance, style and usage.

The traditional 'West' polearms were more to combat cavalry while on foot - they were large, bulky, and generally unwieldy. They were used to dismount cavalry and that was about it.

Not quite, the polearms aren't much more dangerous against a cavalry than a sword or an axe individually. The only true defence against cavalry is a tight formation since horses won't rise into them easily (just like you cannot rise into a wall, the horse will stop or veer off). Polearms became a favourite of these formations since 1) they are some of the few weapons that can be used effectively in them and 2) they're the only ones that can outrange lances (which means that cavalry cannot harm you at all).
So the infantry formations was sent against one another to fight and disrupt formations, softened up by archers. Once their formation was sufficiently broken the cavalry was sent in to cruch them and send them fleeing form the field. But until them these weapons were used against other infantry en masse, and it was not two unmoveable blocks of men trying to stick the spear end into the other and acheving little success. But a thick, brutal and ravening melee. The polearms were very much made with single and massed combat in mind, in addition to their value as static defence against cavalry.

specifically the spear in the... Destiny? trailer). kgo.

The staff of Parthalan is in. Rewarded as a bonus for signing up for a newsletter previously or now in October (at which point you'll recieve it in November).

[WuWeiWu]

AnimaTempli101 wrote...

I agree, calling a stave with a spiky bit not a spear would be a fail. But I distinctly said STAFF. Staffs and staves are two different things.

Erm... staff is synonymous with stave.

[Maconbar]

AnimaTempli101 wrote...

I agree, calling a stave with a spiky bit not a spear would be a fail. But I distinctly said STAFF. Staffs and staves are two different things.

Actually they are the same thing.

[WuWeiWu]

Sir JK wrote...

WuWeiWu wrote...
Mr. Priestly, you have no idea how excited I was to see in a trailer the use of an Eastern styled polearm.

Your do know there was such things as Glaives and Warscythes which look pretty much like the swordstaff in the trailer? That they weren't much longer and were very similar to these "eastern styled polearms" in both appearance, style and usage.

The traditional 'West' polearms were more to combat cavalry while on foot - they were large, bulky, and generally unwieldy. They were used to dismount cavalry and that was about it.

Not quite, the polearms aren't much more dangerous against a cavalry than a sword or an axe individually. The only true defence against cavalry is a tight formation since horses won't rise into them easily (just like you cannot rise into a wall, the horse will stop or veer off). Polearms became a favourite of these formations since 1) they are some of the few weapons that can be used effectively in them and 2) they're the only ones that can outrange lances (which means that cavalry cannot harm you at all).
So the infantry formations was sent against one another to fight and disrupt formations, softened up by archers. Once their formation was sufficiently broken the cavalry was sent in to cruch them and send them fleeing form the field. But until them these weapons were used against other infantry en masse, and it was not two unmoveable blocks of men trying to stick the spear end into the other and acheving little success. But a thick, brutal and ravening melee. The polearms were very much made with single and massed combat in mind, in addition to their value as static defence against cavalry.

specifically the spear in the... Destiny? trailer). kgo.

The staff of Parthalan is in. Rewarded as a bonus for signing up for a newsletter previously or now in October (at which point you'll recieve it in November).

You.. do realize by using the colloquial term 'polearm' I was referring to all such arms? I'm not an idiot. Instead of listing every single weapon that could be classified as a polearm or could look or function like what I described, I used the general overarching term. Much faster, much simpler, and much easier to grasp what I was looking for.

Polearms used in the 'West' (notice the marks, and the capitalization?), and those used primarily in you 'formations', are one and the same. They were larger, so as to out reach lances, and as such, were unwieldy for general combat. They were used to... pole... enemy combatants off of horses. Beyond that, many (all) armies used a secondary weapon to finish off unmounted enemy combatants. The Gladius was invented just for that particular occasion. While polearms were still used in hand to hand combat, they were not optimal. What most RPG players would refer to as 'sword and board', though usually with weapons other than the sword, as they were considered a status symbol and not forged for individual line troops for some time, would be in the forefront of an army or group of soldiers once enemy cavalry no longer pressed in front of the enemy infantry.

These formations you keep talking about? They, the formations, were merely just the front line of an army or group of soldiers - there wasn't really a dedicated 'formation' soldiers across the globe would utilize to combat cavalry, at least not until the Romans popularized such formations as the Phalanx.

As far as the Parthalan 'staff', it's a spear. You can call it a staff if you would like, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a spear. It is not a spear as one would assume one would use to dismount cavalry, but it is a spear nonetheless - one used to fight other infantry, as popularized by Eastern culture.

[aaniadyen]

lol at people trying to compare weapons and fighting in a video game to weapons and fighting in real life.

[WuWeiWu]

aaniadyen wrote...

lol at people trying to compare weapons and fighting in a video game to weapons and fighting in real life.

....right, because video games are based off of pure fiction and aren't reflected in reality at all and there are NO expectations going in.

One could take issue with comparing weapons in a video game to real life, but not the other way around. Why do you post?

[aaniadyen]

WuWeiWu wrote...
....right, because video games are based off of pure fiction and aren't reflected in reality at all and there are NO expectations going in.

Right so far.

WuWeiWu wrote...
One could take issue with comparing weapons in a video game to real life, but not the other way around.

What do you mean?

WuWeiWu wrote...
Why do you post?

The same reason you, or anyone does. For poops and giggles.

[Sir JK]

WuWeiWu wrote...
You.. do realize by using the colloquial term 'polearm' I was referring to all such arms? I'm not an idiot. Instead of listing every single weapon that could be classified as a polearm or could look or function like what I described, I used the general overarching term. Much faster, much simpler, and much easier to grasp what I was looking for.

My apologies, I did not intend to insult you or come across as offensive. My point was that those "eastern" polerms had european equalients too. The Glaive, The Berdiche, The warscythe, The Pollaxe and the short Halberd are just a few examples. There are many many more. All intended against targets on foot because as a rule, they were to short to outreach lances.

Polearms used in the 'West' (notice the marks, and the capitalization?), and those used primarily in you 'formations', are one and the same. They were larger, so as to out reach lances, and as such, were unwieldy for general combat. They were used to... pole... enemy combatants off of horses. Beyond that, many (all) armies used a secondary weapon to finish off unmounted enemy combatants. The Gladius was invented just for that particular occasion. While polearms were still used in hand to hand combat, they were not optimal. What most RPG players would refer to as 'sword and board', though usually with weapons other than the sword, as they were considered a status symbol and not forged for individual line troops for some time, would be in the forefront of an army or group of soldiers once enemy cavalry no longer pressed in front of the enemy infantry.

Polearms refer to the fact that it's weapons on a pole, not that they're used to pole. In many historical documents, they are however not refered to as polearms but main arms (as in primary weapons) with swords/axes/maces/whatnot being the sidearm (nowadays replaced by pistols). The latter being the spare replacement weapons for the primary weapon (often a spear or a lance, both of which are a form of polearm).
They were certainly employed against cavalry, and quite decent at it too. But any general who ordered their cavalry to engage the infantry before the infantry was disorganised, worn and tired would find it to be very ineffective. The infantry often faced nothing but infantry for the first few hours and so. Using their polearms.
Even the classical sword and board style (saxon/viking/franks being the best examples), which is after the polearms of the romans but before the polearms of the renaissance primarily relied on one-handed spears. Drawing their swords when the spears were ruined.

These formations you keep talking about? They, the formations, were merely just the front line of an army or group of soldiers - there wasn't really a dedicated 'formation' soldiers across the globe would utilize to combat cavalry, at least not until the Romans popularized such formations as the Phalanx.

No you're absolutely right. There weren't any correct or uniform formation. There were many depending on era, weapons, armour, training and location. But formations all served the same purpose. To keep the cavalry from killing the infantry. During the battle of hastings the Saxons took up a shield wall formation to protec themselves. They only lost when they broke formation (due to a feint by the normans.. intentional or not).
The swiss were famous for their disciplined pike-wall formations, that no matter what happened they never broke ranks. The scots made skilled use of formations to win at Bannockburn, preventing the english from using their superior cavalry against them.

That's why we had officers at all. To teach the men what their place in the formation were, keep them organised and focused and hold their ground. Each unit had a position on the line. Each man had a position in the units formation (which is simply how they were deployed).
That said some formations seemed a lot less... organised  than others. It wasn't always neat well strcutured boxes or lines. But it was primarily to avoid being ridden down (archers by extension trained at shooting at formations at extreme range. To get them to disperse and spread out so that the formation is broken and they're ripe for the slaughter.

Oh, and the phalanx is a hellenic formation. The romans used first maniples, then marian formations.

As far as the Parthalan 'staff', it's a spear.

I was just referring to what the item will be called ingame. I agree that it's a polearm

[EmperorSahlertz]

WuWeiWu wrote...

@all of the people with the silly belief that swords > polearms (such as the one shown in the Destiny? trailer):

Try and use a sword against a bo staff. Now try and use a sword against a bo staff with a sharpened, metal tip. You will fail, and you will fail miserably.

Lets see.... Parry first jab from the polearm wielder. Step within reaching range of the pole of the weapon. Grab it with your free hand. Use your sword to cut open the stomach of the polearm wielder. Have tea with biscuits.

Yeah... a miserable fail... Everyone knows its biscuits then tea.

[General Malor]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

WuWeiWu wrote...

@all of the people with the silly belief that swords > polearms (such as the one shown in the Destiny? trailer):

Try and use a sword against a bo staff. Now try and use a sword against a bo staff with a sharpened, metal tip. You will fail, and you will fail miserably.

Lets see.... Parry first jab from the polearm wielder. Step within reaching range of the pole of the weapon. Grab it with your free hand. Use your sword to cut open the stomach of the polearm wielder. Have tea with biscuits.

Yeah... a miserable fail... Everyone knows its biscuits then tea.

Well it's official...swords must be better...you see how well his example worked out...he didn't take into account the other person moving...yup that's it...polearms must be useless. Because when you have a sword you get to just say what your going to do and the other person has to deal with it without moving or acting.

Sorry buddy but I don't like people try to come up with scenarios and act like that's just whats going to happen. It all comes down to the fighter and that's that.

[aaniadyen]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

WuWeiWu wrote...

@all of the people with the silly belief that swords > polearms (such as the one shown in the Destiny? trailer):

Try and use a sword against a bo staff. Now try and use a sword against a bo staff with a sharpened, metal tip. You will fail, and you will fail miserably.

Lets see.... Parry first jab from the polearm wielder. Step within reaching range of the pole of the weapon. Grab it with your free hand. Use your sword to cut open the stomach of the polearm wielder. Have tea with biscuits.

Yeah... a miserable fail... Everyone knows its biscuits then tea.

Actually, Wu is right. Polearms have several benefits over swords.

1. Maai
2. A solid stick can shatter a sword with a direct hit
3. Much easier to wield effectively in fights (faster to deliver a killing blow; lighter)
4. Less training required to become decent than with a sword; a group of peasants wielding spears would slaughter a group of peasants wielding swords.
5. polearms allow for formations that swords do not.
6. Much less time and resources to make a polearm, generally speaking.

As far as battlefield casualties go, the bow/crossbow are still better than any other weapon by far though. That isn't to say swords or polearms don't have their uses, because it is really situational, but generally, a polearm is a better weapon. Ultimately, it comes down to who has the most training/experience.

Modifié par aaniadyen, 24 octobre 2010 - 04:40 .

[WuWeiWu]

Sir JK wrote...

WuWeiWu wrote...
You.. do realize by using the colloquial term 'polearm' I was referring to all such arms? I'm not an idiot. Instead of listing every single weapon that could be classified as a polearm or could look or function like what I described, I used the general overarching term. Much faster, much simpler, and much easier to grasp what I was looking for.

My apologies, I did not intend to insult you or come across as offensive. My point was that those "eastern" polerms had european equalients too. The Glaive, The Berdiche, The warscythe, The Pollaxe and the short Halberd are just a few examples. There are many many more. All intended against targets on foot because as a rule, they were to short to outreach lances.

Polearms used in the 'West' (notice the marks, and the capitalization?), and those used primarily in you 'formations', are one and the same. They were larger, so as to out reach lances, and as such, were unwieldy for general combat. They were used to... pole... enemy combatants off of horses. Beyond that, many (all) armies used a secondary weapon to finish off unmounted enemy combatants. The Gladius was invented just for that particular occasion. While polearms were still used in hand to hand combat, they were not optimal. What most RPG players would refer to as 'sword and board', though usually with weapons other than the sword, as they were considered a status symbol and not forged for individual line troops for some time, would be in the forefront of an army or group of soldiers once enemy cavalry no longer pressed in front of the enemy infantry.

Polearms refer to the fact that it's weapons on a pole, not that they're used to pole. In many historical documents, they are however not refered to as polearms but main arms (as in primary weapons) with swords/axes/maces/whatnot being the sidearm (nowadays replaced by pistols). The latter being the spare replacement weapons for the primary weapon (often a spear or a lance, both of which are a form of polearm).
They were certainly employed against cavalry, and quite decent at it too. But any general who ordered their cavalry to engage the infantry before the infantry was disorganised, worn and tired would find it to be very ineffective. The infantry often faced nothing but infantry for the first few hours and so. Using their polearms.
Even the classical sword and board style (saxon/viking/franks being the best examples), which is after the polearms of the romans but before the polearms of the renaissance primarily relied on one-handed spears. Drawing their swords when the spears were ruined.

These formations you keep talking about? They, the formations, were merely just the front line of an army or group of soldiers - there wasn't really a dedicated 'formation' soldiers across the globe would utilize to combat cavalry, at least not until the Romans popularized such formations as the Phalanx.

No you're absolutely right. There weren't any correct or uniform formation. There were many depending on era, weapons, armour, training and location. But formations all served the same purpose. To keep the cavalry from killing the infantry. During the battle of hastings the Saxons took up a shield wall formation to protec themselves. They only lost when they broke formation (due to a feint by the normans.. intentional or not).
The swiss were famous for their disciplined pike-wall formations, that no matter what happened they never broke ranks. The scots made skilled use of formations to win at Bannockburn, preventing the english from using their superior cavalry against them.

That's why we had officers at all. To teach the men what their place in the formation were, keep them organised and focused and hold their ground. Each unit had a position on the line. Each man had a position in the units formation (which is simply how they were deployed).
That said some formations seemed a lot less... organised  than others. It wasn't always neat well strcutured boxes or lines. But it was primarily to avoid being ridden down (archers by extension trained at shooting at formations at extreme range. To get them to disperse and spread out so that the formation is broken and they're ripe for the slaughter.

Oh, and the phalanx is a hellenic formation. The romans used first maniples, then marian formations.

As far as the Parthalan 'staff', it's a spear.

I was just referring to what the item will be called ingame. I agree that it's a polearm

A lot of this information I already know, some of what I knew turned out to be incorrect, and I learned a few things  I think we either got off on the wrong foot or I was speaking of specific styles during specific eras and you were speaking on the whole of things. Either way, polearms (and all of their variants) and secondary weapons (and all of their variations) have purposes and designs that BioWare should take note of - specifically, polearms >.>

[EmperorSahlertz]

aaniadyen wrote...
1. Maai

No doubt it got reach. But it also got a far smaller smaller blade, compared to hilt, which gives the swords a greater cutting surface. Once you negate the spears reach advantage, the spear-wielder is dead.

aaniadyen wrote...
2. A solid stick can shatter a sword with a direct hit

What kind of crap sword would ever shatter from a direct hit? Swords are crafted to be able to parry other steel swords, no sword would ever shatter from being struck by a wooden shaft. Unless it was very poor craftmanship.

aaniadyen wrote...
3. Much easier to wield effectively in fights

Not really. Both cases are extremely dependandt on the nature of the fight. It takes a very skillful spearman to be able to keep his opponent at range in a 1 on 1 situation. In a battle he would have his comrades to help him not being flanked and so on.

aaniadyen wrote...
4. Less training required to become decent than with a sword; a group of peasants wielding spears would slaughter a group of peasants wielding swords.

A peasant being given a spear and told to kill would be just as effective as a peasant with asword and same order. Both weapons take a lot of training to master but little to no training to grasp.

aaniadyen wrote...
5. polearms allow for formations that swords do not.

Swords allow for tactical decision in duels spears do not. The greatest advantage the sword have against the spear in a duel is the fact your left hand is free. You can either just let the left hand be free, or equip a shield, a secondary weapon or whatever the hell you pleases. the Spearman is pretty much locked in a dual grip on his spear to fight effectively in 1 on 1. Had it been in a large battle the spearman would again be able to use a spear, because his comrades were there to help him.

General Malor wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

WuWeiWu wrote...

@all of the people with the silly belief that swords > polearms (such as the one shown in the Destiny? trailer):

Try and use a sword against a bo staff. Now try and use a sword against a bo staff with a sharpened, metal tip. You will fail, and you will fail miserably.

Lets see.... Parry first jab from the polearm wielder. Step within reaching range of the pole of the weapon. Grab it with your free hand. Use your sword to cut open the stomach of the polearm wielder. Have tea with biscuits.

Yeah... a miserable fail... Everyone knows its biscuits then tea.

Well it's official...swords must be better...you see how well his example worked out...he didn't take into account the other person moving...yup that's it...polearms must be useless. Because when you have a sword you get to just say what your going to do and the other person has to deal with it without moving or acting.

Sorry buddy but I don't like people try to come up with scenarios and act like that's just whats going to happen. It all comes down to the fighter and that's that.

You didn't get it I wager.... My example was just to show how stupid it is to say that: "Try and use a sword against a bo staff. Now try and use a sword against a bo staff with a sharpened, metal tip. You will fail, and you will fail miserably. " as my example is. None of them are ture as there are thousands of details which would matter in the situation. None of the weapons are superior, both the weapons got advantages. I gave an example of a swordsman winning easily.

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 24 octobre 2010 - 04:45 .

[LOLZAO]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

WuWeiWu wrote...

@all of the people with the silly belief that swords > polearms (such as the one shown in the Destiny? trailer):

Try and use a sword against a bo staff. Now try and use a sword against a bo staff with a sharpened, metal tip. You will fail, and you will fail miserably.

Lets see.... Parry first jab from the polearm wielder. Step within reaching range of the pole of the weapon. Grab it with your free hand. Use your sword to cut open the stomach of the polearm wielder. Have tea with biscuits.

Yeah... a miserable fail... Everyone knows its biscuits then tea.

what if you can´t parry with the jab, what if when you are steping within of the range of spear/polearm  the guy cuts through you?

I think it´s not a matter of which weapon you are using, but how much training you have with you weapon of choice
and the combat situation you are in, if you are charging a spear formation  with a long sword you are probably aready dead same if you are with a long spear(3m 2m long) in a close figth(you do still have a good chance if your spear is 1M 1.20M and if you are good with it). it doesnt´t all boil down to sword is better than spear/polearm or spear/polearm is better than sword.

And against a dragon i would drop my sword for a Long spear anytime thank you.

Modifié par LOLZAO, 24 octobre 2010 - 04:46 .

[LOLZAO]

double post sorry.

Modifié par LOLZAO, 24 octobre 2010 - 04:45 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

LOLZAO wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

WuWeiWu wrote...

@all of the people with the silly belief that swords > polearms (such as the one shown in the Destiny? trailer):

Try and use a sword against a bo staff. Now try and use a sword against a bo staff with a sharpened, metal tip. You will fail, and you will fail miserably.

Lets see.... Parry first jab from the polearm wielder. Step within reaching range of the pole of the weapon. Grab it with your free hand. Use your sword to cut open the stomach of the polearm wielder. Have tea with biscuits.

Yeah... a miserable fail... Everyone knows its biscuits then tea.

what if you can´t parry with the jab, what if when you are steping within of the range of spear/polearm  the guy cuts through you?

I think it´s not a matter of which weapon you are using, but how much training you have with you weapon of choice
and the combat situation you are in, if you are charging a spear formation  with a long sword you are probably aready dead same if you are with a long spear(3m 2m long) in a close figth(you do still have a good chance if your spear is 1M 1.20M and if you are good with it). it doesnt´t all boil down to sword is better than spea/polearm or spear/polearm is better than sword.

As I said, it would all come down too hundred or thousands of variations. And by the end of teh day it is all decided by skill. But the more skillful could be unlucky and be blinded by the sun for a second and so on and so forth. My example was simply a counter to Wu's, showing a swordsman winning ewasily over a spearman. Which is perfectly plausible (and vice versa).

LOLZAO wrote...
And against a dragon i would drop my sword for a Long spear anytime thank you.

Be my guest... I'd be busy running the hell away...

[LOLZAO]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

LOLZAO wrote...
And against a dragon i would drop my sword for a Long spear anytime thank you.

Be my guest... I'd be busy running the hell away...

well... i would be running too, but you know if i had to fight the dragon.