Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[NW_Kohaku]

I finally finished the basic simultaneous attack option today and spent some time double-stabbing rib cages in the arena with shiny blue daggers, that kind of thing.

This sounds like exactly the wrong way to do dual-wielding that was exactly what I was afraid of...

It sounds like he's just making it so that if you have two weapons in your hands, you can just windmill your swords at people and deal twice as much damage with two weapons as with one, completely regardless of how actual physics works.

[LordBaal]

All I understood from this is that you are able to stab with two daggers, nothing out of the world. I guess that the bigger the weapon you are double wielding, the less options you have or the more time they take.

[Whatsifsowhatsit]

I finally finished the basic simultaneous attack option today and spent some time double-stabbing rib cages in the arena with shiny blue daggers, that kind of thing.

This sounds like exactly the wrong way to do dual-wielding that was exactly what I was afraid of...

It sounds like he's just making it so that if you have two weapons in your hands, you can just windmill your swords at people and deal twice as much damage with two weapons as with one, completely regardless of how actual physics works.

Well, to be fair, double-stabbing should be realistically possible, right? It might not be the best/most obvious thing to do in an actual combat situation, but it's not something that in principle should require an insane ninja-like amount of skill, let alone be entirely impossible. At least to do it at all -- doing it well might be another question. I'm no expert, mind you...

[Nil Athelion]

On randomized world-gen having problems with rejection-heavy parameters:  Would it be possible for the world-gen process to identify what kind of rejection error, and then change the relevant parameters?  If the world-gen has random parameters, it doesn't really have to generate the world with exactly those parameters, just any set that is random.

[Osmosis Jones]

Actually, this got me thinking... I've mentioned my plans for an enormous ice wall (a la Game of Thrones) in the past, but I never actually asked;

In the inverse of earlier discussion, can player fortress (and sites in general) block progress?

As in, let say we built a wall between two impassable mountain ranges, or from an ocean to a major river, blocking off multiple otherwise inaccessible world map tiles; would armies etc. be able to path through our sites up into the guarded area?

Even if it doesn't take fort layout into shape, it could be interesting; just having retired forts only pass allied/neutral armies while stopping enemies would be amazing (No goblins! Trespassers will be degrinched). Especially if forts that got abandoned/conquered did become passable; hold the line at all costs!

[NW_Kohaku]

Well, to be fair, double-stabbing should be realistically possible, right? It might not be the best/most obvious thing to do in an actual combat situation, but it's not something that in principle should require an insane ninja-like amount of skill, let alone be entirely impossible. At least to do it at all -- doing it well might be another question. I'm no expert, mind you...

Actually, no, it shouldn't be realistically possible to double-stab someone with the same amount of force that you can do a lunge with a knife with just one hand. 

That's the whole point of balance.  That's why schools on martial arts always focus upon footwork - attacking someone with a weapon isn't just your hand moving independent of your body, it's a full-body motion. 

If you don't include the notion that a character's full force is committed to the attack, and just make it mechanically that one arm acting completely independent of the body, combat performs like this looks.

[Putnam]

Plus, I think that double-thrusting would put you in a great position to get knocked on your stomach/bashed in the head.

[monk12]

Well really, the pertinent question is whether both attacks receive full force when making two attacks at once- if you're using a pair of adamantine blades you don't need to put a huge force behind your attack to do serious damage, whereas if you're using crappier weapons it almost certainly won't be worth it (barring freakish skill / the concept of feinting is implemented.)

[NW_Kohaku]

Well really, the pertinent question is whether both attacks receive full force when making two attacks at once- if you're using a pair of adamantine blades you don't need to put a huge force behind your attack to do serious damage, whereas if you're using crappier weapons it almost certainly won't be worth it (barring freakish skill / the concept of feinting is implemented.)

The more pertinent question is whether or not Toady is working towards building a full system of understanding combat, so that all individual actions are understandable within the same framework, or just adding random things without any relation to one another.

D&D-style dual-wielding, where two weapons means twice as many attacks with just some -2 penalty to damage is completely contrary to the sort of combat he's been otherwise trying to work towards.

There is a reason that there was essentially only a couple dual-wielding weapon fighting school that ever sprung up, and it sprung up for formalized duals amongst people not wearing armor, and where, even then, the off-hand weapon was made for defense, not offense.  Against armor, an off-hand weapon is useless, and a shield is much better protection.

Likewise, jumping attacks (which are already being talked about) are not taught in any martial school for the simple, obvious reason that you lose your balance quite easily attacking while mid-air, and you never want to be lying prone in melee.

Barring something like jumping up to swat at a bat or some other very small creature, attacking an armored, balanced opponent with their feet planted in a jump attack is just going to wind up with you bouncing off them or them swatting you aside because you'll have no leverage.  This needs to be reflected in the game's mechanics.

And the problem is, it seems like Toady doesn't seem to know it:

I don't have much to say about multiple attacks or how penalties for that would work.  It's pretty complicated in the end.  Certain things would be easy and effective (say, if you had needles you wanted to poison people with, or light sabers or something), and certain things would be wantonly silly, like a punch+kick maybe.  I haven't really addressed this in any satisfactory way, and I'll probably be walking a fairly idiotic line until I actually focus in on combat a bit.

[arkhometha]

Actually, this got me thinking... I've mentioned my plans for an enormous ice wall (a la Game of Thrones) in the past, but I never actually asked;

In the inverse of earlier discussion, can player fortress (and sites in general) block progress?

As in, let say we built a wall between two impassable mountain ranges, or from an ocean to a major river, blocking off multiple otherwise inaccessible world map tiles; would armies etc. be able to path through our sites up into the guarded area?

Even if it doesn't take fort layout into shape, it could be interesting; just having retired forts only pass allied/neutral armies while stopping enemies would be amazing (No goblins! Trespassers will be degrinched). Especially if forts that got abandoned/conquered did become passable; hold the line at all costs!

That will probably happen in the future, but your idea would not work unless the fort blocked was built in a narrow valley that lead to a plain surrounded by mountains, more specifically very high cliffs. Otherwise the army would just take a detour if it didn't want to pass by your fort.

[Osmosis Jones]

That will probably happen in the future, but your idea would not work unless the fort blocked was built in a narrow valley that lead to plain surrounded by mountains, more specifically very high cliffs. Otherwise the army would just take a detour if it didn't want to pass by your fort.

Hence why I mentioned the building across multiple world tiles; I'm saying if I cover every single passable route to an area in a solid line of dwarven fortresses, not just plonking one down alone in the middle of nowhere.

I'm not expecting this to be easy, just finding out if it's possible

Edit: Also, and vaguely related; Does the direction enemies attack from (on the local fortress scale) depend on the direction they approach from on the world map? Either currently, or in the future?

[hermes]

This sounds like exactly the wrong way to do dual-wielding that was exactly what I was afraid of...

Or, it sounds like, you know, exactly the right way to test a new feature.

And the problem is, it seems like Toady doesn't seem to know it:

I don't have much to say about multiple attacks or how penalties for that would work.  It's pretty complicated in the end.  Certain things would be easy and effective (say, if you had needles you wanted to poison people with, or light sabers or something), and certain things would be wantonly silly, like a punch+kick maybe.  I haven't really addressed this in any satisfactory way, and I'll probably be walking a fairly idiotic line until I actually focus in on combat a bit.

I don't get you here, this quote from Toady shows he is well aware of the potential problems of a system that is really very difficult to abstract into game mechanics, and which he is going to look into in further detail at a later date.

[WillowLuman]

Well, to be fair, double-stabbing should be realistically possible, right? It might not be the best/most obvious thing to do in an actual combat situation, but it's not something that in principle should require an insane ninja-like amount of skill, let alone be entirely impossible. At least to do it at all -- doing it well might be another question. I'm no expert, mind you...

Actually, no, it shouldn't be realistically possible to double-stab someone with the same amount of force that you can do a lunge with a knife with just one hand. 

That's the whole point of balance.  That's why schools on martial arts always focus upon footwork - attacking someone with a weapon isn't just your hand moving independent of your body, it's a full-body motion. 

If you don't include the notion that a character's full force is committed to the attack, and just make it mechanically that one arm acting completely independent of the body, combat performs like this looks.

I have personally punched someone in the face and ribs simultaneously, blacking their cheek and causing them to double up. Using my hands both at the same time neither robbed me of all momentum nor caused me to become a limp ragdoll. Of course your force is divided between your two daggers, but if you stab the same person with both of them, you still use your forward momentum on both points, which still translates to poking a nasty hole in someone wherever you press. You don't exactly need the full force of your body to wound someone with a sharp dagger.

A lunging forward strike with two daggers would be in some ways similar to thrusting with a short, two-pronged spear using both hands, especially if the points of contact were near each other. And with a slender blade, you can perfectly well shank someone to death using the force of your arm alone.

[Whatsifsowhatsit]

And the problem is, it seems like Toady doesn't seem to know it:

I don't have much to say about multiple attacks or how penalties for that would work.  It's pretty complicated in the end.  Certain things would be easy and effective (say, if you had needles you wanted to poison people with, or light sabers or something), and certain things would be wantonly silly, like a punch+kick maybe.  I haven't really addressed this in any satisfactory way, and I'll probably be walking a fairly idiotic line until I actually focus in on combat a bit.

I don't get you here, this quote from Toady shows he is well aware of the potential problems of a system that is really very difficult to abstract into game mechanics, and which he is going to look into in further detail at a later date.

That's what I was thinking too, to be honest.

[...]if you stab the same person with both of them, you still use your forward momentum on both points

Right. Or so I would also think, at any rate. Which is why I thought the double stab (although I might have made it more clear that I meant against a single target, but it sounded like that's what Toady was talking about as well in the devlog... or, actually, come to think of it, that could be taken either way) would be okay.

Actually, no, it shouldn't be realistically possible to double-stab someone with the same amount of force that you can do a lunge with a knife with just one hand.

But I didn't really say it would be the same amount of force.

At any rate, I think you might be right, NW_Kohaku, that it might be a bit weird this next release, but I think that's okay so long as Toady looks into it in a future release more focused on combat. And I think he tends to do pretty good research and get scientifically and physically accurate features in the game most of the time.

[NW_Kohaku]

I have personally punched someone in the face and ribs simultaneously, blacking their cheek and causing them to double up. Using my hands both at the same time neither robbed me of all momentum nor caused me to become a limp ragdoll. Of course your force is divided between your two daggers, but if you stab the same person with both of them, you still use your forward momentum on both points, which still translates to poking a nasty hole in someone wherever you press. You don't exactly need the full force of your body to wound someone with a sharp dagger.

A lunging forward strike with two daggers would be in some ways similar to thrusting with a short, two-pronged spear using both hands, especially if the points of contact were near each other. And with a slender blade, you can perfectly well shank someone to death using the force of your arm alone.

This is already far too similar to the "I can cut through three sides of beef, so of course a claymore can cut through three heavily armored knights without any loss of momentum" arguments that go on in the Mount and Blade forums...

Whatever arbitrary things you can claim to do are beside the point - what this game needs to start modeling if these sorts of battles are to make any sort of sense is some realistic notion of balance.

You're even saying yourself what is essentially my point: That it's not the most sane or effective means of combat. 

The problem is it's not modeled in the game.  Therefore, it is currently the most sane and effective means of combat in DF until the mechanics are in place to ensure they aren't.

I don't get you here, this quote from Toady shows he is well aware of the potential problems of a system that is really very difficult to abstract into game mechanics, and which he is going to look into in further detail at a later date.

Which is why I'm saying he's starting down the wrong path. 

You don't start with the details, and work out the big picture later, it just makes a mess of everything.