Search Results
Searched for posts by TheMasterGear in all forums

Modify your search
Posted by TheMasterGear, May 21 at 2:13 pm
Or just get a ring or helmet of teleportation, then get teleport control. That's how I do it.
Posted by TheMasterGear, Apr 10 at 1:54 pm
SSUPII wrote
Yes, this one the problem. I have 0 experience with CMake, thanks!

No problem! Gald to see more interest in Ivan's development.
Posted by TheMasterGear, Apr 10 at 1:07 pm
After a bit of testing, other than contributing weight, what do secondary materials do? Could we make more effects on secondary materials?

Also, I always wanted a value that could make materials have high defense, but low durably like diamond or glass breastplates. Like a fragility modifier, just like how items have form modifier, which makes weapons and armor better without changing durably.
Posted by TheMasterGear, Apr 9 at 7:30 pm
Ischaldirh wrote
Weapons gain a soft dexterity requirement (if they don't already have one?). For the vast majority of weapons, this requirement will be low - around 3-8 for lower-tier weapons/materials. It will scale down with weapon mass, so heavier weapons require less dexterity (and more strength), and up with flexibility, so a whip would require higher dexterity. (I'm thinking a whip might require somewhere around 12.) When i say soft, I mean it will not actually prevent you from using it - but there will be penalties, up to and including a chance to simply fail to attack, or to accidentally hurt yourself.

The base dexterity requirement assumes you are wielding the weapon in one hand with nothing in the other hand. (Using two hands on one weapon would not help you meet the dexterity requirement.) If you are wielding anything in the other hand - a shield, another sword, whatever - the requirement to wield the weapon (effectively, anyways) increases in proportion to the size of the other item. Shields are large, so using your sword with a shield is a little harder than using just the sword. Halberds are huge, so wielding two halberds is ... hard.


I don't think larger weapons would use less dexterity? Bladed weapons would be pretty high dexterity/skill to hit at the right angle to cut and halberds would require good balance and aim. Edit: actually, I think I'm thinking of skill instead. Disarming/fumbling due to low dex would be a welcomed addition to the game.

Ischaldirh wrote
Ancillary: Handedness. A character may default to being right-handed (most characters) but sometimes they are ambidextrous. (No lefties here - honestly that would just add annoyance to the player, unless it was very clearly pointed out.) What does handedness do? Well, it changes your strength and dexterity balance slightly. Your primary hand gets +1 strength and dex, your off-hand gets -1 strength and dex. It also changes the stat growth rate for each arm in a similar manner. (Recall that your right arm and left arm have independent stat values, and the displayed value is their average.) Ambidexterity just... doesn't do this, both hands are main hands and develop equally.

Game effects of dex requirements: It would rather penalize two-weapon combat in general, and make it harder to pull off.It would also make whips a lot harder to use with anything in the off-hand (except, perhaps, a dagger). Further, when using mismatched weapons, your smaller weapon will suffer a greater penalty than the larger weapon.

Game effects of handedness: Especially in combination with dexterity requirements as laid out above, it would make a non-ambidextrous character a bit less efficient at developing as a twin sword fighter, and would encourage them to use a sword-and-board or greatsword type weapon. Otherwise, effects would be relatively minimal.

red_kangaroo wrote
Handedness could be a nice hidden statistic, like talents. But if we have right handedness, we should definitely have left handedness!

Handedness sounds intriguing, though it would be funny see a guy with a giant right arm and tiny left arm. I'm pretty sure you'd know what hand you're better at using quickly.
Posted by TheMasterGear, Apr 9 at 6:10 pm
Ischaldirh wrote
I have several points to make really quick.

Point 1) This is IVAN, not Dwarf Fortress or Real World Medieval Combat Simulator 2020. Some concessions to "what the system supports" and "what is cool" should be made. If I want to be able to (theoretically) swing two halberds around, don't you dare try and stop me..

You should, I agree it can even be done even realistically if you are really strong, skilled, and dexterous. It's just that halberds just too good for dual-wielding as they are now, it might even be the weapon itself that's the problem.

Ischaldirh wrote
Point 2) Blocking an attack with a mace and blocking an attack with a sword are basically the same. The difference is that swords are generally longer and better balanced, which makes them easier to move around. Recall that in-game, the block formula is affected by weapon accuracy..

Swords are bottom-heavy where hammer and maces are top-heavy. This makes swords feel much lighter and faster for their weight compared to top-heavy weapons, which feel heavier than their weight; It's basically a leaver work for you vs against you, this is why hammer and maces are so powerful. Because all that mass that's moving faster at the end where the hit "should" connect. Plus, swords have crossguards, unlike other weapons that tend not to have one.

Ischaldirh wrote
Point 3) As envisioned by the original devs, the three (main) combat styles each had their own purposes. Two-handed weapons pack a lot of punch, but are slow and inaccurate. They are excellent for crushing through blocks, but are ineffective against fast, agile enemies. Sword-and-board gives you a lot of blocking potential and respectable offensive power. They are great for dealing with many weak attacks, such as you might deal with when fighting a fast, agile character. Dual wielding gives you many weak attacks that come rapidly - great for overwhelming the limited blocking capacity of a two-handed weapon, less effective against the greater blocking power of a shield. They were supposed to play a sort of rock-paper-scissors. Dual wielding came to prominence mainly because of the power of Saal'Thul, the relative paucity of powerful two-handed weapons (beyond Mjolak), and the ineffectiveness of "tank builds". Whether dual wielding is STILL the dominant playstyle, I don't know..

I not a fan of the rocks paper scissors style, but I do agree that those are the prominent styles of play. High heath still seems to be an ineffective style of play.

Ischaldirh wrote
Point 4) Fighting with two weapons is not the same speed as fighting with one, whether in one hand or in two. What I mean to say is that the amount of time it takes you to complete one attack cycle when using two weapons is not equal to the amount of time it takes you to complete one cycle with one weapon. It's slower. Maybe not half as fast (I don't know the equation) but it is slower..

Oh, thank goodness! That sounds like that could be enough to be balanced. Forgive my lack of knowledge of the code.

Ischaldirh wrote
Point 6) I'm going to make a new thread for discussion of "swords akimbo" discussion. You can find it here.

Where did point 5 go? ;p
Posted by TheMasterGear, Apr 9 at 5:35 pm
capristo wrote
But I feel like even if we did give a bonus for 2-handing a 1-handed weapon, that bonus would be fairly small. It would still make way more sense for the player to just equip a shield or a separate weapon in their other hand.

True, the bonus would be small, shields are indeed the more practical choice, but the option for using a one-handed weapon by itself could prove to be an alluring experience. Not after everything I've heard, it seems that the main problem, even taking ambidexterity into account, that that dual-wielding doubles your attack output. It would in practice, mostly help with quicker easier parrying but weaker strength with the advantage that it can let you attack from two different openings in the opponent's guard.

capristo wrote
Maybe we could increase the blocking ability for swords though? Since long & short swords are the most likely weapons that you would pair with a shield, that makes the sword + shield combo a lot more appealing because both items block well.

The reason maces and shields are paired is due to that armored enemies are weak to crushing and war picks, and weapons like hammers, axes, maces, aren't the best for blocking. They need to rely on a shield or armor more so than swords. A sword and shield would be a good parry build, but it wouldn't be easy to beat an armored foe without a well-placed stab in-between their plating. Thus war picks, and maces were popularized during the late Medieval era when plate armor was commonplace. I believe War swords, also know as greatswords or even Zweihanders. These were popular because they had many of the advantages of spears. On top of that, these swords can be held in what's called the "Mordhau grip." Which turns the sword into a makeshift hammer, pick, or mace, depending on the design of the sword.
Posted by TheMasterGear, Apr 9 at 3:13 pm
red_kangaroo wrote
I think you misunderstand. The lower block value is not a problem, it's intentional, because of game balance.

Swords are one of the best weapons at parrying in real life, and in Ivan, they're one of the worst. While maces are good at blocking, which isn't true in real life.

red_kangaroo wrote
You cannot mix "realism" and superpowers. With as much LStr as it takes AStr to dual-wield halberds, you can kick down weaker walls (you can try it in UT, it's fun!). When the PC has enough AStr to dual-wield halberds, they are basically superstrong and can wield whatever they please.


Ever hear of Shadiversity. He does a series called Fantasy Re-armed. He's really good at taking real-world weapons and giving fantasy races with superpowers the most suitable weapon's that their specific powers would benefit the most from. I feel that realism can be intertwined with superpowers, and it will be all-the-more interesting.

red_kangaroo wrote
And can you swing with it at an opponent? Or at least try stabbing it into something. It will be very awkward, if you can even retain your hold.

Probably still pretty easy, minus the range I would lose when trying to reach someone with it. You mostly likely one and half hand it, switching to using two hands when you need extra power or for finishing blow. As I said, one-handed weapons are still better designed to be used in one hand, much like two-handers are used for two hands. That's why I didn't give small blades a two-handed flag when making my mod, as I felt that having that feature was a rather moot point.
Posted by TheMasterGear, Apr 9 at 2:21 pm
capristo wrote
Dual wield short swords/whips/daggers:
Pros: more accurate, get 2 hits per turn, require less strength
Cons: get less damage per hit, bad at blocking

I remedied this problem by buffing their roundness because swords and dagger have cross guards to block with and are very well balanced compared to other weapons in history.
capristo wrote
Dual wield halberds:
Pros: almost everything
Cons: impossible without insane strength from artificial limbs, which would also increase your danger level

Actually, once you are able to enchant your weapons +5 or more, and you can get extremely accurate halberds, I think
they are overpowered compared to smaller weapons. They are able to get
the same accuracy but small weapons can never achieve the same damage.

This, this is is exactly what I'm trying to avoid. Dual-wielding weapons that wouldn't be possible to wield due to their size, not just their weight.

capristo wrote
I think what TheMasterGear is referring to though, is intentionally two-handing a weapon that you could dual wield and adding a damage buff to that, since you're swinging with 2 arms.
But real world, I don't think that makes sense.
Using a dagger, whip, or a sword that was designed for 1 handed use, just becomes awkward if you use 2 hands with it instead.
Instead the player should be encouraged to use a shield or another weapon in their empty hand.

It's not that bad, I gave it a try, and I can easily wield a knife with both my hands. But I do agree that small weapons are generally suited for one hand because they're so small and light. But if you had a knife made of weighty material, you better use it in two hands.
Posted by TheMasterGear, Apr 9 at 12:57 pm
red_kangaroo wrote
That already is in the game.

If you check, larger weapon already have overall lower accuracy ratings than smaller weapons. Adamant dagger will still be rather accurate, but an adamant longsword will be very inaccurate. Dual-wielding smaller weapons is already much more viable than using any larger weapon, until we start to get into superhuman AStr and Dex, and then any real-world analogy falls apart. And two-handed weapons are already stronger than small weapons because they use AStr of both of your hands, pack a bigger punch and are good at blocking.

I'm aware of this, but I think there needs to be more penalties for dual-wielding in-general than lower accuracy and arm strength to be balanced. Dual-wielding should be an alternate tactic, not the normal go-to.
Posted by TheMasterGear, Apr 9 at 11:37 am
JoKe wrote
If I'm not horribly mistaken, the strength cap for weapons is +10.

Just as a thought, since we already have a strength minimum for one-handing a weapon, why not a dex minimum for dual wielding? Using something short like a dagger isn't too difficult to make use of in your offhand when compared to a longsword that's bound to get in the way used by someone without the skill required.

What I was thinking was giving every weapon a dexterity penalty just like armor, where having bigger weapons has a higher penalty just like heavier armor. This penalty will help a lot, making oversized weapons for dual-wielding a lot worse and will buff hand-to-hand and kicking. You have a good idea too!