Melee combat has always been in kind of a weird place in this game.
What I mean by this is that melee combat in Rimworld is first and foremost a hard counter to ranged attackers. If you melee a ranged unit, you shut that guy down completely. He might take a few swings at the pawn engaging him, but fists are no match for a longsword or even a club. His ranged friends might take down your melee pawn before he can finish the guy off but they're very likely to hit their buddy in the process.
So the issue I have is that a melee pawn is really best used as ambushers/kamikaze attackers against ranged units. Shields make this more tactical and less suicidal, but it's still the same basic strategy. What I would like to see is more focus on melee vs. melee combat. My suggestion is to make the melee skill more focused around defense than attack. So a high melee skill pawn who engages one or more enemies has a high chance to avoid attacks (or impose a penalty to the attacker, whatever works).
Since the enemy pretty much always has the advantage of numbers, this would make it possible to form a proper melee defense to protect your shooters/turrets. Because melee currently only dictates chance to hit, even a Godlike melee pawn is quickly brought down by numbers. He might take a limb off with every swing, but because he is constantly taking hits he won't be doing it for long.
This also opens up for more variety in melee weapons. There are niche uses for clubs (incap without killing) and gladii (faster attacks) and possibly the spear but the longsword is essentially the sniper rifle of melee weapons because of its high damage, which translates to a higher chance of chopping something off and one-hit downing/killing the enemy. But if gladii had a higher chance of parrying or whatever, you might consider it over a longsword for a more dug-in defense situation.
There is a mod that adds different types of shields (not the "deflect bullets" one already in the game, but heater shields, bucklers, all that), that actually absorb damage based on the pawns melee skill.
Quote from: Boston on April 24, 2016, 10:53:25 AM
There is a mod that adds different types of shields (not the "deflect bullets" one already in the game, but heater shields, bucklers, all that), that actually absorb damage based on the pawns melee skill.
That's cool but I'd rather see this done through skills/evasion. That way a good melee pawn doesn't automatically go down just because he gets mobbed but can actually stand his ground and prevent melee enemies from just running straight into your line of shooters/turrets. Also it means not adding any new items or complexity to the game.
Quote from: cultist on April 24, 2016, 12:46:22 PM
Quote from: Boston on April 24, 2016, 10:53:25 AM
There is a mod that adds different types of shields (not the "deflect bullets" one already in the game, but heater shields, bucklers, all that), that actually absorb damage based on the pawns melee skill.
That's cool but I'd rather see this done through skills/evasion. That way a good melee pawn doesn't automatically go down just because he gets mobbed but can actually stand his ground and prevent melee enemies from just running straight into your line of shooters/turrets. Also it means not adding any new items or complexity to the game.
I mean...... even a great melee fighter going down because they get mobbed is pretty true-to-life. There is nothing wrong with that.
While your skilled fighter can parry one blow pretty easily, the other three guys mobbing him get free shots.
One of the bigger problems with melee is the complete inability to protect regions that often get hit in melee.
This is aside from getting shot up by all of your allies.
Quote from: Mathenaut on April 24, 2016, 07:05:15 PM
One of the bigger problems with melee is the complete inability to protect regions that often get hit in melee.
Are we talking about the frequent eye scars here or something else? I don't feel like melee pawns are at more risk than my shooters. They tend to take more hits because you can't take cover from melee attacks, but enemies rarely spawn with the instant murder melee weapons like good longswords.
Quote from: cultist on April 25, 2016, 09:54:03 AM
Quote from: Mathenaut on April 24, 2016, 07:05:15 PM
One of the bigger problems with melee is the complete inability to protect regions that often get hit in melee.
Are we talking about the frequent eye scars here or something else? I don't feel like melee pawns are at more risk than my shooters. They tend to take more hits because you can't take cover from melee attacks, but enemies rarely spawn with the instant murder melee weapons like good longswords.
Eyes and much of the face are a big problem, along with hands and feet. You can't exactly build classic metal armor that would protect much.
Another thing is that there really is no avoiding damage in melee, which plays into all of the issues related to pawns taking damage (fluke kills, scars, pain, etc).
Not that there should be absolutely 0 attrition (like there functionally is for most ranged combat), but the attrition for melee is far too high. You're looking at coming off with about one scar every couple of engagements. There is no real recovery or mitigation to that.
According to rimworld, the most weathered, veteran fighters aren't hardened and experienced; they're limping, crippled messes that can't hold their own in a fight.
I personally would like to see melee and ranged both get a bit of a rework.
Currently you have a choice. Do I make this pawn a melee only pawn, or a ranged only pawn. The only case where one can be both really involves bionic limbs, which reduce their effectiveness in using their ranged weapon.
Instead I don't see why I should choose one or the other except in certain rare conditions, usually a trait. Instead ranged pawns should be able to carry a small melee weapon, and holster/sling their weapons when an enemy approaches to draw said weapon. A longsword or spear is too large to do this, but a gladius is a short sword, a combat knife, a shiv. All of these could effectively be used.
Also some weapons such as the assault rifle could have a bayonet attachment allowing it to fight like a slow gladius, but allowing more of a defensive value than said gladius. If you ever took bayonet training in the military you'd realize that the weapon makes a good blocking instrument.
For brawlers, the pilum or other thrown weapons should be used. You throw them away at the enemy as you advance. Instead of forcing a pawn however to stop to throw, allow them to advance at a walking pace during the animation, then make them run during the cooldown. This will let your brawler use his 8 shooting attack without making him unhappy to hold a gun.
Certain weapons such as large clubs however should not allow for throwing weapons. I agree that there needs to be low tech shields for these characters. However shields made of wood, or even steel will have a low chance of blocking or deflecting a bullet. Instead I'd like to see plasteel shields as well designed to absorb and deflect bullets while being lighter than steel shields.
This puts characters into several groups for combat:
Noncombat: Those incapable of violence will use a small melee weapon to defend themselves in combat, but they use it defensively to try to disengage, and aren't likely to hurt the opponent.
Guns and Bows: These units carry a small melee weapon. They will sling or holster their gun and draw this weapon if someone is approaching in melee.
Heavy Guns: Guns like the minigun are too large to sling. These units should carry that as a trade off for how effective they can be in combat.
Skirmishers: Those carrying medium or smaller melee weapons into combat should be allowed to have thrown weapons for when they advance. The current shield should not prevent such a low velocity weapon from being used. Medium weapons are of the Longsword variety.
Sword and Board: Those carrying weapons larger than a longsword, that cannot be effectively sheathed can carry a shield instead of having a ranged weapon. This shield can deflect arrows, and occasionally bullets, the best of which is made from plasteel which has a good chance of deflecting a bullet.
As far as injuries are concerned, I feel that if you have a number of competent doctors who can respond quickly, this really isn't an issue. The worst I've had from combat that wasn't a fatality was losing a limb which can be easily replaced. Then again I don't really play on the harder difficulties.
The scars that really get me are the ones that happen to a body part you cannot replace. Torso scars for example. Personally I don't see how a scar should affect HP of a bodypart at all, unless it's completely disfiguring. Perhaps that is what they mean by scars anyways since all other wounds heal completely. Perhaps it should be renamed to disfigurement?
I think the easiest way to do this would be for low-tech armors and shields to just act as phantom health that absorb a percentage of damage based upon type/quality.
Ballistic shields are pretty damn effective both in melee and against non-marksman shooters.
Pawns already have an inventory. Have size-ranges for weapons and restrictions based on those.
Example ranges: small/medium/large
Allow: 2x small, 1x1 small/medium, 1x large; where shields can be small or medium.
Instead of trying to double-up range weapons, simply give all of them a melee rating. A sturdy metal rifle is as solid a club as a block of stone.
Aside, the way scars work in general needs to be tweaked slightly - though, the real issue with scars relates to how pain is managed and how adversely it affects mood. The stakes on scars needs to be lowered, they shouldn't be an issue unless ALOT of them compound over a certain area. Especially since scars don't really make something more vulnerable to damage (would actually be the opposite).
Overall, there's just too much that players have too little control over, and the mechanics aren't as consistent as they could be.
OP, I recently wrote a suggestion on pretty much the same theme, here (http://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=18707.msg204369).
To me, melee has some very good pros of its own, such as its overall damage or personal shields, and it also benefits directly from some of the games general mechanics, such as the relatively low weapon range and the limit of one weapon per pawn.
On the other hand, it suffers from a number of issues, some minor like pawn stacks, colony-ruining berserks and bad weapon designing, others major like the frantic trade of blows in melee and all of the associated problems of getting hit dozens of times every fight, such as the steep decrease in capability of the melee fighter as the fight progresses, the always great serious injury chance and the big economic costs with downtime, medics, armor.
There's more detail in my original thread, but basically my suggestion was this:
When a pawn attempts to melee attack another pawn that is not using a ranged weapon, it suffers a penalty on its hit chance per the following formula:
finalhitchance = basehitchance - enemyskill²/1000
finalhitchance ≥ 33%
On your other point, the weapons, I feel like they need a complete rework, it just makes very little sense having all these weapon types with no particular function. It's even worse that they have a clear order of power, from shiv to longsword and from stone to plasteel. So at the end of the day everyone is making plasteel longswords while the dumb AI is spawning hordes of pawns with awful combinations.
My take on this would be to make big weapon categories with very distinct particular features, each housing a bunch of weapons with similar stats. So, combining my suggestion above with this:
Sidearm (fists, powerfists, knives, etc): sidearm, windup before attacking, "50% less skill when defending"
Swords: "25% more skill" when defending
Axes: higher damage, "25% less skill" when defending
Clubs: higher incap chance
Polearms: reach +1, area slow
Personally I feel like guns are too weak, and instead should shoot faster, much faster.
Imagine a guy running at you with a knife, while you've got a pistol its not hard to know how it ends normally. People don't take entire seconds to aim. Nor do they stay still while firing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s94OKo_KKho
IRL you can run while shooting, to balance out melee/ranged having ranged units being able to fire while on the move with a movement penalty would suffice, or have ranged weapons buffed so that they fire faster making shields less of a guarantee of successful engagement. This way a highly skilled marksman would be superior while a novice would be ground into meat.
I think that is wrong way to balance. With a handgun you have some chance to hit some one on random bodypart while running, but since there is 1 base movement speed with traits altering it, how do you decide if the pawn is running for his/her life, or just jogging while the melee attacker is "obviously" running on maximum effort?
Run&Gun has always been a special training where I met with it, so maybe a skill10+ may may novice chance to do it, but below that...
Also, I have handgun training, and believe me, while running a direction and firing behind you, it is the last desperate actioin after no other option left - bceause it doesnt really gives a real chance.
Quote from: BetaSpectre on April 27, 2016, 04:41:23 AM
Imagine a guy running at you with a knife, while you've got a pistol its not hard to know how it ends normally. People don't take entire seconds to aim. Nor do they stay still while firing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s94OKo_KKho
IRL you can run while shooting, to balance out melee/ranged having ranged units being able to fire while on the move with a movement penalty would suffice, or have ranged weapons buffed so that they fire faster making shields less of a guarantee of successful engagement. This way a highly skilled marksman would be superior while a novice would be ground into meat.
Wait.... CoD is your example of "IRL shooting"? Okay then.
I've never fired a real gun in my life, but common sense alone tells me that your chances of hitting vastly improves if you're not moving and taking time to aim properly.
Also, I would prefer if we could keep the topic on melee weapons. I see how your argument ties into melee, but making guns better only cripples melee vs. shooting instead of improving melee vs. melee (and giving melee colonists a purpose beyond kamikaze attackers/ambushers).
You'd be surprised at the people who stand still when someone is coming at them with a knife. RL isn't a video game.
This is important because most guns that are easy to use don't have alot of stopping power. If your pistol isn't a .45 or higher (which means you aren't firing on the move while hitting much), you need a well-placed shot or you're getting stabbed.
You don't have auto-correcting aim or a reticle in RL. You can practice this at home, actually. Get laser pen and put it on a 2.5lb weight. See how long it takes you to train it on a target, then see how well you do it while running.
In practice, you don't see laser sights for much. Those are more for other people than for the shooter, and you'll find that the laser sight is actually misleading. You'll essentially have to train your accuracy through muscle memory, which is what is being 'simulated' in FPS games.
I believe the melee is working as intended. Since you can't hold two weapons at the same time, If someone holding a sword gets near to you, you will be heavily damaged.
I built a defense with the chess pattern using walls, and if anyone with gunned raiders entered that zone, my colonist would just wreck them. Right now the only strong point in melee is closed quarters combat. If you use that in your defense, you will be surprised on it's efficiency. Except against Mechanoids... And Tribals... and that ones that come with plasteel gladius...
But against those, even normal gun fire defenses can fail. The zerg rush can be troublesome, Mech defenses are insane, and the dudes may come with masterwork shields that become a problem.
The idea of parrying is very nice, in a melee sword fight, both sides take heavy dmg, and fall into numbers. If you develop parry, the better you are in melee, the more damage you will be able to prevent. That also works for hunting, right now melee hunting is 100% unviable, but for hunting small creatures, melee would be great.
For flavor "This piece of art contemplates Justin parrying a rabbit's teeth on 15th of spring 5500, there is a cow burning in the lower part of the picture."
In real life, there is a principle (forget the name) where, if the attacker (armed with a melee weapon) is within a certain number of feet, no matter what your ranged weapon, they will still have time to get in and hit you at least once before they die.
You need to be incredebly strong to take a long sword with one hand.And it will be less powerfull than one hand.
Quote from: Bastobasto on April 27, 2016, 03:43:19 PM
You need to be incredebly strong to take a long sword with one hand.And it will be less powerfull than one hand.
Well, If I was setting it up, I would have inventory tweaked. Main hand and off hand for inventory, then a sidearm. So when you go to equip, you select where you want it. Two hand weapons, shotguns, etc of course take both. In terms of making use of sidearms, you have to give the order of melee/ranged and then they 'swap' with a click and a pause like equipping. If your sniper gets engaged by a melee person, then they are too busy defending themselves to put down the gun unless you tell him to drop the rifle.
So for example, your longsword user? You might have a pistol or pdw sidearm. So give the 'fire' command by clicking on the gun will pause to holster longsword and pull out the pdw.
If you have a guy with say two pistols and a knife sidearm, then if you give the melee command, he will put away the primary hand weapon to pull out the knife.
lastly can add a shield. So your guy could in theory be a full on shield. Two shields with the energy shield, and a short sword in holster ^.^ I would love shields, tweak your guys different ways. A heavy melee guy might have main hand shield with a second melee in offhand to differentiate between engaging a melee user or a gunner.
Tough part would be the AI though. In the case of the AI, I think it could stay fun without needing the swap.
physical shields make absolutely no sense in the rimworld universe Vaporiser, you use shields to block projectiles that are not bullets and to fight in battle formations, there's no reason why one of your colonists would ever want one or even think about building one (not that longswords are much better lol, but still)
Until you get to larger caliber they can be effective, though that would be heavy. Sides, this is rimworld. My theory, if you can make an armored vest, why not a shield the same way? A kevlar weave over a lightweight frame or similar? Plasteel shield that can stop bullets but that said, would degrade over time. Is rimworld, have fun ^.^
Quote from: Negocromn on April 27, 2016, 10:41:32 PM
physical shields make absolutely no sense in the rimworld universe Vaporiser, you use shields to block projectiles that are not bullets and to fight in battle formations, there's no reason why one of your colonists would ever want one or even think about building one (not that longswords are much better lol, but still)
What are you talking about? Shields make
perfect sense.
Hand-held shields deflect projectile missile weapons (arrows, javelins, sling-stones, etc) and melee weapons. What is the faction that 1) doesn't use guns, and 2) actually fights with melee weapons?
Oh, right.
Quote from: Boston on April 27, 2016, 11:05:07 PM
What are you talking about? Shields make perfect sense.
Hand-held shields deflect projectile missile weapons (arrows, javelins, sling-stones, etc) and melee weapons. What is the faction that 1) doesn't use guns, and 2) actually fights with melee weapons?
Oh, right.
And with the changes to things like adding infestations, and other perks to staying above ground, I have been actually having quite a bit of fun with my isolated buildings play I have been doing at the moment. Urban warfare so to speak. Gets close combat quite a bit actually. I am actually starting to get people more trained and equipped for secondary melee to protect my gunners.
Unless you're working with heavy caliber, alot of munitions won't cut through steel. Don't even get started on a good ballistic shield, there's only so much in RimWorld that would even crack that.
Quote from: Boston on April 27, 2016, 11:05:07 PM
Quote from: Negocromn on April 27, 2016, 10:41:32 PM
physical shields make absolutely no sense in the rimworld universe Vaporiser, you use shields to block projectiles that are not bullets and to fight in battle formations, there's no reason why one of your colonists would ever want one or even think about building one (not that longswords are much better lol, but still)
What are you talking about? Shields make perfect sense.
Hand-held shields deflect projectile missile weapons (arrows, javelins, sling-stones, etc) and melee weapons. What is the faction that 1) doesn't use guns, and 2) actually fights with melee weapons?
Oh, right.
Yeah I didn't express myself so well there, I know there are societies of multiple tech levels in the scenario.
Quote from: Vaporisor on April 27, 2016, 10:53:03 PM
Until you get to larger caliber they can be effective, though that would be heavy. Sides, this is rimworld. My theory, if you can make an armored vest, why not a shield the same way? A kevlar weave over a lightweight frame or similar? Plasteel shield that can stop bullets but that said, would degrade over time. Is rimworld, have fun ^.^
Quote from: Mathenaut on April 28, 2016, 03:24:19 AM
Unless you're working with heavy caliber, alot of munitions won't cut through steel. Don't even get started on a good ballistic shield, there's only so much in RimWorld that would even crack that.
The same could be said about a full set of medieval plate armor, but why would any of your colonists even consider medieval plate armor when they have easy access to cheap simple modern combat vests that are much more practical and, for most combat situations, superior? And then if they want another level of protection there's power armor.
Physical shields fall exactly in the same spot, why bother with them when Dune-style personal shields are everywhere? Why invest resources in archaic and cumbersome equipment when you can easily have something that is much better in every possible way?
I know I'm being a little dramatic here, but I can't think of a single situation where you'd want a physical shield when a personal shield is available. I mean, you can even use them as cover for your shooters, they have all bases covered lol.
To be fair Dune-style shields aren't everywhere, you still can't craft them.
Pro tip: if you're tired of your shooters getting tied in melee, invest in power claws (NOT scyther blades). For a marginal manipulation penalty, you get a massive melee damage boost, especially if you install two. For good result you need a colonist who is good both at ranged and melee combat. Don't think twice about it if you have a medieval lord or another combat specialist.
Power armor isn't everywhere either.
There is plenty of room and purpose for practical melee protections, especially since the means to get around them are infrequent.
I never said power armor is everywhere, I said that if people want to bother with armor beyond ballistic vests they can consider it. And it is pretty much an unrelated topic anyway.
Personal shields on the other hand are, yes, everywhere. The fact that you can't craft it doesn't really change much, you couldn't craft guns until recently either and they were just as ubiquitous.
In our current tech level, people don't use melee weapons except as a last resort, and the rare shields you ever see employed are used as gunfire cover in special situations. In the loose future tech level of your spacers, melee is brought back because of personal shields, so it's not even about them replacing physical shields, physical shields were long extinct and trashed, they wouldn't exist either way.
As I said, give me one situation where a shield might be practical and make sense.
Quote from: Vaporisor on April 27, 2016, 11:40:48 PM
Quote from: Boston on April 27, 2016, 11:05:07 PM
What are you talking about? Shields make perfect sense.
Hand-held shields deflect projectile missile weapons (arrows, javelins, sling-stones, etc) and melee weapons. What is the faction that 1) doesn't use guns, and 2) actually fights with melee weapons?
Oh, right.
And with the changes to things like adding infestations, and other perks to staying above ground, I have been actually having quite a bit of fun with my isolated buildings play I have been doing at the moment. Urban warfare so to speak. Gets close combat quite a bit actually. I am actually starting to get people more trained and equipped for secondary melee to protect my gunners.
Yep, with proper base-building, melee and short-range weapons can be
devastating.
That masterwork sniper rifle won't be very useful against a guy with a longsword jumping out at you from a corner. Or through a door.
Though I do agree that melee-vs-melee needs to be improved. Currently, it's a very luck-based thing. You send your best melee guy armed with the best stuff, and pray he manages to hit something vital before the enemy hits something vital, or just give up on melee and give him a gun.
Quote from: Negocromn on April 28, 2016, 11:14:50 PM
I never said power armor is everywhere, I said that if people want to bother with armor beyond ballistic vests they can consider it. And it is pretty much an unrelated topic anyway.
Personal shields on the other hand are, yes, everywhere. The fact that you can't craft it doesn't really change much, you couldn't craft guns until recently either and they were just as ubiquitous.
In our current tech level, people don't use melee weapons except as a last resort, and the rare shields you ever see employed are used as gunfire cover in special situations. In the loose tech level of your spacers, melee is brought back because of personal shields, so it's not even about them replacing physical shields, physical shields were long extinct and trashed, they wouldn't exist either way.
As I said, give me one situation where your a shield might be practical and make sense.
In real life or in-game?
The problem is, any shield that can stop a gun is bound to be way too heavy to lug around, and probably still not stand up to the really high-caliber stuff. Or explosives. You'll have better luck just hiding behind a wall or something. Well, unless you know your enemies don't have the high-caliber stuff or explosives.
In-game wise, a shield physical would be better than a personal shield simply because it doesn't 'break' and have to recharge every so often. It might not last as long overall, it might not block as much, but it's still better because you can count on it to last at least for the battle. It would also block point-blank shots and melee attacks, both things the personal shield can't block. And of course, if you get attacked by giant mutant insects, something to keep between them and you that
isn't just body armor would be nice, won't it?
Anyways, even if somewhat unrealistic, I think melee could use some more features.
Currently, melee is much neglected, kinda weird, and very random. And it has little if any, in the ways of a 'middle ground'
I mean, I can guess why it's in the game, but it's rather a niche thing, and because it's so vulnerable to large numbers, and anything with range when faced from what, five tiles away? And mechanoids/large animals. Can't forget those.
On the other hand, when viable, melee completely wrecks everything. Three guys with steel swords is actually enough to easily beat a raid of 10 pirates if in a good enough position.
Trying to use melee in any way without having the melee units slaugthered neary every time requires you to pretty much
1: Just use them as guards
2: Build your base/killzone in such a way that any raider in the area can be reached in less than 5 tiles, allowing melee units to ambush everyone.
3: Use large amounts of time micromanaging fights, having melee units move between cover between shots, covering for them with ranged units, and crossing fingers.
4: Get them the best quality personal shield and power armor.
or
5: Have as many animals who have 'obedience' as possible assigned to them.
Quote from: Negocromn on April 28, 2016, 11:14:50 PM
..physical shields were long extinct and trashed, they wouldn't exist either way.
Except that this isn't true. Especially in modern times. You can't find a swat or riot team in the modern-most parts of the world that doesn't employ shields.
Another case of reality being unrealistic for some people.
Quote from: Mathenaut on April 29, 2016, 06:11:40 PM
Quote from: Negocromn on April 28, 2016, 11:14:50 PM
..physical shields were long extinct and trashed, they wouldn't exist either way.
Except that this isn't true. Especially in modern times. You can't find a swat or riot team in the modern-most parts of the world that doesn't employ shields.
Another case of reality being unrealistic for some people.
In real life, actual physical shields are actually quite easy to build. If you can make a basket (itself quite simple), then you can make a shield.
Take a sapling as tall as you are, cut it down and split it in half. Take the bark from one half and use it to tie the half in a circle. Weave things like reeds, pliable twigs or bunched grass in and around the circle. Support this weaving with pieces of the other half of the sapling.
In about an hour of work, you have a shield that, once it is dry, is lightweight and will deflect spears, clubs and even arrows, if held at the proper angle.
Overall, it did get off topic. The convo started at melee vs melee combat with parry and such. So the two bits to this thread I really like:
1. Melee vs Melee. Hit chance related by comparative skills. So two high melees have trouble hitting, but landing a hit means that it does hella damage vs two skill 2 melee folks. It also can add value to other melee weapons. Knives or short swords offering a parry bonus.
2. Offhand/two weapon combat. Nice to have a bit more depth to combat overall to spice things up. Make a bit more tactical.
3. Shields can be very interesting I think if combined with two weapon. Attacker vs defender. It also would make raiders far more dangerous as a self contained killzone that autokills anything that enters is going to be a bit less effective meaning some player activity still required. They would have less offensive power, but the ability to be a frontline charge is a fun threat that I would be looking forward to.
Any of these interesting suggestions will require a rework of the current literal gamble that is melee.
For me a Dodge skill would be fantastic, that really could be used in ranged and melee combat, with general ranged accuracy increased to accommodate the adjustment. Meanwhile an added Defense skill would be the pawn's use of peripherals to block/redirect attacks through shields, swords and the like.
So skilled colonist marksmen are less likely to get shot through Dodge, and skilled swordsmen are less likely to get hit through Dodge, however every pawn has the opportunity upon being hit to deflect the blow through the use of his/her peripheral (aka: the sword/shield) through their Defense. The ability to block/redirect should be based on the skill but effected by the peripheral's Ranged Defense and Melee Defense values, and on a successful interception the incoming damage is subtracted from the material strength, so a wooden shield is likely to intercept a bullet but will only lighten the damage slightly, a steel shield might stop a bullet completely, a steel sword is highly unlikely to catch a bullet but if it does it might stop the bullet and you might own a Jedi.
The whole shields aren't used argument seems to largely comes from a place of ignorance, in confined spaces (SWAT) and against primitive weaponry (Rioters/Police) they are used, and saw use throughout history in conflicts against colonial forces despite their relative ineffectiveness against the firearms of the day just for there value in melee and for use against their equally comparatively primitively armed neighbors, and habit I guess.
I really do like the idea of 2-3 inventory slots, with different handheld weapons(or even tools) taking up a differing number of spaces, and limiting the number of active items "in-hand" to 2 slots. So rifle/longsword takes 2 slots, gladius/pistol and shield takes two slots, a gladius/pistol takes one slot. The remaining slot is manually switched to, or automatically switched to if the target is within the off hand weapon's optimum range.
Quote from: SuperCaffeineDude on April 29, 2016, 07:49:19 PM
I really do like the idea of 2-3 inventory slots, with different handheld weapons(or even tools) taking up a differing number of spaces,
I would do it like this: a pawn has 3 slots. A weapon uses either 1 or 2 slots.
Pistol - 1 slot.
Longsword - 2 slots
Knife - 1 slot
Club - 1 slot
Spear - 2 slots
Rifle - 2 slots
And so on. You would either get a good melee weapon and a poor ranged one, or poor melee with good ranged. Some extreme weapons like miniguns, rocket launchers might take 3 slots.
Quote from: b0rsuk on April 29, 2016, 08:07:00 PM
Quote from: SuperCaffeineDude on April 29, 2016, 07:49:19 PM
I really do like the idea of 2-3 inventory slots, with different handheld weapons(or even tools) taking up a differing number of spaces,
I would do it like this: a pawn has 3 slots. A weapon uses either 1 or 2 slots.
Pistol - 1 slot.
Longsword - 2 slots
Knife - 1 slot
Club - 1 slot
Spear - 2 slots
Rifle - 2 slots
And so on. You would either get a good melee weapon and a poor ranged one, or poor melee with good ranged. Some extreme weapons like miniguns, rocket launchers might take 3 slots.
Yeah I would be pro this, with or without shields, and I could see it steering the vanilla game towards having "tools" assigned to colonists to buff activities. The "butchers knife"/"screwdriver" and a rifle, "toolkit"/"chainsaw" and pistol. Another convo though :P.
I never even thought of the toolkits portion of the option. And having heavy weapons such as rockets and miniguns being a three slot would be nice. Mostly I just think it would add a lot of flavour without making combat a micromanagement game. You can still run the blob around, or if you are like me, I like to one speed micro combat moving all my guys into position and not rely on a wafflerocks turret killbox.
Quote from: AllenWL on April 28, 2016, 11:53:33 PM
In-game wise, a shield physical would be better than a personal shield simply because it doesn't 'break' and have to recharge every so often. It might not last as long overall, it might not block as much, but it's still better because you can count on it to last at least for the battle. It would also block point-blank shots and melee attacks, both things the personal shield can't block. And of course, if you get attacked by giant mutant insects, something to keep between them and you that isn't just body armor would be nice, won't it?
You're assuming using a shield is just a straight up advantage or at least that it should be translated in the game that way. I disagree, there's clear disadvantages to using a shield and lots of grey areas where things are very situational.
The biggest disadvantage of wearing a shield is that you'll lose a lot of mobility, it makes you slower, you'll take longer to reach people and you'll be less dangerous and less capable of changing targets and finishing targets. Another big disadvantage is that it works against you in close combat against knives, fists, animals, whatever, because in this type of situation that offhand holding the big shield can't push, grapple and manipulate like a free hand, and the shield itself will mostly just be a big prop constraining you. Then there's a ton of scenarios and weapon combinations where even in standard melee combat using a shield isn't necessarily an advantage, be it because it's more advantageous to use another weapon in the offhand, or because it's more advantageous to have a free hand for extra nimbleness, balance or any other reason. TLDR, a simple bonus to blocking would be some very wrong and lazy devving.
Considering that in rimworld we pretty much only have small skirmishes where melee fighters try to close up as fast as possible on the other sides shooters to butcher them, I don't see shields being of any help, they'd just get in the way.
Quote from: Mathenaut on April 29, 2016, 06:11:40 PM
Quote from: Negocromn on April 28, 2016, 11:14:50 PM
..physical shields were long extinct and trashed, they wouldn't exist either way.
Except that this isn't true. Especially in modern times. You can't find a swat or riot team in the modern-most parts of the world that doesn't employ shields.
Another case of reality being unrealistic for some people.
This is just me being a victim of my shitty dramatic writing tbh, I even acknowledged the existence of shields today in rare special situations in the same post but then went over the top on that phrase lol.
But yeah, shields are pretty much nonexistant nowadays considering everything, for every gunfight that involves a ballistic shield there's probably thousands or tens of thousands that don't, the chances of a hypothetical current world colonist even thinking about building or using a shield are very low. Btw, shields stopped being the bread and butter of warfare in the late middle ages and have been less and less relevant since. I see no reason why they would be relevant again in the rimworld future, specially considering the specific skirmish scenarios.
Quote from: Vaporisor on April 29, 2016, 07:10:12 PM
Overall, it did get off topic. The convo started at melee vs melee combat with parry and such. So the two bits to this thread I really like:
1. Melee vs Melee. Hit chance related by comparative skills. So two high melees have trouble hitting, but landing a hit means that it does hella damage vs two skill 2 melee folks. It also can add value to other melee weapons. Knives or short swords offering a parry bonus.
2. Offhand/two weapon combat. Nice to have a bit more depth to combat overall to spice things up. Make a bit more tactical.
3. Shields can be very interesting I think if combined with two weapon. Attacker vs defender. It also would make raiders far more dangerous as a self contained killzone that autokills anything that enters is going to be a bit less effective meaning some player activity still required. They would have less offensive power, but the ability to be a frontline charge is a fun threat that I would be looking forward to.
I'm actually fine with some weapons being better than others. A knife is just plain worse than a sword if you're trying to kill someone in an open battle (i.e. you're not sticking it in someone's back). The only major complaint I have is that spears seem pointless compared to longswords. They are just slightly worse and there's no unique feature that makes them worth using. You could make the same arguemnt for most other melee weapons, but at least they either
a) attack faster or
b) are available for crafting before you research smithing.
Apart from that, I feel like my other issues with melee can be fixed mostly with numbers. There's no need to add shields or dual-wielding or all that tiresome stuff that requires new graphics, new code, lots of testing/balancing and so on. All I want is for every creature not to have an absurdly high chance to hit in melee, regardless of their skill and the skill of the enemy. Melee is not only one of the slowest/hardest skills to increase, it also serves very little purpose and essentially does only one thing - slightly increase hit chance which you don't even need to begin with.
Make high melee vs. high melee fight a drawn-out duel, high melee vs. low melee the opposite. Low melee vs. low melee is of less interest to me, because these fights only happen randomly. You don't willingly send out a low melee pawn with a melee weapon, it's usually better to give them a gun if they can hold it.
Quote from: cultist on April 30, 2016, 06:01:22 AM
Quote from: Vaporisor on April 29, 2016, 07:10:12 PM
Overall, it did get off topic. The convo started at melee vs melee combat with parry and such. So the two bits to this thread I really like:
1. Melee vs Melee. Hit chance related by comparative skills. So two high melees have trouble hitting, but landing a hit means that it does hella damage vs two skill 2 melee folks. It also can add value to other melee weapons. Knives or short swords offering a parry bonus.
2. Offhand/two weapon combat. Nice to have a bit more depth to combat overall to spice things up. Make a bit more tactical.
3. Shields can be very interesting I think if combined with two weapon. Attacker vs defender. It also would make raiders far more dangerous as a self contained killzone that autokills anything that enters is going to be a bit less effective meaning some player activity still required. They would have less offensive power, but the ability to be a frontline charge is a fun threat that I would be looking forward to.
I'm actually fine with some weapons being better than others. A knife is just plain worse than a sword if you're trying to kill someone in an open battle (i.e. you're not sticking it in someone's back). The only major complaint I have is that spears seem pointless compared to longswords. They are just slightly worse and there's no unique feature that makes them worth using. You could make the same arguemnt for most other melee weapons, but at least they either
a) attack faster or
b) are available for crafting before you research smithing.
Apart from that, I feel like my other issues with melee can be fixed mostly with numbers. There's no need to add shields or dual-wielding or all that tiresome stuff that requires new graphics, new code, lots of testing/balancing and so on. All I want is for every creature not to have an absurdly high chance to hit in melee, regardless of their skill and the skill of the enemy. Melee is not only one of the slowest/hardest skills to increase, it also serves very little purpose and essentially does only one thing - slightly increase hit chance which you don't even need to begin with.
Make high melee vs. high melee fight a drawn-out duel, high melee vs. low melee the opposite. Low melee vs. low melee is of less interest to me, because these fights only happen randomly. You don't willingly send out a low melee pawn with a melee weapon, it's usually better to give them a gun if they can hold it.
Maybe give spears "reach", ie let them attack enemies further away?
I dunno, I just really love spears. My favorite melee weapon in real life, and it is sadly underrepresented in most games, due to both Western and Eastern cultural hard-ons for swords. In reality, the spear was the most common melee weapon, worldwide, from the Paleolithic up until the 1800s. Cheap, easy to use, and effective. Getting stabbed in the chest should, really, kill someone just as fast as getting a limb lopped off (which, in reality, is actually pretty difficult to do. Bone is surprisingly hard, and the hard carbon steel used for blade edges chips easily) by a sword
Quote from: Negocromn on April 29, 2016, 10:31:06 PM
You're assuming using a shield is just a straight up advantage or at least that it should be translated in the game that way. I disagree, there's clear disadvantages to using a shield and lots of grey areas where things are very situational.
The biggest disadvantage of wearing a shield is that you'll lose a lot of mobility, it makes you slower, you'll take longer to reach people and you'll be less dangerous and less capable of changing targets and finishing targets. Another big disadvantage is that it works against you in close combat against knives, fists, animals, whatever, because in this type of situation that offhand holding the big shield can't push, grapple and manipulate like a free hand, and the shield itself will mostly just be a big prop constraining you. Then there's a ton of scenarios and weapon combinations where even in standard melee combat using a shield isn't necessarily an advantage, be it because it's more advantageous to use another weapon in the offhand, or because it's more advantageous to have a free hand for extra nimbleness, balance or any other reason. TLDR, a simple bonus to blocking would be some very wrong and lazy devving.
Considering that in rimworld we pretty much only have small skirmishes where melee fighters try to close up as fast as possible on the other sides shooters to butcher them, I don't see shields being of any help, they'd just get in the way.
Quote from: Mathenaut on April 29, 2016, 06:11:40 PM
Quote from: Negocromn on April 28, 2016, 11:14:50 PM
..physical shields were long extinct and trashed, they wouldn't exist either way.
Except that this isn't true. Especially in modern times. You can't find a swat or riot team in the modern-most parts of the world that doesn't employ shields.
Another case of reality being unrealistic for some people.
This is just me being a victim of my shitty dramatic writing tbh, I even acknowledged the existence of shields today in rare special situations in the same post but then went over the top on that phrase lol.
But yeah, shields are pretty much nonexistant nowadays considering everything, for every gunfight that involves a ballistic shield there's probably thousands or tens of thousands that don't, the chances of a hypothetical current world colonist even thinking about building or using a shield are very low. Btw, shields stopped being the bread and butter of warfare in the late middle ages and have been less and less relevant since. I see no reason why they would be relevant again in the rimworld future, specially considering the specific skirmish scenarios.
1) Shields, actual shields designed for combat, not "wall hangers", much like actual combat weapons, are not at all heavy or unwieldy, nor do they slow you down. A Viking/Migration-era roundshield weighs, at most, a couple of lbs, and they are
very lightweight and easy to move around quickly. A shield made of wicker or leather is even more lightweight.
2) Shields fell out of favor in the Late Middle Ages due to development in armor technology: ie full plate. When your entire body is encased in ~5mm of fluted, hardened steel plates and you are wielding a zweihander with 2 hands.....you don't really need a shield to protect you.
3) Contrary to "common knowledge", when using a shield in the off-hand, the weapon in the main hand actually becomes the "secondary weapon". A shield is actually a lethally dangerous weapon in its own right, capable of breaking bones and killing the enemy when used properly. A shoulder-check-style shield bash can easily shatter someones ribs, and "punching" them with the rim is more than capable of breaking an arm or the neck.
4) Also contrary to "common knowledge", "dual-wielding" a weapon in the off-hand was never really popular, not on the battlefield. There
were styles where a weapon was used in the off-hand, but they were 1) mainly "civilian" techniques, taught for dueling others in a mediated environment, and 2) used for defense (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parrying_dagger).
On the actual battlefield, you were generally either 1) using a one-handed weapon with a shield, or 2) a 2 handed weapon.
Could we please keep this on topic or at least related to the game? Or at the very very least not quite giant blocks of irrelevant text?
Quote from: Vaporisor on April 29, 2016, 08:54:55 PM
I never even thought of the toolkits portion of the option. And having heavy weapons such as rockets and miniguns being a three slot would be nice. Mostly I just think it would add a lot of flavour without making combat a micromanagement game. You can still run the blob around, or if you are like me, I like to one speed micro combat moving all my guys into position and not rely on a wafflerocks turret killbox.
A side effect of the 3 slot system would be that smaller guns and melee weapons would still see play in late game. If you carry a longsword, it's either a pistol/PDW or no ranged. Maybe we could make shortbows and pilas 1 slot ?
And I think the idea to have optional tools that improve work effectiveness but use slots is nice.
3 slot system would make room for some fancy colonist perks, like "Armed to the teeth" which gives 4 weapon slots total. Or the opposite, a colonist who only has 2 slots but what if he's an amazing sniper ?
Quote from: Boston on April 30, 2016, 06:44:35 AM
1) Shields, actual shields designed for combat, not "wall hangers", much like actual combat weapons, are not at all heavy or unwieldy, nor do they slow you down. A Viking/Migration-era roundshield weighs, at most, a couple of lbs, and they are very lightweight and easy to move around quickly. A shield made of wicker or leather is even more lightweight.
2) Shields fell out of favor in the Late Middle Ages due to development in armor technology: ie full plate. When your entire body is encased in ~5mm of fluted, hardened steel plates and you are wielding a zweihander with 2 hands.....you don't really need a shield to protect you.
3) Contrary to "common knowledge", when using a shield in the off-hand, the weapon in the main hand actually becomes the "secondary weapon". A shield is actually a lethally dangerous weapon in its own right, capable of breaking bones and killing the enemy when used properly. A shoulder-check-style shield bash can easily shatter someones ribs, and "punching" them with the rim is more than capable of breaking an arm or the neck.
4) Also contrary to "common knowledge", "dual-wielding" a weapon in the off-hand was never really popular, not on the battlefield. There were styles where a weapon was used in the off-hand, but they were 1) mainly "civilian" techniques, taught for dueling others in a mediated environment, and 2) used for defense (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parrying_dagger).
On the actual battlefield, you were generally either 1) using a one-handed weapon with a shield, or 2) a 2 handed weapon.
I don't think there's much in what you said here that contradicts what I said in my post and I probably agree with everything you said. I know shields are supposed to be very light, I know they are very versatile tools, I know the history, etc.
I don't see how any of that disproves my points, that wearing any shield with a surface area large enough to offer any decent protection against bullets will slow you down considerably and will constrain you in grappling and so on, that shields haven't been the bread and butter of warfare for several hundred years now and would need to be pretty much rediscovered in rimworlds distant future, and so on.
Quote from: cultist on April 30, 2016, 06:52:16 AM
Could we please keep this on topic or at least related to the game? Or at the very very least not quite giant blocks of irrelevant text?
There's not much to actually discuss here tbh.
Reading the thread and other threads on the same subject it is clear that everyone agrees melee needs major work, that it is too simple, that melee characters can't defend themselves, that the melee skill is almost worthless.
And then we have our own ideas on how to change this and we certainly have given Tynan some good inspiration and some healthy pressure to see this in the game, but until someone comes up with a mod implementing whatever they like to see changed this will probably continue to go nowhere.
I don't think that melee is too 'weak' - although it may be - but too boring!! You walk up to a pawn and tie him up in melee. Then both pawns just stand there trading hits like in a cRPG game. Ranged combat has mechanics like (simple) cover and is positional. You move and attempt to outflank enemies (unless you're a fan of killboxes). Furthermore, melee doesn't benefit from ranged support because of massive friendly fire. Ranged weapons have various ranges, cooldown vs warmup, some have area effects or set stuff on fire. Melee is only about DPS and being able to withstand DPS.
Adding shields that are pretty much extra HP will not fix that.
I want melee that adds extra tactical options! How to make melee fights more dynamic and mobile ?
I want special moves and not stuff like "dragon punch" and other damage modifiers. Disarming opponents, pulling them from open behind corner and administering smackdown. Take a look at this picture:
(http://wstaw.org/m/2016/04/30/melee_interception.png)
The colony proper is to the left, this is my remote farm and a mortar site. I walled off a big section of the map, but sappers broke through while taking only one mortar hit. They're advancing to the north. David is in position with minigun, Grim wields a LMG, the rest have longer range weapons. Bad news - they have a triple rocket launcher! So Berth (shielded) set up an ambush at the generator building and intercepted the rocket launcher - in melee!! It would be way harded to do this with another kind of weapon, and I might not kill him in time.
Unfortunately, because melee combat is static, they had to stand there and hit each other in view of shooters. If I could, I would pull Rin inside, out of view and stomp her into ground.
Berth had great time in that raid, he killed three, and while he was drunk.
Well, the idea with melee shields and such isn't more HP, but more about damage reduction for skilled melee people. Good melee does use tactics a fair bit. I make use of flanking and rushing to tie up important people. Not sure how the combat itself can be more 'dynamic' Special moves and such could be interesting, but melee and the choice of weapons itself lean towards unique hits and events.
Pull around corner and such? From a UI point of view could be difficult. It would have to go back to a melee vs melee skill I guess. In a fight you really won't be able to subdue somebody who is fighting back easily without beating em down or just swamping them. A good melee vs poor melee can one hit KO with a dodge system theoretically.
Quote from: Vaporisor on April 30, 2016, 12:54:00 PM
Well, the idea with melee shields and such isn't more HP, but more about damage reduction for skilled melee people.
Translation: it's more HP. And it would just make pawns even more bullet spongy.
QuoteSpecial moves and such could be interesting, but melee and the choice of weapons itself lean towards unique hits and events.
Weapon variety is there for ranged weapons, but not for melee. You have slow vs fast weapons and that's it. Cutting weapons are not very good if you want to capture colonists because they tend to cut limbs. Why not weapons with knockback ? They would enable to defend against multiple attackers. Or a weapon which enables hit&run attacks, something I could smack a megaspider with and not suffer retaliation. Maybe a spear could work like that.
Quote
Pull around corner and such? From a UI point of view could be difficult. It would have to go back to a melee vs melee skill I guess. In a fight you really won't be able to subdue somebody who is fighting back easily without beating em down or just swamping them. A good melee vs poor melee can one hit KO with a dodge system theoretically.
If you think in terms of melee strikes, no. But techniques like judo and wrestling are about grabs and throws.
Oh, I see more what you are saying. Yeah, we essentially have four groups of melee. Blunt and sharp each with fast and slow. While that offers some variance, it would be nice if there was more like how weapons have range, accuracy, etc. Thinking in terms of game and modding, watching predators gives me some ideas...
First is the 'stun' it would be real interesting if certain weapons could cause a stun effect. So say shivs and clubs.
Disarm really would be vital as well and can go on weapons like the short sword and unarmed combat. Both chance related to melee skill. Unarmed combat being unique in that it is the only one that can both stun and disarm making martial artists (high melee, no weapon) a viable usage.
Also means if there is that one invader you REALLY want to capture more viable to capture by sending out unarmed, high melee peeps. The capturing of people is something that can frustrate me at times, especially with the new persistent and social system. We get an attack, know that _____ spouse is there. I send three no melee skill guys equipped with range weapons to melee that person and they still kill them most every time. But a prison break with ten prisoners that knocks out every one of them and all but one of my colonists has zero fatalities.
Knockback and grabbling would be interesting, I just am trying to imagine how it would work in rimworld. Having reach weapons would be cool though allowing melee people to stab and defend from doorways without having to fully expose themselves. Side effects of attacks is probably the most immediately implementable. Is there any mods for that?
If unarmed combat was a guarantee to capture a living prisoner, Melee would see more use. As it is, with its 40 HP it's fairly common to see opponent's torso punched to destruction.
Quote from: b0rsuk on April 30, 2016, 01:40:56 PM
If unarmed combat was a guarantee to capture a living prisoner, Melee would see more use. As it is, with its 40 HP it's fairly common to see opponent's torso punched to destruction.
That bothers me so much. I remember a playthrough as a cannibal colony and so much savescumming cause I could never capture the attacking cannibals alive. Rush the guy with my worst melee people while unarmed and still kill them 4/5 times. Playing a themed colony or as slavers can get quite frustrating...
Quote from: b0rsuk on April 30, 2016, 01:40:56 PM
If unarmed combat was a guarantee to capture a living prisoner, Melee would see more use. As it is, with its 40 HP it's fairly common to see opponent's torso punched to destruction.
Quote from: Vaporisor on April 30, 2016, 01:46:56 PM
That bothers me so much. I remember a playthrough as a cannibal colony and so much savescumming cause I could never capture the attacking cannibals alive. Rush the guy with my worst melee people while unarmed and still kill them 4/5 times. Playing a themed colony or as slavers can get quite frustrating...
That's more of a problem with the storyteller system than melee itself. When any pawn that is not one of your colonists is incapacitated, there's a chance the storyteller, depending on the game circumstances, will just kill it. And the chance is always big afaik.
Rimworld melee combat does not acknowledge the idea of "parrying."
Very frustrating.