Let's talk about melee combat

Started by cultist, April 24, 2016, 08:35:29 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Vaporisor

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.
Stories by Vaporisor

Escaped convicts!
concluded
Altair XIII
Frozen Wastes

Mathenaut

Any of these interesting suggestions will require a rework of the current literal gamble that is melee.

SuperCaffeineDude

#32
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.

b0rsuk

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.

SuperCaffeineDude

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.

Vaporisor

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.
Stories by Vaporisor

Escaped convicts!
concluded
Altair XIII
Frozen Wastes

Negocromn

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.

cultist

#37
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.

Boston

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

Boston

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.

cultist

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?

b0rsuk

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 ?

Negocromn

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.

Negocromn

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.

b0rsuk

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:

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.