Multiple weapons

Do that same experiment except switch from a bow to a dagger and tell me how long it takes. If you read my prior posts, you would see that I'm not asking for a quick switch for large weapons.

 

Ok but... how much time it took you?
All apart, I'm not here to convince you about anything: I explained my point of view, about the "realism" (and not the "real", even if the experiment implied a real experience), you did the same, ok.

 

Games don't have to be real to be fun. I'd take fun over real any day, for my entertainment.

 

I bet no one is asking this game "to be real": it's a game and it have not to be.
It's just my preference, generally speaking, to avoid what I think is "nonsense" and to try having "realism" into the games I play (when they're not arcades... which I usually don't play).

About "realism": I consider "realistic" an arrow which does some damage, up to an instant kill if I get the right place (critic shot), but not to create a nuke-like effect.
At the same time, a magical arrow can create a nuke-like effect, still remaining "realistic", if it's made to do that effect.

About the "real" side: I asked Adam to do the experiment in real life just to make him aware about the times involved in situations like these: playing games (or looking at TV movies) we usually lose the "common sense" about things which, in another time, was real and used by real people. Some game's mechanics work in a way to preserve the "playability" and, even if that may be a little "borderline" sometimes, it can be understood, but being borderline shouldn't be an usual way, IMHO.

 

You still aren't listening to me or reading my previous ideas in this thread. I would prefer it if you responded to my ideas and my statements because you are agreeing with most of them, yet arguing all my major points. You've asked me to do an experiment, and I asked you to read my prior posts, which u obviously didn't do. How long did it take your experiment when it was a bow and a dagger. I'm serious, I want to know. I'm very serious about this idea. I think it will be good for the game so unless you are willing to read my prior posts, and give me some serious feedback I don't want to hear it.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT INSTA-SWAPPING WEAPONS!

For the last time, I want a quicker switch-totally dependant on the size of the weapon. I want it realistic, seriously run the test with a great athlete, record the times and let's do it. It will not take 8 seconds to switch from a bow to a dagger. I don't care how un-athletic and clumsy you are, you will be able to switch faster than 8 seconds.

This is the last time I try, please respond to my ideas. Not "your idea" of what my idea is. Just read it this time. I want realism when it comes to this... not insta-switch...

 

~Weapons Switching is Deck Swapping~
As long as our game has deck swapping as a skill and not an option, then players need to study and invest experience points into that skill to be able to do it any faster than they do it now manually.
SOTA demands the skill to do it, be a learned skill.
~Time Lord~

 

Ok, it's last time I try too.

So, Adam, you didn't do my experiment, and still speak about seconds. It's ok, up to you to verify if you can do it in a few seconds or in a minute.
I did read your starting post, not now but before (it's only you who thinks I never read it), and what does this mean?

(cit.) "Just look at my sig pic, the archer has a dagger & a sword equipped. It would be very easy for him to grab those"

Maybe I've a little english understanding, as I'm italian (if you like to have an italian answer to translate just tell me), but it seems to me that the archer would like to place his bow on the shoulder (some seconds, may we say 3-4? try it or accept my times!), to draw out a dagger (short time, 2 seconds?) or a sword (more time, 3-4?)... so, where we're going to? 8 seconds, if you avoid to drop your bow to the ground to draw another weapon? This is about realism... but you placed your sentence in game mechanic's terms, kind of "adjusting the deck swapping times depending on the alternate deck's weapons" (the equip, not the skills, am I wrong?).

So, please, be calm and relax: as Time Lord wrote, it's all about the skill: casting a spell then using another skill like Camouflage is different, as they can be into the same deck, but you wish to switch decks, at the same time to switch weapons (equip) in less than the actual times... I suggest you to improve your swapping skill.

 

hm... dropping your weapon on the ground to pick up another weapon you have as a secondary or tertiary from your paperdoll..would be faster - and you better remember to pick it up after the fight, or kill the npc or player who picked it up while you were fighting.

i'd love to see that. - and the abilityu to tether it to your person... a thin rope tied to the pommel of the dagger and looped around your belt, or something...so the npc or player who picks it up has to actively cut the string - which can be deemed an act of aggression and then you are engaged in a fight with them from that moment forward.

 

I didn't start this thread. That wasn't the post I was referring to. No worries tho, and it took me under 3 seconds to switch from my uncles real bow to a knife. It took us about 10 minutes to come up with a little hook on my back that I easily hung his compound bow behind me very quickly. If we spent more time on it, would have been even faster. But it works and I didn't have to throw it on the ground.

 

Real life time of swapping between weapons is NOT very long at all. Especially, once someone is trained to do so (but even the untrained can do it exceptionally quickly). I could see you trying to argue it should take longer for someone who has never done it in a stressful environment (like combat)... but even then with adrenaline coursing through you, it takes about under 1-2 seconds to draw a blade depending on length. Those with expert training (like the japanese art of Iaido I think) can do it almost faster than the eye can follow (for unsheathing and resheathing the sword)

If you are unstringing a bow and storing it, then yes, that would take some time. Combat slinging it across your back wouldn't take much time at all.

 

(couldn't resist) 8^)

 

~Battles in a Flash~
Some concepts of what real life offers, are not what real life offers. Most battles in real life take seconds to happen and reach their final conclusion. All too often we are presented with battles within cinema that are stand off'ish where they are facing one another, yet in real life combat, such stands are never as long. Those (even) 2 seconds are enough to be deadly to have taken, and I'd say that those 2 seconds are more deadly than not. Running away and returning is more probable, if even for a short distance. I'm not going to make this any life recollection post here, yet I will say that in close combat, 2 seconds is all there is, because one decided to stay and the other decided to attack. Even our current PvP battles between opponents don't last for very long at all.
~Time Lord~

 

Amen on this. Most actual duels with swords (if anyone has ever watched fencing or read history) are usually 1 or 2 strike affairs and they are over. 8 seconds would be an eternity in a real battle.

 

This is very true my friend. The average medieval battle lasted less than two hours with roughly 30 minutes of actual engagement and the rest chasing/routing the enemy.

One of the longest and certainly most significant medieval battles in the history of England, was the Battle of Hastings. Historians estimate that the engagement began in the morning hours of October 14th, 1066 and lasted all day until sunset (which was around 5:00 pm). Although the actual time of engagement is debated by scholars, it is widely believed that the entire thing lasted 6-8 hours. Which is insane! Although there have been technically longer battles during the Middle Ages, such as the Battle of Hatten, the Battle of Hastings was the longest in actual combat lasting more than 2-4 hours.

A major factor of which was due to Duke William's elite cavalry wearing down the already exhausted Anglo-Saxon Forces of King Harold Godwinson until late afternoon that day. It is important to note that, King Harold received news of Duke William's invasion shortly after defeating the Norse King Harald Hadraga on September 25, 1066 at the Battle of Stamford Bridge up north in Yorkshire. He then marches south across the entire country to meet the Normans, under Duke William and engage them three weeks later at the Battle of Hastings.

When King Harold fought against his dreaded Viking enemy, King Harald Hadraga, he had the advantage of superior numbers and access to fresh supplies. The English fielded an army of 15,000 and the Norse an estimated 9,000. With both superior numbers, fresh troops and battlefield advantage King Harold Godwinson, would win the day killing an estimated 6,000 Norsemen and losing 5,000 of his own men. Upon arriving exhausted at Hastings in the south of England, King Harold knew he had little hope fighting directly against the well provisioned, elite cavalry of Duke William. So he took position on a hill to the north of Hastings and setup a wooden stake barricade to help fend off the Norman cavalry. The remaining estimated 9,000 English soldiers fought valiantly against the estimated 8,000 Normans, but in the end the constant cavalry attacks and barrage of arrow fire would wear down the English. In the end, King Harold was wounded with an arrow to the eye, no not to the knee , with casualties estimated at 4,000 English and 2,000 Normans. The rest, as they say, is history with Duke William becoming King and forever being known as William the Conqueror!

For Reference: http://www.britishbattles.com/norman-conquest/battle-hastings.htm; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stamford_Bridge; http://www.battlefieldstrust.com/resource-centre/viking/battleview.asp?BattleFieldId=17

 

~I Can Imagine that Armor Was Tough to Get Around In~

@Cordelayne
I know that when I was humping it with a rucksack full of ammo, I felt lucky just to be able to walk assaulting anything!
~Time Lord~

 

LOL, this totally reminded me of my last trip to England when we went to the HMS Mary Rose exhibit in Portsmouth. In the exhibit they showed some of the recovered English longbows which are estimated to have draw forces of 150–160 lb!!!! So here's where it gets funny, they had for fun a replica 100 lb draw longbow, which in order to deploy effectively you had to be able to pull all the way back to your ear. So here I am thinking, "Stand back and let the American show you how it's done." Needless to say, it ended in my family (and everyone around me) giggling at my inability to draw this bow all the way back. It was hilarious!

The young gentleman that was explaining that portion of the exhibit did say that he has only ever seen three people be able to fully draw the bow, but perhaps he was simply trying to make me feel better lol. Regardless, it gave me a great appreciation for the strength and amount of training these archers went through back in the day!

 

As a former Marine and now Firefighter I am used to humping 60+ lbs

P.S. Great movie btw, one of my personal favorites!

 

LOL... I was nearly sure someone came out with that. ;-))))

 

No one can say this forum is useless!!! :-D
As far as SotA won't become this way,

I'll take a look at the deck's swapping modifies, if they will happen.
Thanks to Adam to have tried my little experiment: I really thought it needed more time, and the marginal consideration about what can happen if one is stressed from an incoming attack goes with the fact he should be used to that.