Polearm Reach (Innate) Skill has to be removed (Sorry!)

Sorry everyone (lovers of polearms, including myself) - but Polearm Tree's innate skill Reach has to be removed completely. I'll explain why:

Reach (Innate) - extends your polearm's reach up to +25%. This doesn't make sense on many levels:

1. Does this skill make our polearm grow longer? *Snickers*
2. Or does it make my arm grow longer?

Unless it's a special Ninja Jutsu (oops wrong world!). Please see image below for an example of how far you can hit with this skill:



From this image, we can see that it looks approximately double the distance between character and target. For a longsword comparison:



Further explanation why it should be removed:

1. Right now it appears that all weapons swing at the same rate, polearms hit quite hard and have extra reach. So in a swing-out between any other class, the polearm will win (as of R11)
2. In PvE, I can use this skill to out-kite almost ANY melee creature taking ZERO damage. (Lich Fighter being the only example that I need extra care).
3. PvP Latency - Drocis Fondorlatos has a very good post here on how latency and reach exacerbate problems. Latency is always an issue though!

What I suggest instead:

1. Polearms have an in-built modifier to range (so their reach is e.g., 1.1 multiplier of other weapon)

Other balancing possible:

1. Lower the rate of attack / swing speed, E.G.:
   • Longsword ROA: 1
   • Shortsword ROA: 1.2
   • Polearms ROA: 0.8
   • Etc
2. Swap the skill with a ROA proficiency skill, that brings it up to comparable speed with Longswords

Thanks for reading! And... Let the flames begin!

 

Here's a polearm in current pvp action...



I would also add that having the ability to move completely through other players and NPC's is not helpful either. I think it would go a long significant way towards balancing the current combat if we could keep this from happening.

The whole idea of positioning yourself in combat relies on the idea that people can not just walk right through your body and appear behind you. Think about that for a moment.

 

The range in Baron's video is just as good as my elven longbow , if not better. Fyi, I intend to be a polearm user and I'd be happy with a 1.15 range modifier. Medieval polearms ranged from 5 - 16 feet in length so for the 16 footer that would be 18.4 feet if the modifier is applied. Good enough to fend off cavalry when that's implemented.

http://medieval.stormthecastle.com/armorypages/medieval-polearms.htm

 

Can't speak of how things are balanced as I haven't had the opportunity to participate in any meaningful way as of yet.. but the range of a pole-arm is one its key features. Only a 15% modifier? When properly used a pole-arm has twice the range of any one handed melee weapon.

If any pole-arm skill is utterly ridiculous and has to go its Pull. 1: Not all pole-arms have a hook. What's to pull with? 2: Bringing enemies closer is exactly where you DON'T want them to be! One of the major points of a pole-arm is the range and the user being outside of their enemy's melee range. What idiot is going to pull their enemies close enough to where their enemy can hit them and give up the range advantage? At least that is how I expect this skill to function but then again.. a regular staff is a pole-arm so.. what's it going to grab with? Does it sticky putty on one end?

Still, the combat system is far from what *I* would consider ideal so I've chosen to ignore most of it. But the pull skill is just.. bleh.

Reach on the other hand I can explain by the user knowing how to use their pole-arm effectively. If there are other issues complicating the matter than I suggest trying to tackle those issues first. A 25% range bonus is only a big deal if the pole-arm already has superior range to begin with.

 

The problem underlying the range of the polearm is that there is right now no penalty for close ranged combat. It effectively functions as a Greatsword with extra reach. In an ideal situation, the polearm would still have a long range hit box, however there should be a attack rating and damage penalty if the enemy is in front of your characters' face. One can easily imagine that the pointy / sharp end of the polearm is hard to use when a dagger wielding thief is going all stabby on you!

 

My take on this is that one hand polearms (like the battlespear) should have less of a penalty than two-handed polearms. It also depends on how one uses a spear , a skilled staff wielder can do defeat a swordsman or daggerman even at close range. A skill that would enable a polearm wielder to do this would be great - one would have to decide whether range or closer-in fighting is more important

 

Case in point

 

I'm happy with the idea of a close range damage penalty.. but as eluded to it depends both on the pole-arm itself and how it's being used. The last thing any pole-arm user wants though is someone getting inside their range and tying up the pole-arm.

What I would consider doing here is splitting pole-arms into two different styles of use.. between long and mid-range combat. Pole-arms can be versatile and quite nasty.. though I suppose it can be said that all weapons have their own unique nastiness about them.

Long-range use focuses mainly on the primary end. The point is to keep the enemy from getting close so rather than a 'pull' skill maybe there would be push instead. You deflect rather than block (especially other pole-arms), use a lot of thrusts and short slashes depending on the weapon.

Mid-range makes use of both ends. If it's one thing I can tell you.. when fighting against a pole-arm.. you need to account for both ends or the other end you're not thinking about is going to cause you a world of hurt.. Also there's more blocking. However you are also within the enemy's striking distance so you no longer have the range advantage.

For me I think the two styles use two different mindsets and their different enough to consider them almost separate skills. Ideally though you should be able to switch from one to the other at a moment's notice. All that said.. you still don't want someone with a small weapon getting close.. daggers and short blades going "stabby stabby" will really ruin your day.

I think pole-arm users should be weaker defensive vs short blades or similar small weapons. While larger one handed weapons have a tough time vs pole-arms (again defensive).. but that's what shields are for right? Pole-arms have good defense against most other weapons though provided they're at range.

 

Regarding that video. I had the exact same issue in combat, it was almost useless trying any kind of tactics as I was being struck from seemingly miles back!

 

I think it would be great if polearms had crazy range...but the animation has to keep up with that. AND, you have to understand (and balance the game) that once someone gets inside that range, the polearm is useless. You become defenseless and either have to drop your polearm and pull out another weapon, or take whatever hits your opponents want to give you.

None of that is happening now on any level or any weapon. The sophistication of the combat system being resist and deal as much damage as you can.

 

I think removing the reach skill misses the point. (yes, it needs balanced)

The combat system is generally "not good" in terms of competitive balance for a whole host of reasons. But the number one reason is latency. Sure, everyone has a general problem in the game of no knowing if what they're seeing is real or an illusion of opponent positioning and range, but when you have a 25% invisible reach modifier that goes a long way towards making that problem substantially lower for you verses someone that's not using a polearm.

Here's what has to happen to balance combat.

1. Provide a fair and equal playing field for all. Aka, fix latency (This is not a technical solution, no one is going to "fix" the internet. It's a design solution, and it requires that players compete on more of a "turn based" system).
2. Add active counters. For every type of attack, there must be a counter move that makes your opponent think "gee, I wish I never made that attack".
3. Add blocking. All attacks should be blockable. It makes no sense that the world has all these offensive attacks but no one can block any of them. What's a shield used for? It's not a damage sponge, it's a freakin iron or wood wall the someone should have to physically get past.
4. Remove the ability to walk through your opponents. Turn on player and NPC collision while in combat mode.
5. If someone has a maximum reach, it also needs a minimum reach. In the case of polearms, I don't care if it has a 25% modifier, but the animation (see "fix latency" above) better show that. Likewise, when someone gets inside of the minimum range of a polearm, the person with the polearm should be in DEEP TROUBLE. In addition, polearms should not work well in tight spaces, so you shouldn't be able to use one (effectively) against a person that is standing in a copse of trees.

I could go on and on. But the point I'm trying to make here is that fixing the reach on polearms (while important) is way down the list on things the devs need to be worried about right now. The core system of pvp is a mess and it starts with latency.

 

I read a book of fiction a number of years ago that talked about knife fighting. This guy in the book described knife fighting as "no one comes away unharmed". Meaning you can't block a knife with another knife, you have to use your arms to block and that means you probably end up (if you're lucky) with a knife sticking out of your arm if you're the "winner".

We can apply this logic to everything, all weapons, and just scale it up. In the video you showed, that guy with the knife is probably dead in a real fight. But IF he gets inside of that spear, the guy with the spear is done. There's very little likelihood that anything else is going to happen in that fight. The spear guy probably has a 80% chance of success. The knife guy probably has a 20% chance. Either way, 8 out of 10 fights like this result in the spear guy winning.

But if you add in other factors, like now you put those two guys in close quarters. Maybe now the spear guy (because he can't swing) has more like a 40% chance, and the knife guy has the upper hand.

That's the kind of fighting I want for SOTA.

 

That's what we need to get away from. We can't just tweak damage and cool downs to fix combat.

Your ideas are good, but they're misplaced. Raising damage or lowering damage is not helping anything. It just means that the powergamers will move on to whatever does the most damage after you tweaked damage of their favorite overpowered weapon.

The only way to fix any of this is to start at the base...we have to provide a balanced base level of combat. That means no latency issues. That means that if we're both using the same equipment and are the same level, then it's the choices we make that prove who is successful and who is not.

 

That quote wasn't my idea though for starters.. but it's also realistic. Ever try to hit someone who's too close to fully extend your weapon? You just can't get the same power behind it as you can with optimal range. Smaller weapons don't have this problem.

Problem.. there is ALWAYS going to be latency issues. Lag is not caused by the game alone. Yes they need to optimize performance but that is not the only factor. The only way you can guarantee no lag at all is to play single player offline.. and even then if you're computer isn't up to speed.. you just might experience some lag. There are too many factors here. Also, turned based system? As in players wait for other players to respond? I can't think of a single online game where that'd be considered reasonable.

Counters is an interesting idea but it's too specific and far too expensive. As for the rest.. it may sound old but.. it's not finished yet.

Personally, I would've used a completely different system altogether but that's not what we have.

 

Yes I'll take the pull skill on my bludgeon build, please, please, please, along with charge. I love warrior skills.

 

All MUD's use this system and it works fine. Sometimes it's 5 seconds, sometimes it's 3 seconds. But it works great. You aren't moving around everywhere. You don't have to worry about lag the same way you would in a graphical MMO.

I'm not suggesting we turn this game into an email your next move to someone type of thing. I'm just saying that live, real time, action is ALWAYS going to have this problem. And it's not a small problem that we can just say "well that's the way it is". It's a huge problem that should be designed around.

 

Separate point aside, in the Bear Tavern Brawl earlier - we clearly witnessed the popularity of Polearms

 

This is not a MUD with maybe hundreds of players. It's online with 10s of thousands if not more. Nobody is suggesting not doing everything possible to improve performance.. but you don't solve lag by introducing delays.

 

It's selective multiplayer and there are 100's of people in each instance. It's the same thing as a MUD in that context, you're just adding graphics.

And yes, you do solve lag with delays. MUD's still had lag, but it was "solved lag" as in it was compensated for with a structured delay and no movement. You never had to worry about hit boxes being in the right place.

 

You're missing the point. 1: Graphics.. 2: Most players probably hasn't a clue what a MUD actually is let alone having had the experience to enjoy one. It's a completely different standard of play. You start adding artificial delays and just watch how many players will tolerate it.

Imagine trying to move during combat with a 3 second delay.. move, wait, move, wait, move, wait.. intolerable. NOT fun. So no.. delays are not going to do anything but upset players. It's apples and oranges. You just said yourself you never had to worry about hit boxes being in the right place.. in other words.. you didn't have to position yourself in a 3 dimensional space. Artificial delays in a 3D space would be worse than lag.