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

An important point I think you're overlooking here is that you're talking within the context of large scale combat. Where as in SotA it'll be small groups and individuals. Pole-arms gain effectiveness in groups. When facing cavalry for example.. you don't have a single pikeman vs one or more mounted enemies. You have hundreds of pikemen forming a very nasty array of sharp pointing things that are very difficult for cavalry to get through without getting skewered.

I also noted in the video the spear was being used in a manner I described earler as long-range use. They make good use of the reach to hold their opponent at bay.. BUT.. the video itself is misleading precisely because it's choreography. Most real battles would be over in 2-4 moves but then game combat is just as unrealistic as the goal is to entertain. Realistic would be over too quickly.

I would probably agree that swords weren't the primary weapon most of the time.. but Rome conquered quite a few countries with the gladius, essentially a duel edged short sword. I'm not sure I would be too quick to downplay a sword's effectiveness in battle. That said though, more people were killed on the battlefield with axes than swords. Then again I imagine they were much cheaper.

Still, having been trained in and working around people who use a wide variety of such weapons in 1 on 1 situations. I've seen first hand many combinations of weapons pit against each other. Pole-arms vs sword, vs mace, vs daggers.. and just about any other match up you can think of. Pole-arms have their greatest advantange with range. You close that distance and that particular advantage is lost and it can no longer be used in the way shown in the video until that range is regained. At close range as I believe I've said before, you switch how you use the pole-arm to be closer to how people normally envision staff use..

I would point out though that normal staves can also be used in the same manner as that spear. It's a little disappointing that most shows and movies don't seem to reflect that.

 

It doesn't take that much extra strength. You don't really need to over extend. You simply step into the blow. You might be surprised at just how far you can reach with any weapon. Take a standard broadsword for example. Let's say my sword's blade is about 3 1/2 feet long. Arm is about 3 feet long and I step 3 feet. That means if I step into the swing I can slice you up if you're less than 9 1/2 feet away without leaning in.

In the case of a pole arm it's going to have at least a 5 feet reach.. (assuming a 6 foot long pole-arm). That pole-arm will tag you at a range of 11 feet without much effort.

That's just rough guestimating but you get the idea.

 

Its hard for me to vote to remove it completely when there are options to balance it, as offered in the OP. I'd like to see a shot at balance before dumbing down the weapon to be the same as everything else. Variety is the spice of the game. Otherwise, we can all carry the same pointy sticks to poke each other in the eye with and pretend they are swords that do the same damage in the same way.

 

Bowen with all due respect I beleive you are mistaken on a few countss.

First in the real world a highly trained soldier with a spear will make short work of a soldier with just a sword in almost every case unless in a confined space. There's quite a bit of information in the emerging western martial arts area, and in history to back this up. I also have some time in the world of martial arts, I have traveled and seen quite a bit of so called "martial arts" here and in China where I was privileged to see different schools..but I know the difference between performance martial arts, and actual historical military martial arts as well. I have not seen anything in those systems or people trying to keep the "martial" systems alive that would have me question the military supremacy of the polearm. If it were otherwise true there would be historical cases to back up the sword being prefered over the spear..and this just isnt true. The only case I can think of would be the greatsword heavily armored warriors meant to cut the pikes off of units, and they were pretty much a specialized troop that required others to back them up as they would b e unable to defend themselves easily otherwise. If anyone needs numbers between spear and sword, it would be swordsman trying to outflank the spear.

Second. the roman's mastered the Phalanx units as well. They used spears....where did you get the idea that they only used the Gladius? Or that it was the primary weapon on the battlefield? It also was a fall back weapon, not much different then the Swiss Schweizerdolch, or German Landsknecht was a fallback from their Halberds. The Romans did not conquer their empire with the Gladius, the conquered it with discipline and spear wielding phalanx, and cavalry also using light spears. I would say their logistics, and discipline were the reason for success, but the spear was the primary weapon on battlefields. The Phalanx is still used today by police...it simply works, though the spear would obviously not be a very pc weapon for crowd control, so they use batons. Roman law enforcement was not so sensitive, and shields and spears made short work of riots as well.

The polearm's greatest advantage is range, yes....but saying you close that range and it ceases to be useful seems to miss the fact you do have to be able to close that range intact. As you said most combat is over in a few moves. Combat is short and to the point. The competent spear-man will keep his weapon close, not hovering in the air to be deflected or sidestepped, it only comes out to bite. You must keep in mind just how close the range has to be to be a problem if the spearman even has two feet to work with he can usually make short work of his opponent. the reality is that history is filled with men with swords and axes who tried to close the range and died in the process. I do not agree at all that the sword is superior in one on one, unless you in a tight hallway with turns. , and then the dagger or short sword is probably more useful then a longsword, that was first developed for cavalry as the spatha. (again a fall back from spear and lance)

The reality is however that games are not made to reflect the real art of war usually. The very fact we're talking about "game balance" for classes, vs actual mechanics says all that needs to be said about that. Personally i would love to see a game system, where the warrior class sees a reason and a need to master multiple weapons, and in a fight have reason to use multiple weapons vs, putting all your skill eggs in one weapons basket as a min max for specialization, as most games have you do in a skill tree. I think the current thought on skill trees and weapons in games is flawed, certainly for any martial accuracy. If you want to talk game design reasons for purposely limiting advantages of certain weapons, to make classes equal, in a class based game I guess there is an argument there, however it personally frustrates me, and most people who love history and martial arts, because the reality is certain weapons do outclass others in situations.A real warrior would not tie themselves to one weapon, just as certain tactics and armor outclass others. i could say more about the issue with fullplate being some ideal armor in games vs the reality that it makes you slow, and slow makes you dead. It was an armor meant for sport and tournaments, not battle.....the crusaders learned the importance of flexibility and shortcomings of heavy armor quickly.

In an ideal game, I would love to see it reflect quick fights, with more lethal hits, and less room for mistakes.....but this is after all more about an RPG and telling a story, so I don't expect it to really simulate martial arts, but I think the polearm having a longer reach and knock back ability is a no brainer, swordsman should learn to be quick, and or invest heavily in parry skills to compensate. I also do not see how the polearms become ineffective unless within a foot....and if we are going to implement that, why not do the same with the dagger vs the longsword or scimitar as they are no match up close with them either?

 

I also would like to add, that the polearm tactics are still in use in military units today when they train for bayonets, with bayonet affixed the assault rifle becomes a polearm, and the same tactics are still used. As recently as in Iraq, a British unit that had run out of ammo, and had no reinforcements made a successful bayonet charge against people firing with Ak's (badly) and won out miraculously....times change weapons change but sound training and proven systems die hard. The fact that the polearm martial system is still in use I think speaks more volumes, sword and axe training just isn't done in the military anymore. Though I do love a good axe.....

 

Amen. Preach on, brother. I'm not much of a student of history, but I agree with everything you said in the this post (not just the parts I cut out).

Since we are indeed talking about a game, and one that is unfortunately using a tired "Damage and Cool Down" combat system, do you have any suggestions for balancing polearms?

 

Well in a perfect world if narrow corridors etc would effect the speed of a weapon that might be a neat idea. Also if there was a chance to actually BREAK the weapons if they are caught or stuck in a shield so that a fallback to a second weapon was necessary that would be neat . i don't see a reason to balance what is not balanced, personally. I would love to see a fight where both sides start with their polearms, and if they have to fallback to sword or axe, and then if they have to draw a knife.......but I doubt I will see that in any game soon.

if they MUST do the tired "class" system where all weapons are made equal, whether they are equal or not, I suppose shield and sword abilities to parry can be used, force those classes into investing in those defensive aspects. Also perhaps it will force swordsman to be nimble and prefer leather to fullplate as well....if a swordsman is so great he could avoid the polearm and close distance he'd better do it in very light armor.....you will never "close" distance avoiding a polearm in a tin can. No one is going to trick a spearman with a sword while in plate. Make people either learn more then one weapon, or, make them to decide in being the light armorered duelist vs the tank if they wish to use sword vs spear.

 

1: This isn't the real world, it's entertainment.. but beyond that.. I have real life actual experience and training.

2: I didn't say they used ONLY the gladius did I? No.

3: I did not ever say or imply pole-arms become useless up close. I only said it loses the range advantage and you switch to using it more like how people expect people to use a staff. But a staff up close is still pretty nasty business.. but so is any weapon.

Again, when you're talking military supremacy you're talking armies. That does not apply here. I never liked facing pole-arms but I also know how to deal with them. In a 1 on 1 if you can get inside that range (sometimes easier said than done) than you can still win.

4: I also never said any weapon was superior. All weapons can be especially nasty in the hands of someone who truly knows how to use them. Some are better at certain things.. that much is true.. but generally speaking they're just different.

In this much we agree.. but please don't read too much in what I've actually said. Where you came up with the idea that I said some things you seem to think is beyond me.

 

I believe that the original ultima games did have a range difference in weapons. This was more evident in the earlier games such as ultima 5 and 6, where the combat was turn based and you could say swipe 2 squares away as opposed to being right up against your opponent. That being said, we aren't dealing with a turn based game, and while there should be an inherent reach advantage when using pole arms i'm not sure how from a technical standpoint that advantage could be easily measured out by the player. Giving the ability to extend range just doesn't make sense. Maybe some of the glyphs in the pol are tree could instead reflect a series short and long ranged attack options that have different effect, possibly with longer ranged attacks dealing maximum damage and shorter range maybe doing less damage but with ability to tie up your opponents next attack...or something to that effect. a way of reflecting the inherent reach different needs to be explored

 

The notion of being able to extend range can be explained through skill. Someone with very little skill would not make full use of the weapon's range for example. This actually makes a lot of sense to me. Less skilled users are more likely to keep the weapon close and be more guarded which isn't necessary so much when your opponent is at a distance. As you gain skill and confidence you learn how to properly extend the weapon to strike farther away.

Don't think of it as extending beyond the natural reach of the weapon so much as becoming more capable to reaching the weapons full range potential.

 

I would expect the further it has to reach the less damage it is likely to do.

 

Not at all true. If you want to reduce the damage potential you want to get in close. Let me use a horse as an analogy here. The horse kicks while you're standing away it can take your head off.. it kicks when you're up against it it only pushes you away.

At maximum range is when a weapon strikes with maximum power. (Talking melee here).

 

I would say it depends on the range with the polearm. max stretch id say less damage....too close id say less damage.

 

We could go back and forth on that but I'd rather not. We're just going to have to disagree. Unless you're talking game balance and have rational for doing it that way. I wouldn't go that route personally.

 

Polearms should have a much greater range distance than a sword, that is why they are 2 handed "heavy" weapons. A halbred is heavy, it is suppose to hit hard, and also have some nice range.. However, half a screen away I do not consider reasonable, but remember still just pre alpha, I'm sure they are working on it.

I wish they could get some more players on the pre alpha train so we could get actual pvpers etc on here giving views on pvp instead of roleplayers no offense to any roleplayers in the community.

 

That video have nothing to do with the range of the weapon, seen same thing with daggers. It's about latency, there is a difference between where your client shows you and what actually happening.

 

I think the added range of polearms doesn't help the latency problem. It's actually a very good example of how the design of the game can be ruined by the technical reality of latency.