Passive shield block and shield hitboxes– a compromise



  • So there’s been a fair bit of discussion on both passive blocking (shields which block when they are by the wielder’s side) and the area that shields block when actively blocking; ie whether they should block just the area the shield model covers or the whole front of the wielder.

    There are issues in both cases with balancing realism and gameplay:

    adding passive shield block for both projectile and melee hits could be OP, so devs have said that they’ll likely only block projectiles when not being used actively. This would be, of course, somewhat unrealistic.

    Having a shield which blocks the whole frontal area, rather than just the model of the shield, is of course also unrealistic, but making it so that only the shield model itself blocks attacks may lead to foot-stabbing and other last-minute swing changes which are hard to deal with.

    Thus I suggest a compromise which will add both realism and fair gameplay: Passive blocking should block everything that hits the shield (perhaps with some stamina drain and/or reduced damage from melee attacks; since the user is not actively bracing his shield) and hits around the shield model should be allowed.

    Thus the shield user has the benefit of having very good passive blocking and more realistic active blocking.

    Balance adjustments could be made fairly easily by adjusting the size of the shield model (applicable to both active and passive blocking) and the amount of damage which goes through in passive blocks.



  • Furthermore, if this were implemented, different shields would be functionally different based on their sizes and shapes (and perhaps weight?), adding another interesting element to equipment choice.



  • Balance and gameplay outweight realism any day in my book.
    If the dev’s says that passive blocking of melee attacks would effect that in the wrong way then im all against in. And if slash in chivalry is like the one in AoC you would most likely hit in to a passive shield block most of the time. People would quickly adapt to blocking passively and therefore saving an action making shield wielding superior to none shield wielding.



  • Shield wielding SHOULD be superior to non-shield wielding…. and I think having that level of realism balanced with playability would make it more immersive and therefore more fun.



  • @Circle:

    Shield wielding SHOULD be superior to non-shield wielding…. and I think having that level of realism balanced with playability would make it more immersive and therefore more fun.

    so your saying youd be able to block a halberds full swing of a side and overhead? youll be hit so hard that you wouldnt be able to move fast enough to react. because A) a shield is meant to deflect a hit but at the price of being able to displace that hits impact to the shield not the user of it. and B) if we want realism then lets add the fact that once you get hit by such a massive weapon your body would be in a short pain which would delay any sort of attack for about .5 of a second.

    No one. NO MATTER HOW STRONG can block a full head on collision with a two handed weapon especially not a 2 handed mace. youd be knocked over for sure.



  • @Circle:

    Shield wielding SHOULD be superior to non-shield wielding…. and I think having that level of realism balanced with playability would make it more immersive and therefore more fun.

    Why should anyone choose to play without shield then?



  • @nedsat:

    @Circle:

    Shield wielding SHOULD be superior to non-shield wielding…. and I think having that level of realism balanced with playability would make it more immersive and therefore more fun.

    Why should anyone choose to play without shield then?

    Superior defensively, not offensively.



  • Shield is already superior defensively. It doesn’t seem like you’ve read what I wrote on even considdered the consequences of your suggestion.



  • @nedsat:

    Shield is already superior defensively. It doesn’t seem like you’ve read what I wrote on even considdered the consequences of your suggestion.

    You’re right, not really; I was pretty high.

    I still think passive shield blocking should be given a little testing, just to see how it goes, because if it isn’t OP, it would be awesome.



  • yay passive shield blocking debate!

    well i am personally not a fan of the idea because with it full on ( melee and projectile ) it will be too easy to tank your way through anything

    half way ( just projectile or just melee) you create a race of crab people who shuffle into battle sideways

    off may be not realistic at all but it is in the best interests of gameplay it makes archers a viable class to play it makes the choice between rolling with or without a shield a real choice of survivability and defense vs. mobility and offence



  • I am going to quote demon’s souls here.

    And also, we know that chivalry will have multiple weapons to select from as you please, where age of chivalry is limited to one weapon set per class.

    So, in demon’s souls, if you have a 100% damage resistant shield AND are actively using it, it will block ALL damage. Also, it’s block area is the same size as the shield. What’s my point? BIGGER SHIELDS = MORE PROTECTION AREA. sorry for shouting.

    So an absolutely huge tower shield that covers feet and also the entire front of the soldier using it, will protect from most frontal and swings from the front around to the side attacks.

    But what about when shields are on your back? Demon’s souls to the rescue again, for the most part, you will still take damage, if you get hit with an arrow, or get stabbed in the back for example, and you can most definately get stunned if you get hit in the shield when passively using it. But if you get hit with a firepot forexample, the shield will burn, but you will for the most part be inharmed(maybe only taking 5% of the firepot damage instead of 100%… this can still kill you remember). That would also make for interesting gameplay, flaming shield bas anyone?

    Like larger weapons being parried by smaller weapons, this should also come into play when it comes to shields. A MASSIVE warhammer being smashed into a tiny javelineer’s buckler should almost certainly disfigure the shield beyond use, knock the soldier over, and also render their arm unusable. So if it’s a bowman you was using a buckler, and their arm gets smashed, they can no longer use a bow.

    But in a situation of a large shield that blocks 100% damage blocking the same warhammer, the shield will block all the damage, and the user(because he is a knight and has the strength to use such a defensive tool) will not be knocked back at all.

    There is my own detailed summary of shields in chivalry, feel free to discuss and suggest changes and even call me outright wrong if you want, I don’t mind.


Log in to reply