Poll on throwing mechanics.



  • I wanted to start a quick poll to see how people are feeling about the throwing mechanics right now, inspired by some threads here and some gameplay.

    I propose that it would be better to make throwables an equippable option, like they were in MW. For example, to throw the shield, you would have to press a button to equip it, and switch back to your weapon in order to be able to perform a block or parry.

    To throw a hatchet, you would change stance, just like throwing hatchets were in MW. We would be effectively reducing the spontaneity of these weapons, whilst offering players the logical choice of reducing their defensive capabilities in order to utilize them.

    This would run right down to the shuriken or throwing knife, but of course would exclude the Spartan’s throwing abilities. Do you feel that quick-throws are a detriment to combat? That they should be more difficult to utilize? It’s obviously my personal opinion that the “G” button should be largely dissolved, but I wanted to see some other thoughts if possible.



  • I think this would be great. It would stop Captain America blowing up my squishy Ninja head every time at least. :roll:



  • Bluh, no way. Game is way too fast passed for that.



  • Absolutely not.
    What WarCrab said, basically. Also, don’t forget you can block most throwables in the game.



  • I think that having to “equip” the right stance to throw would slow down the fluidity of the game. I am all for maybe having more telling animations or slowing the throw process (bigger wind up maybe). I do feel you though! I mean why is it easier to dodge a throwing star than it is a round shield or Dory spear.



  • Too fast paced? But these throwables are very capable of flinching approaching enemies, anyways. I’m curious to see your rationale on this.

    I see it like this; currently the one button press, and the holding mechanics are damaging the melee combat by limiting some familiar strategies (purposeful misses are an example.) Often the lack of predictability makes these things a nuisance. And, as we have seen, when a group possessing throwing weapons comes upon you, why not make them trade that offensive capability for diminished defense? This would usher in a logical decision for weakness, instead of the current clear cut advantage of spamming till you’re dead.

    In my opinion this would add a lot of depth and logical thinking to utilizing throwables, whereas now there really is none/no disadvantage.



  • @Citizen:

    I am all for maybe having more telling animations or slowing the throw process (bigger wind up maybe). I do feel you though! I mean why is it easier to dodge a throwing star than it is a round shield or Dory spear.

    This.

    Yeah, I agree. Excuse my inbred monkey-ness in my last post.



  • @Citizen:

    I think that having to “equip” the right stance to throw would slow down the fluidity of the game. I am all for maybe having more telling animations or slowing the throw process (bigger wind up maybe). I do feel you though! I mean why is it easier to dodge a throwing star than it is a round shield or Dory spear.

    Perhaps, but I could even get behind a more drawn animation. I think it should at least take two clicks, take some more effort to implement. Currently it’s simply too advantageous and frankly too easy to use these things in all situations (in my opinion.)



  • @B4RK:

    Absolutely not.
    What WarCrab said, basically. Also, don’t forget you can block most throwables in the game.

    You can block them, but the presence of instantaneous throwing limits a lot of variables in combat, and also makes fighting multiple targets near impossible if they have these things equipped and ready to flinch ya. I’ve often gotten into fights where I’m beating up several vikings, for example, then suddenly I’ll die within 0.5 seconds as I parry a shield but get destroyed by two instantly outside my parry box.



  • I’m going to try to say this without disagreeing with you out right (because I do agree to a point). You really can’t change the throwing mechanics that much with out really changing the core pros/cons of a class. The game speed alone makes it cumbersome to have a two step process for throwing.

    For instance, a ninja can throw with out even having the weapon equipped at all (pro) where a knight has to bring up his knives (not a con). So if a ninja has to equip his star (ninja star melee?) he is naked to attacks but the knight has all this armor (samurai as well). That leaves viking/spartan who have meh armor but throwable weapons. The spartan’s range is hard hitting but short range and leaves them open for attack for a bit after thrown. The Viking has less damage but more options of throwing and a very short down time after throwing. Pirates of coarse are… well pirates. The idea is that every class has some range ability (loosely based on history) and some are hybrids while others have to decide to either be in melee mode or ranged mode. This also applies to the balance value of parring vs a shield (shield blocks most range/parrys cannot be kick stunned).

    Now, I know you are aware of all this. I am highlighting this simply to point out, that significant change to anyone of these would disturb the equilibrium of all of these. While there may need to be some balancing and polishing of these mechanics. The entire game (speed/classes/weapon choices) is balances and centered around said mechanics.



  • I do understand what you’re getting at, and completely understand your balance concerns; my only argument is that I don’t think these ranged options should work to define each class. I think it could also be pretty fairly balanced; the ninja might have an exceptionally fast equip on the shuriken/switch back to his weapon. I truly believe it could be balanced and benefit combat, or I wouldn’t propose it. But everyone does have their own opinion, which is why I wanted to see the poll. DW is a totally different type of game, after all.

    Take the throwing axes in MW as an example; people employed them during combat, but you had to logically think about when you would try them to score that final or critical hit, or you could suffer one yourself. That’s my only problem with the quick throws as it stands. They don’t take nearly as much logical effort, there’s little risk in utilizing them, and they’re so punishing. I just want to like them, for them to have some more depth is all.



  • @Citizen:

    I mean why is it easier to dodge a throwing star than it is a round shield or Dory spear.

    I’ve been arguing this point all over the place… what you get when you have people who don’t understand physics or combat.



  • Why would you want to make the game more clunky?



  • @lemonater47:

    Why would you want to make the game more clunky?

    Clunky? Less intuitive does not equal clunky, wormtongue.



  • Laughable how people can defend this ranged bullshit

    @magilla:

    Take the throwing axes in MW as an example; people employed them during combat, but you had to logically think about when you would try them to score that final or critical hit, or you could suffer one yourself. That’s my only problem with the quick throws as it stands. They don’t take nearly as much logical effort, there’s little risk in utilizing them, and they’re so punishing. I just want to like them, for them to have some more depth is all.

    This be the truth



  • It would be true if you couldn’t parry.

    As it stands throwables are only punishing for those caught unaware.



  • @WarCrab:

    It would be true if you couldn’t parry.

    As it stands throwables are only punishing for those caught unaware.

    I always forget you can parry them.

    Even then they aren’t exactly the easiest things to parry.



  • Headshot with a hammer throw is the most satisfying thing ever. BLEUTCHFEFEE (Headplosion).

    As for the poll’s question, my answer is no. This would just make the game less fluid. I personally like the mechanic of not having too many switchables at your arsenal (ie only Weapon 1, 2, fists). It feels fluid to me and realistic.

    Having the old MW switch is redundant and as lemon said, makes it clunky.

    Remember in Half Life 2 you had to switch to the grenade? Now every game is just press G/F to throw grenade because its fluid and more on the fly gaming.



  • @WarCrab:

    It would be true if you couldn’t parry.

    As it stands throwables are only punishing for those caught unaware.

    or those in combat who attack an enemy and can do nothing but take it during the swing.

    or those attempting to fight multiple enemies.

    throwables currently demean the melee combat, but people seem to like the mix. i’ve always been about having total control over fate in chiv, but against adequate players it becomes less and less possible.
    meh, but people seemed to have it out for melee from the get go, so a hybrid makes sense for most.

    @Sol:

    Headshot with a hammer throw is the most satisfying thing ever. BLEUTCHFEFEE (Headplosion).

    eek no i get no satisfaction for 1hitting anyone unless they’re already hurt

    on the fly gaming.

    yeeeep that just about sums it up haha



  • I found archers in MW more annoying than any thrown thing in this game.
    Also, you seem to speak of throwables as guaranteed easy hits. They are not.


Log in to reply