Stamina drain scaling based on weapon choice. BAD idea.



  • This is absolutely not a needed feature, and it simply gives heavy weapons an unneeded advantage. You should not be punished for successfully parrying anyway! In a Longsword vs Maul duel, the longsword is at a pretty big disadvantage because the HTK is half that of the maul, the speed of maul accelerations forces you to be somewhat defensive as well, and from what I have seen, the maul guy can spin around and miss combo all day long and if you parry him, he can still hittrade/parry and have more stamina. The enemy should be punished for missing, why are you punished alongside him heavily for parrying?

    Realism should not be a factor of the game’s mechanics, realism should be restricted to aesthetics.



  • they should set parry drain to 3-5 stamina on all weapons :D



  • So you can have endless no feint battles? No thanks



  • This is a pretty interesting idea. It might help serve to balance a few of the weapons in the game. Of course it might cause some problems with others. Perhaps this could be solved if instead of fixed stamina lost based off of the attackers weapon, instead make it so that the stamina loss is calculated using both the attackers and the defenders weapon. Each weapons attack stamina value and defense stamina value does not even have to be the same. This could help with any stamina discrepancy problems that may arise. Ultimately it could end up adding more depth to combat in the game.


  • Mod

    @Cerebral:

    instead make it so that the stamina loss is calculated using both the attackers and the defenders weapon.

    Isn’t that how it is currently? Thrusting dagger has a parry negation of 7 and a parry drain of 14-15, while the maul has a parry negation of 19 and a parry drain of 25, 30 and 35.



  • Alright then. If it’s already in the game then it is not an issue. Though I think the gap between the negation/drain of the heaviest and lightest weapons could be increased.



  • @JimmyTryhard:

    This is absolutely not a needed feature, and it simply gives heavy weapons an unneeded advantage. You should not be punished for successfully parrying anyway! In a Longsword vs Maul duel, the longsword is at a pretty big disadvantage because the HTK is half that of the maul, the speed of maul accelerations forces you to be somewhat defensive as well, and from what I have seen, the maul guy can spin around and miss combo all day long and if you parry him, he can still hittrade/parry and have more stamina. The enemy should be punished for missing, why are you punished alongside him heavily for parrying?

    Realism should not be a factor of the game’s mechanics, realism should be restricted to aesthetics.

    And yet nobody uses Maul in scrims. Gee I wonder why. Let’s not nerf heavy weapons any more please.



  • @Flippy:

    And yet nobody uses Maul in scrims. Gee I wonder why. Let’s not nerf heavy weapons any more please.

    Dammit flippy, YOUR PERCEPTION IS NOT THE ONLY ONE THAT EXISTS. KT has two maul mains/exmains. We use it regularly. It’s an ad populum fallacy anyway.



  • @JimmyTryhard:

    Dammit flippy, YOUR PERCEPTION IS NOT THE ONLY ONE THAT EXISTS. KT has two maul mains/exmains. We use it regularly. It’s an ad populum fallacy anyway.

    Preach bruh



  • oh boy 2 maul mains in comp. such meta. nerf pls



  • @JimmyTryhard:

    Dammit flippy, YOUR PERCEPTION IS NOT THE ONLY ONE THAT EXISTS. KT has two maul mains/exmains. We use it regularly. It’s an ad populum fallacy anyway.

    Can you explain to me how it is an ad populum fallacy?



  • @Cerebral:

    Can you explain to me how it is an ad populum fallacy?

    Just because not many people use it doesn’t mean it’s not dumb or op, technically the opposite of that particular fallacy but it’s still a fallacy, look it up



  • I know what the ad populum fallacy is, and I am not sure it applies to this, what supposedly wide-held belief is wrong in the statement which supposedly contains the fallacy?



  • @Cerebral:

    I know what the ad populum fallacy is, and I am not sure it applies to this, what supposedly wide-held belief is wrong in the statement which supposedly contains the fallacy?

    Flippy pretty much said if not many people use it, it must not be good. Which is wrong



  • It’s wrong but it is not the ad populum fallacy. It’s just a false inference.



  • @Cerebral:

    Its wrong but it is not the ad populum fallacy. Its just a false inference.

    I feel like you only listen to the parts of my posts you want to hear……

    Edit: look ^



  • The ad populum fallacy basically centers around the false assumption that “if many believe so, it is so”. In his post flippy didn’t say he concluded this assumption because it was the wide-held belief of a large enough group of people that he automatically accepted it as true without question. He simply noticed that not a lot of people used the weapon and falsely inferred that it must be unused because the weapon is not good.



  • @Cerebral:

    The ad populum fallacy basically centers around the false assumption that “if many believe so, it is so”. In his post flippy didn’t say he concluded this assumption because it was the wide-held belief of a large enough group of people that he automatically accepted it as true without question. He simply noticed that not a lot of people used the weapon and falsely inferred that it must be because it is not good.

    I’m going to let you figure out how hilarious this is, examine my previous posts on this page.



  • I prefer that people be more direct with the points they are trying to make.



  • @Cerebral:

    I prefer that people be more direct with the points they are trying to make.

    I literally already said what you “corrected” jimmy/me on.