Momentum as a gameplay element



  • When it comes to a melee game, momentum is a very important factor in a fight. Someone backpedaling rather fast will not get hurt by a spear as much as someone charging into it. I’m not sure if there will be horses in this game, but any cavalry also relies on momentum. What do you think?



  • I thinks that is true.

    But I also think it is true that being hurt by a spear when you are backpedaling incapacitates you for fighting as much as being hurt by a spear while you are standing still



  • This is really one of those things that seems good on paper but would lead to bad gameplay. For example, in real life you aren’t going to be worn out from holding a shield in front of you for 30 seconds, but when you could hold your shield up for such long periods of time in AoC it led to very boring and slow gameplay.



  • same can apply to health regen, you don’t do that irl, but after a wave of attackers are killed you can’t have your defenders committing suicide to get full hp. Although it sounds dumb on paper, it makes the game more realistic. Although adding in physics like that would make it seem more realistic, it would make it so you would just need to run away from a close combat fight with an archer rather than play defensively to get in close.



  • My point was that, even if it makes sense with physics in mind, the amount of damage dealt IRL is practically the same, for example an arrow is much faster than a knight running, so it would penetrate and injure anyways.



  • yeh I doubt running away from a ballista bolt is going to help you much….



  • Most melee based games have momentum as a gameplay element, and it works very well. You’re going to take a lot more damage charging into a spear then if it grazes you as you are being chased. This isn’t real life. AoC has always lacked the melee combat that made games like Mount and Blade and PVKII so good.



  • @Raneman:

    AoC has always lacked the melee combat that made games like Mount and Blade and PVKII so good.

    Oh really? :? Would you care to elaborate?



  • Age of Chivalry’s Combat was extremely easy compared to the others. You had a button that could parry any attack, direction really didn’t matter if you were blocking, there was no momentum, such as that that allowed a spear man to take down someone sprinting easily. Rather the blocking and chambering and parries and everything like that, combat was basically “Try to hit your opponent and sometimes roll your scroll wheel back for a temporary contextless invincibility against any attack.” For some reason, every ones immediately thinks of archers when I say momentum, but really in games that do momentum right (Mount and Blade for instance) ranged weapons aren’t effected too much by momentum. Everyone here assumes I’m retarded (or, perhaps, aren’t too bright themselves) and think I’m proposing “LOL RUN AWAI FROM AROWS AND U TAEK LES DAMUGE”

    If you really wanted a great melee combat system, mount and blade was the place to look and the thing to emulate.



  • @Raneman:

    Age of Chivalry’s Combat was extremely easy compared to the others. You had a button that could parry any attack, direction really didn’t matter if you were blocking, there was no momentum, such as that that allowed a spear man to take down someone sprinting easily. Rather the blocking and chambering and parries and everything like that, combat was basically “Try to hit your opponent and sometimes roll your scroll wheel back for a temporary contextless invincibility against any attack.” For some reason, every ones immediately thinks of archers when I say momentum, but really in games that do momentum right (Mount and Blade for instance) ranged weapons aren’t effected too much by momentum. Everyone here assumes I’m retarded (or, perhaps, aren’t too bright themselves) and think I’m proposing “LOL RUN AWAI FROM AROWS AND U TAEK LES DAMUGE”

    If you really wanted a great melee combat system, mount and blade was the place to look and the thing to emulate.

    You are so incredibly wrong. Double post incoming



  • I respect your viewpoint however I still disagree in regards to melee combat.
    Here is my view having played M&B extensively and having played every version of Age of Chivalry including the current version, I still believe it has the better melee combat. Instead of reiterate details of the mechanics of both games am sure you know well i will just state my opinions of them and why I feel Age of chivalry is justifiably better in regards to melee combat.

    Ease of use– Age of chivalry has a an easier control system to get used to and that accessibility allows players to get to grips with the game faster and allows them greater control of how they wish to play the game. This then inspires the players to push the boundaries of the control system and the engine its self to gain the advantage over their opponents which is highly evident in high end game play but is not restricted to it. Anyone who has played any version of aoc should recognise this.
    M&B does offer a great deal of customisation but it boils down to your ability to feint and to block. Both games require the player to be experienced in the game to understand the combat and in turn to truly flourish. An argument can be made that the complexity of the controls limits the potential of new players and this can then create wide skill disparity amongst the player base. It is my feeling however that this is not the case with mount and blade as it feels languid and stale and nowhere near complex or challenging. Looking left to slash left to right etc is not complex but rather boring and is a poor attempt to simulate realistic combat. Your control of the combat is limited instead you get the illusion of control as you choose from which direction to swing your weapon. Join any random server and merely observer the player base and you will no doubt see countless players holding their weapons in the overhead position ( no penalty for doing this btw unlike the stamina drain in AoC which is also lacking pvk2) and then after gaining that first overhead attack will them bash their mouse with their face to dispatch the enemy while he is unable to fight back.

    You talk of momentum as an extra part of the game a mechanic if you will which is fair enough. An example of this would be like sprinting into combat holding your sword or axe in the overhead position to increase the damage it deals comparatively to standing still. I get that and obviously it will have numerous benefits to the game etc etc. Its somewhat inclusion in m&b did not make it the better melee game at all however when compared to aoc.

    Prior to and including the incorporation of the toe to toe system Age of Chivalry had its own momentum, the speed players engaged each other leading up to combat and the speed at which they exchanged blows and disengaged formed an integral part of the game. The tempo of a fight could change drastically from the frenzied flurry of blows or parries, lunges and slashes looking for an opening as other enemies drew near. Each fight could play out through a series tempo changes not soley due to stamina consumption. Quite often newer players would often think themselves better than they actually where because they knew that right click was overhead and that was a powerful attack etc etc. This was a trap, the simplicity of the controls or its appearance of simplicity often beguiled new players into believing they knew everything about the game and would often blame external forces such as cheats, latency etc etc when a veteran player would beat them because they could read the eb and flow of the combat. Knowledge of what attacks to use in any situation and when and how to change the tempo of the fight and force the opponent to play in a style that best suited them is what set veterans apart.
    Very simple example using a knight :
    I would approach my opponents fast and get within their range as this would freak them out and cause them to react in panic making far easier to tap block them and dispatch them quickly. This is not to say the Knight was only good in very close combat, it was fantastic on the move or stationary as long as you knew how to control the flow of combat and not just which buttons to press.

    While Age of Chivalry does again have skill disparities amongst its player base of Veteran and casual/new players this not due solely to the controls. While an argument can be made that alot of the skill of the veteran player can come down to an understanding of the swing traces, timing of attacks and the effects of latency these do not detract from gameplay merely enhance it. These skills can be gained naturally through playing the game with your chosen class and knowledge of one class and its mechanics can be applied to the other classes. This then creates an atmosphere of improvisation that dramatically changes how players fight within the game which means you constantly have to adapt in combat with different players.

    Movement-- Another point which I believe separates the two games and makes Age of Chivalry the better game is the movement. Age of Chivalry gives the player greater control and freedom of movement meaning that fighting multiple foes comes down to your movement as well as understanding of the controls and feels more fluid. Fighting multiple foes is cumbersome and feels like your trying to turtle until either team mates arrive or one of your opponents makes a fatal error (Like falling out of the castle or out of a window). In Age of Chivalry it is possible to fight multiple opponents by out maneuvering them and effectively using your stamina to outlast them. It also makes fighting with team mates against multiple foes an enjoyable experience, with players able to dance in and around the fighting, dodging your team mates and your enemies, as well being able to step into combat to support team mates.

    Combat in M&B however to me feels sluggish and cumbersome alot of this boils down to players walking around holding there weapons in various stages of attack (Overhead, in the thrust or swing positions). So much so that whenever possible I feel the need to avoid team mates and group combat whenever possible (this on the standard ff off servers which are quite often the highest pop servers) where in contrast AoC has me running to group combat whenever possible as it more enjoyable and exciting running straight into combat( FF On).

    PVKII is terrible and I find it laughable that you would suggest that Chivalry the game should attempt to emulate its combat system. It is ridiculous,ignoring the eskwed balance and the horrendous special attacks. The movement and the combat feel silly and in my opinion childish, with players skating around on Rollerblades swinging away haphazardly with no consequence.The player is then rewarded for running around the map with their sword blocking the most common direction of attack for that free parry counter kill.

    My main problem however derives from the implied suggestion from your posts that “simplicity” of controls makes for lacking game-play as it quite clearly suggests a severe lack of experience within Age of Chivalry.

    Ignoring the misinterpretation of your first momentum example there is quite clearly a lacking discussion of combat as a whole and seems to be a lack of understanding regarding combat. As such how can one propose that momentum is lacking if they do not understand the combat system in question.



  • @Sir:

    Ease of use– Age of chivalry has a an easier control system to get used to and that accessibility allows players to get to grips with the game faster and allows them greater control of how they wish to play the game. This then inspires the players to push the boundaries of the control system and the engine its self to gain the advantage over their opponents which is highly evident in high end game play but is not restricted to it. Anyone who has played any version of aoc should recognise this.

    While it is easier to use, it’s so easy to use because you don’t have to worry about everything that made Mount and Blade interesting. Nullifying an enemy attack is as simple as rolling your scroll wheel back to render his attack useless, rather then worrying about directions, faints, or if he will kick through your block. Having a one button block that nullifies everything may be easy to use, but once you have basic timing down you can just take a large weapon and parry anything that comes at you. Combat in Age of Chivalry lacks depth, melee combat is often uninteresting once you figure out that you can easily parry anything, and frankly at this time when I play 80% of my deaths are either to my team or archers. The other 20 percent are mainly those axes that you can’t dodge or parry.
    @Sir:

    M&B does offer a great deal of customisation but it boils down to your ability to feint and to block. Both games require the player to be experienced in the game to understand the combat and in turn to truly flourish. An argument can be made that the complexity of the controls limits the potential of new players and this can then create wide skill disparity amongst the player base. It is my feeling however that this is not the case with mount and blade as it feels languid and stale and nowhere near complex or challenging. Looking left to slash left to right etc is not complex but rather boring and is a poor attempt to simulate realistic combat. Your control of the combat is limited instead you get the illusion of control as you choose from which direction to swing your weapon. Join any random server and merely observer the player base and you will no doubt see countless players holding their weapons in the overhead position ( no penalty for doing this btw unlike the stamina drain in AoC which is also lacking pvk2) and then after gaining that first overhead attack will them bash their mouse with their face to dispatch the enemy while he is unable to fight back.

    You talk of momentum as an extra part of the game a mechanic if you will which is fair enough. An example of this would be like sprinting into combat holding your sword or axe in the overhead position to increase the damage it deals comparatively to standing still. I get that and obviously it will have numerous benefits to the game etc etc. Its somewhat inclusion in m&b did not make it the better melee game at all however when compared to aoc.

    I’m doubting your Mount and Blade experience when you talk of people running with weapons over their heads as a challenge. It’s actually quite a good way to get killed, as often you are outranged, blocked, kicked, parried, or filled with arrows. The only way I see someone getting killed by that is if they are new and bad at the game. “The illusion of control” argument is pretty poor too, as it’s basically AoC’s control scheme mounted on which direction you move your mouse.

    Momentum helped a lot with things such as cavalry and backpedaling from stab attacks. In reality, momentum is a big part of swordplay. If you’ve ever watched fencing, you’ll know that standing still is a lot less effective then using your whole body, whether it’s running, leaping, or whatever. Fencers will often use their bodies to get their attacks to their target faster and from a further range. While momentum does not matter in fencing when it comes to damage, they still backpedal and it’s effective against foils and epees, much like it would be effective in real life. Fencing is about not getting hit, and they can do that. In real life, even if you did get hit, the momentum of the spear vs. the momentum of you going backwards could almost cancel out and result in you not having your armor pierced or only having a glancing blow.

    @Sir:

    While Age of Chivalry does again have skill disparities amongst its player base of Veteran and casual/new players this not due solely to the controls. While an argument can be made that alot of the skill of the veteran player can come down to an understanding of the swing traces, timing of attacks and the effects of latency these do not detract from gameplay merely enhance it. These skills can be gained naturally through playing the game with your chosen class and knowledge of one class and its mechanics can be applied to the other classes. This then creates an atmosphere of improvisation that dramatically changes how players fight within the game which means you constantly have to adapt in combat with different players.

    Movement– Another point which I believe separates the two games and makes Age of Chivalry the better game is the movement. Age of Chivalry gives the player greater control and freedom of movement meaning that fighting multiple foes comes down to your movement as well as understanding of the controls and feels more fluid. Fighting multiple foes is cumbersome and feels like your trying to turtle until either team mates arrive or one of your opponents makes a fatal error (Like falling out of the castle or out of a window). In Age of Chivalry it is possible to fight multiple opponents by out maneuvering them and effectively using your stamina to outlast them. It also makes fighting with team mates against multiple foes an enjoyable experience, with players able to dance in and around the fighting, dodging your team mates and your enemies, as well being able to step into combat to support team mates.

    Combat in M&B however to me feels sluggish and cumbersome alot of this boils down to players walking around holding there weapons in various stages of attack (Overhead, in the thrust or swing positions). So much so that whenever possible I feel the need to avoid team mates and group combat whenever possible (this on the standard ff off servers which are quite often the highest pop servers) where in contrast AoC has me running to group combat whenever possible as it more enjoyable and exciting running straight into combat( FF On).

    Mount and Blade’s combat vs. groups was hardly turtling. It seems to me you’re rather angry that you are at a disadvantage in a 1 vs. 3 because apparently we’re supposed to have combat balanced so that one man can take on multiple opponents easily. Again you show your inexperience with Mount and Blade by suggesting people walking around giving off their attack directions are hard to counter. Here’s a hint: FUCKING PARRY THEM. Maneuvering against groups in AoC is next to impossible, as you’re extremely slow once the game registers you as “in combat.” you can’t run away, you have to stand your ground. You prefer fighting in groups in AoC, but the only way that has ever ended for me is topping the scoreboard with 25 deaths with 15 of them being teamkills. Maneuvering in AoC is hardly maneuvering as there is no dodging, you can’t get out of an attack most of the time, and you can block any attack with a single button. If anything, it leads to more turtling since both sides can either parry or use their shields on everything.

    PvKII was more of an example because It was a lot more interesting pre-2.3 when there was manual blocking. Haven’t played it in a while.

    The combat in AoC is simple. I understand it’s combat system, it’s based around maneuvering which is somehow aided by taking away your ability to maneuver once you are in combat. There are so many loopholes and exploits in AoC’s combat system that it’s simply broken in some parts.



  • @Raneman:

    While it is easier to use, it’s so easy to use because you don’t have to worry about everything that made Mount and Blade interesting. Nullifying an enemy attack is as simple as rolling your scroll wheel back to render his attack useless, rather then worrying about directions, faints, or if he will kick through your block. Having a one button block that nullifies everything may be easy to use, but once you have basic timing down you can just take a large weapon and parry anything that comes at you. Combat in Age of Chivalry lacks depth, melee combat is often uninteresting once you figure out that you can easily parry anything, and frankly at this time when I play 80% of my deaths are either to my team or archers. The other 20 percent are mainly those axes that you can’t dodge or parry.

    I can say the same about your knowledge of aoc, shield pushing is a tactic that is often used in game play by more experienced players in combat to beat opponents. Tap blocking if done correctly is stamina efficient however if done poorly can lead to being killed the same can be applied to parring. A smart player will kill you through that parry since they know how long it will last and how to get around it. The same can be said of using a shield, holding a shield up limits your fov, your manoeuvrability and can lead players to attacking round your shield forcing players to learn to tap block which has its own problems. However since in theory since you know which buttons to press it is easy or so you say but that can be said of M&B its not like like the controls are a mystery that one must first solve to play the game. Therefore your argument that simplicity of control leads to weak game play,I can turn it against you…
    Example. The m&b blade only requires the player to press one button to attack and slightly change the position of the mouse, aoc in comparison has three separate buttons of attack and therefore must be harder and have the better gameplay. You can see the degree of fallacies this line of argument can rack up.

    Those axes can be dodged and parried however it requires an understanding of your class and timing to lessen the damage sustained though the parry or to evade. Knowing when to change the tempo of the fight is an important of this however since there is no “tempo” or “win” button I guess thats going to be ignored from the argument then.

    @Raneman:

    I’m doubting your Mount and Blade experience when you talk of people running with weapons over their heads as a challenge. It’s actually quite a good way to get killed, as often you are outranged, blocked, kicked, parried, or filled with arrows. The only way I see someone getting killed by that is if they are new and bad at the game. “The illusion of control” argument is pretty poor too, as it’s basically AoC’s control scheme mounted on which direction you move your mouse.

    You can doubt all you like but the majority of the player base do move around as I have described and spending anytime on Cnrpg servers or the vanilla servers will show use this.
    My comment about charging into combat was just a simple example of how momentum could be used as a gameplay element (yes am fully aware of how this could be countered) however you missed the point and concluded that I was my mistaken in my knowledge of Mount and Blade. I do not suggest that this is a challenge and neither do I even say it is an element of the gameplay, you took two different points and blended them together to better fit your argument.

    @Raneman:

    Momentum helped a lot with things such as cavalry and backpedaling from stab attacks. In reality, momentum is a big part of swordplay. If you’ve ever watched fencing, you’ll know that standing still is a lot less effective then using your whole body, whether it’s running, leaping, or whatever. Fencers will often use their bodies to get their attacks to their target faster and from a further range. While momentum does not matter in fencing when it comes to damage, they still backpedal and it’s effective against foils and epees, much like it would be effective in real life. Fencing is about not getting hit, and they can do that. In real life, even if you did get hit, the momentum of the spear vs. the momentum of you going backwards could almost cancel out and result in you not having your armor pierced or only having a glancing blow.

    I am aware of how momentum works in reality and how in mount and blade it is important with regards to cavalry however seeing how chivalry does not appear to have plans for cavalry I left it out of my argument.
    Your point about footwork is well made and it was initial what I was thinking of as I wrote my response but dismissed it as I have yet to see any game which incorporates footwork and stances to this degree. Only games which spring to mind being Aion and Age of Conan where similar movement is taken in to account when calculating damage but however is easily abused due to latency and strafing patterns.
    In reality a person is not able to swing a giant sword all day and not feel fatigue, AoC acknowledges this yet M&B does not,not very realistic is it? Am sure watching videos of fencing would reinforce this point no doubt.
    While I am all for momentum like gameplay mechanic I understand that there will be limits to how realistically this is implemented within the game. My argument was never against your momentum idea but more your view that the combat of Age of Chivalry was poor and simplistic in comparison to M&B.

    @Raneman:

    Mount and Blade’s combat vs. groups was hardly turtling. It seems to me you’re rather angry that you are at a disadvantage in a 1 vs. 3 because apparently we’re supposed to have combat balanced so that one man can take on multiple opponents easily. Again you show your inexperience with Mount and Blade by suggesting people walking around giving off their attack directions are hard to counter. Here’s a hint: FUCKING PARRY THEM. Maneuvering against groups in AoC is next to impossible, as you’re extremely slow once the game registers you as “in combat.” you can’t run away, you have to stand your ground. You prefer fighting in groups in AoC, but the only way that has ever ended for me is topping the scoreboard with 25 deaths with 15 of them being teamkills. Maneuvering in AoC is hardly maneuvering as there is no dodging, you can’t get out of an attack most of the time, and you can block any attack with a single button. If anything, it leads to more turtling since both sides can either parry or use their shields on everything.

    Here you evoke Argumentum ad hominem by suggesting I am mad due to my inability to take on multiple foes thus will not bother to address my argument. That is fine by me if you want to resort to cheap tricks but I would encourage you to humor me so that we can discuss this to a greater degree.
    Fighting against groups in age of chivalry is not hard in fact it is alot easier than previous versions due to the inclusion of the toe to toe system. Maybe it is due to extensive experience of the past versions why I disagree with your view, nevertheless my main point here was that the movement system in Age of Chivalry is far more fluid and allows you to do more with it and is effected by stamina (realistic and not included in M&B)which is fantastic.
    You can dodge in age of chivalry and you can retreat from combat once engaged with the toe to toe system it just requires the player to use his brain.

    I would ask that you refrain from assuming to know how I think or feel and address the points of my arguments so that we discuss this momentum mechanic that I assume we would both like to see within the game.

    However with out a understanding of the core game and how this system would effect it is quite a feat. To suggest that the developers take inspiration from two games that are completely and utterly different to age of chivalry (PVK2 and M&B) proves my point. This is just my opinion however and I acknowledge that we both have vastly different opinions.



  • Looking at the new Chivalry videos, it’s looking like combat is a lot better then what bothered me in the first.



  • I think doyle was all over that one. Doyle for the win.

    All I will say if that anyone suggesting we look at m&b for melee combat inspiration should be questioned…

    I’d also like to point out invoking pvk is also questionable…

    The only other thing I have to say is, your statement about one button blocking and how easily it is to nullify an opponent, gives evidence that your game play in aoc is not extensive raneman. Because there is directional blocking and it’s quick possible to hit someone while they’re blocking by going around their shield. As doyle pointed out, there are also alternatives using that same button such as shield pushing, and tapping. I’d like you to come and play with me and just hold down your block button. We’ll see how much you nullify my attacks…

    But really, nice arguing both of you.



  • I’m not going to write a long post here. Instead I’ll say: Raneman, browse through the AoC server list untill you find the ||MM|| 24/7 battleground UK server. Join it, I play on it often. I don’t wish to be arrogant, I’m merely decent, but by looking at what you’ve written so far, I think I can say I’ll start handing your ass to you within 5-10 fights.<br /><br />Okay, I’ll write a long post anyways.<br />Welcome into the tactical analysis part of Dragonfury’s brain (Man at Arms on a big open map). I’ll simplify what goes on in there for you simple souls. Please mind that this is only one instance, and the tactical analysis intends to constantly improve by varying attacking and dodging styles.<br /><br />In a fight vs. a Crusader<br /><Attack><br />If opponent <Parry on attack> then <Turn and dodge> or <Block><br /><Attack, intentionally miss so attack is not parried><br />Opponent parries<br />Attack<br />Opponent is still finishing his parry animation<br />You stab opponent in the head! It’s as effective as a broadsword to the face could ever be!<br /><Adapt and repeat><br /><br />If blocking somebody’s attacks is so easy, then why do I kill so many shieldwalling people trying to get the objective? Just come in zig-zagging and sprinting, pretend to go one way, go the other, stab in the side, repeat.<br /><br /><br />If group fights are so hard in AoC, then why do I have so much bloody fun turning those slashers on each other? (Lure group of SlashSaders, make one initiate his slash, turn so his teammate gets in the way as his slash aim follows you, ???, profit!)<br /><br />If you want maneuverability and good footwork, take Man at Arms. If you’re a Heavy Knight, of course a group of MAA’s is going to rape you to death, as they outspeed you and can thus easily surround you.



  • Momentum should play a very large role. Afterall, would you rather just shield bash a guy or shieldRAM someone from sprinting?



  • momentum should play a certain element in the game but the main reason it was included in M&B was so all those horsey people could smash peoples face with a hammer, at speed, realisticaly. But now due to all this massive arguments i feel I’m missing out, so here goes some nerdy trolling :evil: <br /><br />M&B system of combat was admitidley very good and in truth almost as good as aoc’s- now I know your all gonna rage on how it had directional attacks and momentum and all this stuff, but what really hooked me into aoc was that it still felt like you were doing the actions (which I believe was the aim of M&B) but it felt more personnal from 1st person and when sum1 died there was a very satisfying spurt of blood :evil: :evil: <br /><br /> <small>@UrLukur:</small><br><blockquote>Yeah, i feel like single player portion of M&B is hindering the multiplayer as well. Major example was shield system, due to forcefield of doom aspect of shields, there was dire need to add hot-fixes into the system (in form of kick and blockcrush attribute) AND overpower all 2h weapons AND add overpower ranged weapons, all this due to mechanism that was ok in single, but proven to unbalance multiplayer.quote]<br /><br /> <<<<<<<this guy knows what he’s on about, and it also lead to the evolution of lol-spinners where people would get a big juicy 2h, put their sensitivity up to max and walk backwards with it held at swind position and then launch their mouse across the room spinning them at 500mph into your face a killing you instantly. Also after retrieving the mouse from a crater in their basement wall they would pereat this technique and alow you know time whatsoever to strike back and once your shield went, your screwed :x <br /><br />then also if everyone is still thinking of those sprinting maa stabbing repeatedly in the face (glares at dragonfury) the actual physics equation for momentum is m=mass(kg) times the velocity in m/s, so by all realistic values the larger man in 65lb plate armour with a large steel block is going to have more actual momentum than the peasent with a shortsword. and no before you ask i’m not a physisist (spelt like that) I just done some of it in GCSE physics luckily.<br /><br />overall if you consider mount and blade the better game because it has better mechanics i believe you may be thinking about it too much, as my satisfaction from a kill comes from watching some bloody corpse sag too the ground and not in learning the game mechanics and calculating how best to use them.</blockquote>



  • tl;dr

    it’s all still in alpha, but i doubt that complicated of a physics type thing is going to be implamented into combat



  • yeh i know lol- just everyone was raging about mechanics and i felt left out :(


Log in to reply