Shield Variations

[LadyWYT]

The thought crossed my mind last night and I figured I'd post before I forgot. Having some shield variations would add some more interesting choices to combat, as well as some different appearances. The main archetypes could be as follows:

Light Shields:

These would be small, lightweight, and easy to wield, having a high passive block chance and slowing the player almost not at all, at the expense of having lower durability, fewer damage points blocked, and lower active blocking and coverage area than other shield types. Ideal for roguish hit-and-run types or archers, or those who really don't like to manage a shield. What it won't do is hold up well in close-quarters combat or provide much protection against higher tier foes, although it might be able to be equipped without much penalty to firing a ranged weapon. The general shield design that would fit here is the buckler design, or other small shield types.

Medium Shields:

These are basically what we have now. A solid, all-purpose design that offers good protection for most combat scenarios, although isn't ideal for using in conjunction with ranged weapons. Has a greater area of coverage(when actively blocking) than the light shields, and is likely the best choice to use while mounted. Alternate designs could include kite and heater shields.

Heavy Shields:

These shields provide the highest active blocking benefits, covering the most area and mitigating most incoming damage while being tough enough to last several battles before breaking. The drawback is that they are very heavy, so they will slow the player when equipped. Their bulkiness also makes them awkward to wield quickly, meaning they have the lowest passive block chance of all shield options. Ideal for the tanky warrior types that need to soak up a lot of damage while keeping enemy forces busy, though you will need to make sure that you're actively blocking with it for it to do much good. These shields would encompass your tower shields and other large shield designs.

----------------

Just a couple of side notes--the high passive block for the light shields is meant to reflect the idea that they can be easily maneuvered to deflect projectiles/light hits as a reflex action. They aren't something you can hunker down behind like other shields, hence the low durability and active block chance. Likewise, the heavy shields can soak up an incredible amount of punishment, but you need to have the shield in position first(active blocking) for it to be effective. You'll also be sacrificing mobility and ranged damage for the protection.

In regards to mounted combat, I'm assuming that you won't be able to actively block with a shield, so the passive block stat will likely be the most important(if using a shield). I'm also not sure if shields block a specific area percentage when actively blocking, or if it's just calculated via numbers and the area coverage/incoming attack direction doesn't actually matter. Area coverage and attack direction definitely seems like it should be important though, so I tried to consider it in this case.

[Hal13]

I like the general idea.

But I think you got something backwards, something like a tower shield is the worst shield you could use in melee (while you basically don't have to do much to protect yourself from projectiles, it gets in the way and creates huge blind spots a trained melee opponent can and will use against you), while something like a buckler is basically useless against all but the slowest projectiles but usually rather sturdy as it is meant to be used in melee.

following your arguments the buckler should only have an active block and mostly only against melee attacks, maybe you'd have to time the active block correctly to block a projectile but keeping the active block up would do nothing against projectiles? On the other hand, the tower shield might have to have 2 different passive blocks a high one against projectiles and a lower one against melee with an active block blocking basically your whole field of view while shielding from everything coming from that direction and immobilizing you. both should have high durability as they are build similarly sturdy. the tower shield should impose a heavy mobility penalty.

on the other side the shields you call medium are at least 2 different categories: most of these shields (round, square, kite, heater), no matter if made from hide, woven twigs or wood, no matter the shape, were rather light and flimsy with one or two lucky hits with edged weapons possibly being enough to break it but depending on the weapon it might get stuck while doing that. often arrows did penetrate the shield getting stuck in the process. they should not impose mobility penalties, work well against animal attacks and projectiles when actively blocking while its passive block should mostly apply to projectiles, melee attacks should wear down their durability fast, while projectiles should just do significantly less damage but not impact the shields durability much. while actively blocking any attack that's not thrusting is basically just as effective as aimlessly flailing your weapon around (because they do take up significant parts of your field of view) and thus should get a damage penalty. maybe with timing the active block correctly in melee you more or less stun the opponent because weapon got stuck, VS mobs only have weapons that are attached to their bodies, thus neither dodge nor another attack possible, in pvp instead possibly the opponent gets disarmed? then there were reinforced versions of those shields either reinforced with metal, fully made from metal or made from thicker wood, those partially were actually able to stop a projectile from penetrating and were generally more durable, should work the same but impose some mobility penalty. maybe should be able to be carried in a bag slot losing that mobility penalty and granting a high passive block against all attacks from the back instead of the usual block?

there's not much preventing actively blocking from horseback, sure you'd be limited to the side you are carrying the shield on plus most of your front and little of your back, but that's the same as if you were on foot, just that you can't turn as fast. tower shields and similar massive slabs of wall can't be used in mounted combat, bucklers could be used but are essentially useless as you couldn't defend anything below your thighs effectively without opening yourself for an attack towards head and neck.

 

now how could that all be implemented (at least somewhat and without reworking everything)?

i think shields should come in tiers like armours and weapons do.
I'd say the current 5 types of shields could cover tier0 to tier4 for medium shields, with tier2 and higher being the reinforced ones. I'd appreciate more shapes, but the stats wouldn't really differ too much (still for decoration, fashion and personal style purposes a nice to have).
I'd estimate bucklers should come in a tier1 and a tier3 variant. Either made from a boss and 2 planks using a saw and a hammer or from a boss and a plate using a chisel and a hammer. the metal parts should be required to be at least bronze. recipes seem about right.
While the tower shield should come in a tier2 and a tier4 variant. Either made from a boss, 4 planks and a plate using a hammer, a saw and a chisel or from a boss, 3 planks, 2 textile material (linen or leather), 2 plates and a hoop using a hammer, a saw and a chisel. again the metal parts should be required to be at least bronze. recipes need some work but may be in the right ball park.

sadly directions don't really matter and hit locations are fully random, reworking that would be nice but a lot of work that's mostly irrelevant as long as the intended gameplay stays pve.
hence no carrying a reinforced medium or tower shield on your back for now.

timing based effects would be too much work for too little gameplay value to implement for now, so let's keep them as options for later improvements.

instead of the current absorption mechanic shields should get closer to the mechanics of armour with a protection percentage and a flat reduction.
damage calculation goes first through shield (if blocked) than through armour, but hit location would be determined first (see mounted combat why).
similar to armour shields would get different downsides. all increase hunger rate anyway, but we could add -2 to -5% movement speed for reinforced medium sized shields, -7 to -10% movement speed for tower shields. tower shields could get -5% melee damage. A -25% melee damage while actively blocking with a medium shield and additional -50% melee damage while actively blocking with a tower shield sound about right. And while actively blocking with a tower shield you get -100% movement speed (from what i gathered those penalties and bonuses are multiplicative, hence -100% would always result in 0 never below).

instead of the current flat block percentages those should be split up into melee and ranged but that basically only is significantly relevant for bucklers and tower shields for a first implementation. As timing based blocking effects imo aren't feasible for now, let's give bucklers an active block percentage against projectiles of 15% and passive of 0%, while keeping the 90%/15% for melee similar to the current shields. on the other hand tower shields could get 100%/75% against projectiles and 80%/5% against melee.

for mounted combat we'd have 2 additional hit locations (mount head and mount body, the latter might get armoured), checking first if one of the player hit locations would be hit (I'd say 60% for that case, not because realism but because players would rather want to be hit themselves than possibly losing their mount) and than use the system as before, if feasible only allowing the benefits from medium sized shields, if not shouldn't be too bad either.

[LadyWYT]

15 hours ago, Hal13 said:

But I think you got something backwards, something like a tower shield is the worst shield you could use in melee (while you basically don't have to do much to protect yourself from projectiles, it gets in the way and creates huge blind spots a trained melee opponent can and will use against you), while something like a buckler is basically useless against all but the slowest projectiles but usually rather sturdy as it is meant to be used in melee.

Hmm, fair point. My initial thought was that the high passive block chance on the buckler would reflect the need for more precise movement for effectiveness, without the player actually needing to mimic such movements as there's no way to actually move like that in the game. The high active block + movement speed penalty on the tower shield was meant to give the player a high level of protection at the expense of mobility and needing to correctly time when they hunker down with the shield and in what direction. However, I like your suggestion much better! A high passive block on the tower shield leaves you the freedom to roam around and counter attack while soaking up a lot of damage, at the expense of being slower and sacrificing a good portion of your field of vision. The buckler could be just as durable and soak almost the same amount of damage without the penalty to movement speed, but the damage mitigation being tied to high active block chance means that you'll need to block at just the right time(ie, hitting the "crouch" key) in order for it to be effective.

15 hours ago, Hal13 said:

sadly directions don't really matter and hit locations are fully random, reworking that would be nice but a lot of work that's mostly irrelevant as long as the intended gameplay stays pve.
hence no carrying a reinforced medium or tower shield on your back for now.

I think directional attacks would still be interesting in a PvE setting. For solo play, it means that you'll need to be more careful when confronting multiple enemies, as being flanked is much more dangerous. For multiplayer PvE, facing multiple enemies at once is a little less dangerous, as you have more manpower to handle the situation and can watch each other's backs, but flanking is still something to be mindful of. For boss encounters utilizing multiple minions, it's probably a good idea to make an exception to directional attacks for that fight, as it might be unnecessarily punishing for solo players otherwise. It's probably also a good idea to have a toggle for directional attacks in the world settings, so that players who don't enjoy that level of challenge can turn it off.

15 hours ago, Hal13 said:

instead of the current absorption mechanic shields should get closer to the mechanics of armour with a protection percentage and a flat reduction.
damage calculation goes first through shield (if blocked) than through armour, but hit location would be determined first (see mounted combat why).
similar to armour shields would get different downsides. all increase hunger rate anyway, but we could add -2 to -5% movement speed for reinforced medium sized shields, -7 to -10% movement speed for tower shields. tower shields could get -5% melee damage. A -25% melee damage while actively blocking with a medium shield and additional -50% melee damage while actively blocking with a tower shield sound about right. And while actively blocking with a tower shield you get -100% movement speed (from what i gathered those penalties and bonuses are multiplicative, hence -100% would always result in 0 never below).

instead of the current flat block percentages those should be split up into melee and ranged but that basically only is significantly relevant for bucklers and tower shields for a first implementation. As timing based blocking effects imo aren't feasible for now, let's give bucklers an active block percentage against projectiles of 15% and passive of 0%, while keeping the 90%/15% for melee similar to the current shields. on the other hand tower shields could get 100%/75% against projectiles and 80%/5% against melee.

Sounds pretty solid to me. Any thoughts on prioritizing shield damage over damage to other armor pieces? Perhaps not by a significant margin, but I feel that if something is most likely to be beat to smithereens in a battle(aside from a weapon), it's probably the shield that's going to break first.

15 hours ago, Hal13 said:

for mounted combat we'd have 2 additional hit locations (mount head and mount body, the latter might get armoured), checking first if one of the player hit locations would be hit (I'd say 60% for that case, not because realism but because players would rather want to be hit themselves than possibly losing their mount) and than use the system as before, if feasible only allowing the benefits from medium sized shields, if not shouldn't be too bad either.

For mounts, I think the devs are intended to add a "mortally wounded" state for mounts that have been downed in combat. The idea is that the player will have roughly an in-game day to heal their mount before it actually dies, but I think even with that system many players would still rather take the hit themselves instead of having their mount take the damage. I'd say instead of giving mounts two separate hit locations though, keep it as one general hit-box separate from the player and instead include a small chance of the player being dismounted should either the player or the mount receive a big enough hit. Of course, forcible dismounting could also be something adjustable in the world settings, if it's added to the game.

[BiznesTelch]

I think, if possible, heavier shields would need to use crouch to use. But, lighter shields can be used with needing to crouch. So you can raise it up, since using crouch for a crude shield feels finicky. And, have a quick hotkey to swap items into the offhand. Because in combat I don't have time to grab a item with my mouse, swap it over, and then fight.