The return of the combat suggestion

[Anthony frailey]

ehh, i can't say I agree with any of it by and large. 

The assumption here is that combat is over-all the focus of the game, and of course, it is not.   Gathering resources, exploring, looting, and craft/building take up the bulk of play time , and combat itself isn't necessarily happening all the time, nor a focus of the game. 
the above games, are combat oriented games, thats why these systems work better to engage players into the combat systems. 

Sudden burst attack of wolf, from behind the bush, or going around a tree running into the bear , none of these combat options would "improve" anything for any player, especially in early to mid-game , where armors are inaccessible or not protective enough , and players are most vulnerable to these attacks. 
No amount of skill, or systems are going to aid in these "sneak attacks" by the local fauna , VS is set up with the basic option, stand there and die , or run and find better defensive position, or run away completely to live another day. ( IF you get that lucky. ) 
Until you get higher tiered armor crafted that is.  Then you can stand toe-to-toe with MOST common things that'd one or two-shot kill you in early stages. 
So there is progression already, its just... not a pure combat based progression. 

The FPS comment, made me giggle a bit too. If anything, VS would benefit more, from better ranged combat options, as opposed to wonky - whack-a-mole melee. That IS the area VS currently lacks in as far as combat goes currently.  What's in place with thrown spear, bow use, and now slings is ... it's "ok" at best. Variation of throws, aiming, and creature hits is very, very "meh" still.  Arrow in the face , does same damage as arrow in the little toe for instance.  Damaged enemies, don't slow down at all, as long as they still got .01 "life" , they come at you full speed and full attack power ( well those that don't try to run off to save themselves.) 
Of course, these only benefit at distance , when you can see target outside the melee range, or are outside the reach of a melee weapon. 
  I thought the comment bit funny, cause I had the opposite view, I didn't feel VS was FPS enough in it's current stages. 

Then again, Vs is not entirely a true-to-form combat oriented game.  It it really never should be to be honest.  
If it never progresses beyond what it offers now, then it's livable , and still a fun-engaging game with all it does offer. 


I got NOTHING good to say on PvP , I could write essays and life-long blogs on how PvP is a ruination of games in general.  It has zero place, in games not designed to be PvP from the ground up. It offers nothing, and only creates problems compounding into more problems.  
 Like HellRaizer said... 
PvP caused devs to nerf attacks ( I hate the stupid looking new "sword" , what it called, FartZ blade? Fail-ex blade? Phux blade? ... ) , the iron knife trumps the best sword in game now, mows down mobs faster.  
So for the minority of PvP seekers, everyone suffers... yeah, just ... grrrrrr! 
 

Edited December 31, 2022 by Anthony frailey

[321BoltsOfLightning]

@Hells Razer and @Anthony frailey: I actually really like how the falx wind-up works right now for PvE specifically, when combined with shields it actually makes combat fun and feel impactful instead of just slap-stick. Instead of just clicking and holding I actually have to time, wind-up, and lunge at drifters. It definitely needs more tweaking and changes, but it's waay more fun than before with the slap-stick longblade. Once they figure out a more complete solution they'll make the adjustments to knives, axes, clubs etc. but for now I imagine those just haven't been touched because it was just an experimental work-in-progress solution to help improve one of the weakest areas of the game (and it really worked, imo). I don't think they need to do something as extensive as this post suggests necessarily, but I like thinking about it at least.

I don't think the longblade to falx changes had anything to do with PvP in general, it was implemented because the slap-stick sword just felt very bad. The flavor of the falx is also quite cool, and falxes irl are awesome. The old longblade I didn't like the look of much at all, so it's quite the improvement for me.

I do look forward to what else they decide to do for combat in the future (maybe something as simple as a right-click thing for falxes and other weapons would help things, more weapon and enemy variety would be cool too once they get around to it).

[Anthony frailey]

I get the slap stick portion, but the experiment was caused by discord comments, from those unsatisfied from PvP play stand points ( not PvE, though this was mentioned, but mentioned in such ways as trying to sweep PvE elements under the rug so to speak as being relatively unimportant. ) 
I wasn't thrilled myself about the swish-shwack "feel" and visual of the long blade , however I did find it far more fitting a look, than an inner curved , more intimidating looking blade, but with obvious flaws in design. 
( at the time too, you could use mod to change the long-blade look, which no longer works btw. ) 

 One must understand warfare to understand the evolution of swords in combat.  To be fair, for individual combat, weapons like axes, hammers, maces were far more effective. Heavier, but with great striking power.  The Viking axe, and North American tomahawk ( which in theory, might have been Norse inspired if one believes Vikings landed in N.A. first, or "migrated" from Russia across the bearing sea as theorist suggest.) were, some of the most devastating individual weapons, not just in terms of combat use, but simplicity, maintaining , and practical uses as well. 

Still, going back... the bronze age started changing Warfare over-all. 
We can speculate, this wasn't your individual "fantasy-rpg" loners, traversing around , that gave rise to bladed weapons... 
but the fact that armies were used, in formations and lines.  Armors and shield use, started blade-tech "evolution" to the eventual two main iconic "swords" , Long Swords of the west, and Katana or No Dachi of the east. 
But we can thank the roman empire for setting much of this stage.  
Phalax fighting of Greece was a thing Romans adopted. Shield to shield making impenetrable foot-soldier walls , and armored. When the Roman empire went to war with the inner-curved sickle-like blades that are now being called Falx ( or Phalx)  , the initial battles did not go well well for Rome. In fact, romans started re-enforcing helmets and armor , due to the effective use of the "point" of these swords. 

but we must keep in mind, when it comes to blades ... its not about the blade, but technique that makes them effective.  Also, if there's armor involved.  Also reach is a factor. 
Can weapon be wielded one handed or two, also a factor.  Is the formation used, giving the individual soldier room to maneuver in combat, or packed close together as an effective fighting unit. 
We can't apply these warfare challenges to say more "fantastical" romancing of "combat" in medieval or fantasy settings where it's not mass scale battles.  In terms of "individuals" or very small groups of "adventurers" , swords over-all wouldn't be very practical weaponry to be honest.  
Swords, were used and practiced with because, they could be maneuvered, and functioned against armored or lightly armored opponents by the time "long swords" were the common place weapon of the "historically-winning" armies. ( which actually was more so, battle-field maneuvers that won wars, not the weapons used specifically.) Designed more for "thrusting" into portions of mail, and plates at weak points, than to slash ... though they COULD.  
  
My point is, ALL bladed weapons, can be effective ... they can be decent weapons, depending on Use, and Technique used.

 I particularly, don't personally like the addition of Falx in VS here.  I can't even see it as being a reliable weapon that would suffice to fit in with even the lore of VS, not unless the setting "before" the "Return" was Romania-like setting. Its very ugly weapon , looks blade heavy , and like Hell Razer said, I find them, but i never make one or waste resources on one now, or use the ones I find. 

In terms of game play, no the delay like Hell Razer said, when you push the attack, it -should attack. Not wind up for an attack that's delayed.  
Is it better than whack-a-mole before... meh, not really.  It just put one frustration, in place of the other.  
While the super-thwack , slap stick wasn't exactly engaging fun , it did work better than the current impact delay after clicking the attack button.  

 The "other gear" lets just say knife, and axe ... I don't think the devs really look at as "weapons" but utility tools , they did not intend for anyone to use as weapons, except out of desperation. 
 The spears ... eh, those are OK.  I think the throwing and aiming of these should be further developed.  The thrusting delays of the spear is ok at best ... it' s not realistic in terms of a short spear still yet though.  
 Like I said, currently ... as far as PvE goes, the knife ( anything bronze or better ) , with rapidly hit anything in range, and slap-sticks anything this side of a saw-blade into utter defeat fast.  Even early game, use of a pool of water, against wolves and bears , dive under them, its very fast, easy kill with little to no damage risk to yourself. 

 I do not do PvP , I think the entire concept is stupid, and unfitting unless it's a game made specifically for PvP. 
I had this "argument" with the developers of DayZ mod back in early stages of arma2 when that was new, and shifting focus to being PvP oriented.  ( Which only came about, because Dean Hall wouldn't or couldn't , provide the Environment against surviving , and players were bored lacking real challenges and imaginations. As one of the PvP-ing murders myself, i seen the idiocrasy of the system, early on. ) I've had this argument , with MANY game devs, that start off in "survival " , and let the game concepts get ruined by, allowing the useless PvP become the focus and "filler" content.  

 We can take games like Rust and Unturned , and DayZ and showcase the simple fallacy of this "game play loop" that gets you no where, is short lived thrill , and serves no purpose other than try to have a competing community, that always turns salty, problematic, and toxic.  
Gear up, skill up, build a base, die, respawn, rinse and repeat.  Its empty, and unsatisfying after a very short while. Not to mention, the problems associated around it all, "fairness", cheating, anti-cheating counter measures, toxic and argumentized "communities" surrounding the games. 
Especially when there is really NOTHING tangible that's gained by murdering other players avatars in a game.   In VS, there again is no viable reason or rationale to PvP.  There's nothing in the game world, one person gets unique to them resource wise, that can be taken, or captured. 
I personally would petition VS devs, simply to make it where players cannot damage other players at all period, and leave it at that.  There's absolutely no scenario, or viable reason than can be convoluted into the game, where any PvP would make sense at all. 
( Not any reason, other than doing it, just to do it... which in my minds eye , is akin to abusing animals in real life ... yeah, it CAN be done, but makes you start to wonder about the mental/emotional stability of those who MIGHT do such, eh? )
86-ing PvP all the way around, would free up devs, not have to worry or fret about making things fair for PvP, anti-cheats, and nerfs to make it work, and keep focus on how the game is MEANT to be played, which is PvE ... there's monsters in the dark and dark places, wild animals that wanna eat you, rifts and storms ( invasion of rust and rot cathulu style-like) , and put focus back where the intentions of the game should be, mechanics wise.  Even the weather, can try to kill you ( Hail and lightning!). 
Its you the RETURNED against the environment/setting ... you either as the lone wolf homesteader/explorer , or the -you as in small community trying to strike out some form of civilization rebuild ... , regardless, everyone has the same "problems" to face and over-come. 

All the above, or original post, was effort put down, to try and bottle neck VS combat, into more akin to other games, that entirely focus most mechanics around combat ( regardless of PvE or PvP ), which was a nice effort.  However, VS is NOT a combat oriented game by default.  Combat is a necessity in the game, but isn't it's primary focus, or means to advance in the world/realm.  
That's why i disagreed with the idea/concept.  And it does seem -more- leaning towards PvP advantages and disadvantages.  Making players who play more, obviously "better" mechanics wise, than others ... making a defined "pecking" order by default , instead of keeping everyone relatively "equal" by default from start to late game.  
While we -can- argue, gear itself will cause this discrepancy already, there's not a real "advantage"  gained with combat oriented "skills" or manners of combat techniques one set of people can do or achieve, others can't do. 
As it stands, the game ( any game has this limitation really, that can't be gotten around ) played, those that play more on a server, are going to be more advanced on the server in resources and gear.  But all players have equal opportunity to gain the same advances.  
 regardless of play-style ... and THATS the main important part.  
As it stands, one player could, in theory "advance" and not see a single bit of combat at all.  A Person could log into a server, and trade say... being a baker , making breads, pies, cooking for others, trade the services for needed resources or gear and materials. 
 Theoretical given luck, they happen to be offline during every temporal storm, and rifts never spawn any drifter monkeys inside their dwelling or shop , they could attain steel armor, and loads of rusty gears, never setting foot out in the wilds at all if they worked it right. 
 if someone puts in that kind of "work" , why is it those that actively seek out danger and combat, get boost, and boons over those players, less inclined to play that way? 

 That's why I disagreed with the concept.  Had nothing to do with the ugly and useless sword that got put in. ( though was a personal dis-satisfaction, in devs choice to use and implement in the game.) 
Just more of a concept that stands true as it is currently : 
All players have equal opportunity to advance, regardless of play-style ... and in a sand-box, there's no better concept one can achieve there in from a development standpoint.