Remove Sword From The Game.

[tony Liberatto]

A sword is a man killing weapon. It only makes sense in the context of war. 

No tribal society ever used swords for hunting.

As the game develops more and more into mechanical power and automation, it will be even less oriented towards PVP.

Who would spend 100 hours building a base just to have it raid or destroyed by another player?

I say, remove the sword from the game and move towards more effective hunting weapons.

 

[Balduranne]

1 hour ago, tony Liberatto said:

Who would spend 100 hours building a base just to have it raid or destroyed by another player?

In this one sentence you described my feelings about PVP in games like these.

Eh, while I agree on the hunting aspect, I think swords are here to stay due to variety. Plus, there are monsters you don't hunt in the game (Because they don't drop anything, grumblegrumble).

[redram]

I hear the concern, and definitely think hunting with a sword should be next to impossible, and even when done against aggressive predators should ruin the hide and meat, but hunting is far from the only hostile activity in the game, as Balduranne points out.  Who's to say there won't be actively hostile human(oid)s down the road?

[tony Liberatto]

It's a possibility, although I would prefer for real animals. There are very dangerous animals ion the real world. Without guns, it would be very hard to kill a Lion or a Rhinoceros,  

I actually dislike the drifters and would prefer for real animals.

But even for drifters, a spear should be much more efficient than a sword.

The main thing is the reach, with a sword you need to get close to whatever you are trying to kill.

Just for a moment suppose the zombie apocalypse happened, and for some miracle, you are one of the survivors.  In the absence of a shotgun, what would you choose, a sword or a spear? Or maybe a lance. Or even a Halberd, anything that gives you reach.  

[Balduranne]

21 minutes ago, tony Liberatto said:

Just for a moment suppose the zombie apocalypse happened, and for some miracle, you are one of the survivors.  In the absence of a shotgun, what would you choose, a sword or a spear? Or maybe a lance. Or even a Halberd, anything that gives you reach.  

Gonna be honest here, it wouldn't matter what you choose because you'd end up getting overwhelmed anyway. Zombie apocalypse is such a stupid power-fantasy concept though.

21 minutes ago, tony Liberatto said:

I actually dislike the drifters and would prefer for real animals.

But even for drifters, a spear should be much more efficient than a sword.

I hate those things too; I think that depends what Drifters... Are. I haven't read the lore yet, but there's a good possibility that they're made out of crumbly rock or clay, which would be better countered with a hammer or mace. Just my 2 cents though

Edited May 19, 2018 by Balduranne

[Tyron]

hm. I don't think removing the sword makes sense in the context of a survival game. You would need to implement hunting in a much more realistic way to offer a good alternative. As in, animals are would be much much better in escaping you, would be near 1 hit kill with spears or arrows and can easily kill you if you get too close

[Bloodwyn]

I thought this was satirical and/or a commentary on certain topics that are hot nowadays. The sword is such a symbolic and (in my opinion) an essential item in a game like this. Swords, are valuable items, regardless of the presence or lack of war. Even in the most peaceful communities there can be the need to fend off another human with ill intention. Bandits, rival tribes, even possible future mobs (Goblins, trolls, elves? One can hope) can be dealt with by sword. Also, swords can be ceremonial, and are a symbol of strength and power. A sword is treasure, companionship, security, status.. Imagine finding a decorated sword in a cave or at the bed of a pond, wondering to whom it belonged and what eras it has seen, all long forgotten.

[Soloquendi]

I agree that more weapon options would be nice, but why eliminate a choice for other players because of personal dislike? 

[tony Liberatto]

Well, I must admit that my main purpose was to bring up a controversial topic to spice up the forum.

Likes and dislikes aside, It worries me when the forum is quiet for too long. 

So, please give me comments, I want you to disagree with me and give me your reasons. The exchange of ideas is what will make this game a success.

5 hours ago, Tyron said:

hm. I don't think removing the sword makes sense in the context of a survival game. You would need to implement hunting in a much more realistic way to offer a good alternative. As in, animals are would be much much better in escaping you, would be near 1 hit kill with spears or arrows and can easily kill you if you get too close

But, why would I throw my spear? I never do that.I like the spear because of the reach that is bigger than the sword. Like I said maybe a Halberd would be a good idea.

In the end, all I know is that if I found myself in a wild world with no civilizations and full of dangerous animals, I would not go around with a sword. I would have a bow and arrows and a lance.

I just think it makes more sense.

[Milo Christiansen]

Swords make perfect sense for combat vs monsters, such as locusts and drifters. Since I am guessing we will see more like them as time goes on, removing swords seems like a really bad idea.

[tony Liberatto]

I still think of a sword as a weapon that only makes sense in the context of war or fight against an opponent also armed with swords.

Thinking of animals, I could see the drifter as a white Gorilla. Now, suppose you actually have to fight a Gorilla, would you prefer a sword? Or a long lance? That you could use without having to get so close to it?

For locusts, I can imagine a giant spider, the size of a Pekinese. Here a Halberd maybe would be more useful, A blade attached to a long shaft. But for sure not a sword.

I just can't imagine anyone trying to kill a wild boar with a sword, unless as a last recourse. 

 

[Erik]

There will be NPC's and Monsters in the game, and the game has Multiplayer. Combat is an essential part of the game, so weapons are too. The sword has historically been one of the most useful weapons and should therefore stay included in the game. At least in multiplayer, a sword is required.

[redram]

25 minutes ago, tony Liberatto said:

Now, suppose you actually have to fight a Gorilla, would you prefer a sword? Or a long lance? That you could use without having to get so close to it

Actually a gorilla could conceivably at least grab your spear, and then you're screwed.  Not so easy for a sword.   Boars can't grab, but VS is pretty unlikely to have the kind of mechanics that make spears preferable for boar, namely the ability to impale and keep at bay.  Boar spears have a characteristic crossbar that is specifically made for boar hunting, so the boar doesn't run up your spear and gore you anyway.  If VS ever is to have more realistic hunting, animals need to be faster than the player, and in that scenario if spears don't keep at bay, you're going to get gored anyway (except with your shield, which probably shouldn't work with spears).   I think it could be argued that impaling weapons would do less damage against mechanical creatures, as they have no organs to pierce.  An axe or blunt weapon would be best probably. 

But regardless of all that, if the sword were removed, you'd just have an endless stream of newbs asking 'hey guys why don't you have a sword'?  It's a fantasy staple, and I think you can have it in the game and still make other weapons preferable for certain situations, so they all have a place.

Edited May 21, 2018 by redram

[tony Liberatto]

Thanks to everyone that posted their opinions here, I got what I shopped for. Some live in the forum.

I must confess I never really intended for the sword to be removed from the game.

But I would love to have a shift in the way we use weapons in the game and how many different weapons we have. A shift for a more natural and intuitive way.

It just bothers me when I get home from work and there are no new posts in the forum.

[JaydenTheMemeThief]

The main problem with the argument of the Sword being a weapon to kill men, is the fact that the Spear can serve the exact same purpose, in fact, it serves that purpose even better and was a very common weapon to find on a Battlefield, the Sword however, was in almost every situation, a BACKUP weapon, you would only fight with one if you had no other options, for example, if your Primary weapon was heavily damaged, the main benefit of using a Sword is it's versatility and speed.

[David Taylor]

On 5/21/2018 at 10:21 PM, tony Liberatto said:

For locusts, I can imagine a giant spider, the size of a Pekinese. Here a Halberd maybe would be more useful, A blade attached to a long shaft. But for sure not a sword.

Any weapon with a long shaft would be impractical in a cave... VS caves are pretty roomy but there are tight spots.

I also think of the drifters as something like shaggy apes except with no face, so not quite natural. I think the illustrations of the stories has their face filled with teeth but I just see a blankness there.

[Gazz]

It's a fantasy game so I don't see the problem with swords.
This is not a simulation. =P

[Slaad]

I just don't see the reason to remove the option, but I can see the appeal of adding more "functional" weapons to the game. This game is going to become just like moddable minecraft (in the fact that there will eventually be a ton of mods for it) and people will be turning the game into whatever they want. The sword should exist at least to have the base weapon template that people can base their own mods on.

[Tehgarin]

How about not removing it since some players may like it. Just dont use it if you feel its not valid for hunting. 

Maybe suggest that more hunting items be added. But lets leave the nerf bat in the cellar with the food.

 

 

[Omega Haxors]

The design behind swords is pretty bad.
Unlike the spear, you don't have to risk anything when you're doing combat.
Just hold left click and you will win any confrontation. There's no strategy.

Instaswing makes sense for the knife because it's a small and weak weapon.
A big sword with a long range though? It's just ridiculous.

Edited October 8, 2020 by Omega Haxors

[Sukotto82]

You don't hunt those creepy hunchback grey night dwelling creatures especially the ones in caves. (drifters, I think they are called)

the sword is a good weapon and I don't think it should make food go away that doesn't make any since.

Just because you killed an animal with a sword or any method of killing animals actually doesn't make their skin fur meat and bones disappear. it's all still their maybe a bit more chopped up depending on method (and depending on skill of swordsmanship you could cause minimal damage to the resources) but then what if you kill it with a blunt weapon like a club your not even piercing the hide like you would with a spear or arrows yet you don't get more meat or hides for killing it with a blunt object. 

dead is dead.

It should still have whatever it has regardless of weapon used.

I think the method in which you "harvest" the animal should have more baring on what you get than how you killed it.

On 5/18/2018 at 11:38 PM, redram said:

I hear the concern, and definitely think hunting with a sword should be next to impossible, and even when done against aggressive predators should ruin the hide and meat, but hunting is far from the only hostile activity in the game, as Balduranne points out.  Who's to say there won't be actively hostile human(oid)s down the road?

 

I'm confused a little about this comment though. vvv

Tony Liberatto: "I must confess I never really intended for the sword to be removed from the game."

If that is indeed true why is the title literally "Remove Sword From The Game"

 

[Sukotto82]

On 10/8/2020 at 1:53 AM, Omega Haxors said:

The design behind swords is pretty bad.
Unlike the spear, you don't have to risk anything when you're doing combat.
Just hold left click and you will win any confrontation. There's no strategy.

Instaswing makes sense for the knife because it's a small and weak weapon.
A big sword with a long range though? It's just ridiculous.

This is not true. unless things have changed since you posted that and I played the game last night.

I tried this method and it doesn't work at least not early game. you still get hit the only thing is maybe when your in water but in that case it's the same with any weapon no matter what you use. 

I tried killing a wolf with the copper sword early game by just holding the button down and not moving and it doesn't work. the wolf still 2 shot killed me before I killed it. not to mention wolves (for me at least) are usually found in packs even in the game. I rarely stumble across a lone wolf in the middle of the woods or anyplace else for that matter.

[Omega Haxors]

On 10/27/2020 at 7:04 AM, Sukotto82 said:

This is not true. unless things have changed since you posted that and I played the game last night.

I tried this method and it doesn't work at least not early game. you still get hit the only thing is maybe when your in water but in that case it's the same with any weapon no matter what you use. 

I tried killing a wolf with the copper sword early game by just holding the button down and not moving and it doesn't work. the wolf still 2 shot killed me before I killed it. not to mention wolves (for me at least) are usually found in packs even in the game. I rarely stumble across a lone wolf in the middle of the woods or anyplace else for that matter.

The copper one's pretty useless but the iron one shreds through everything.

[Jaroslav Šváha]

I do like the option that using sword would have a chance to destroy some of the resources when killing an animal