I’ve searched for that topic, but found only a september posts with no direct answer whether this would be added or not so:
Are we going to see some weapon-based melee styles in game ? Italian fencing techniques, japanese/chinese etc. ones ? With bonuses, new attacks and so on. To my mind, pre-traineded fighting skill, honed in IRL fighting is better than amateur one.
I thought some fighting styles could be used with melee weapons, such as krav maga adding a bonus to cutting weapons. Or do you mean weapons specific styles? Fencing is weapon specific but is it different then melee? How so? Are we going to differentiate between fencing and “regular” swordsmanship? Japanese samurai training vs. just swinging a sword at something? I need more details please.
I meant bonuses, new attack moves and general effectiveness of character who trained in some melee training technique (either for general fighting style like kung-fu, or weapon specific one). Trip attacks, improved blocking, etc. Question is how we have to measure effectiveness of one style over another, but it is for later discussion.
I see it like in unarmed fighting we already have. You choose some style and get some associated stuff rather than just basic skill level. Sorry for initial misunderstanding, I hope I’ve explained my POV.
Makes a lot more sense now. Instead of just the simple “some weapons do this effect (such as sledgehammers and the push back effect)” you want higher skills of melee, combined with new “style specific” melee attacks to have their own bonuses and effect/moves. It could make for an interesting take on combat taking into account several different factors such as how many enemies attack you, from which sides they attack, where obstacles are and so on…
This should be fairly easy to do, though we’ll need to add a function or two. For example, we’ll need to add a system so that weapons can have flags allowing them to be used with certain combat styles. Currently the only one we have is the “unarmed_weapon” flag that allows a weapon to be used with unarmed styles, eg. Brass knuckles. What we need is a system where we can give style bonuses a field “weapon_flag” that can define a flag that can be given to certain weapons to enable them to use that bonus. I’ll make an issue on GitHub for this, see if anyone is interested in coding it.
I see brass knuckles are in the game now. I’m playing a character that’s using the Dragon Shaolin style; when I’m unarmed that appears as my weapon. When I put on brass-knuckles, the style disappears and the brass-knuckles appear as my weapon.
I’d say it’s best to go with light, normal and heavy fighting styles as the maximum complication. Any more and you risk confusion (and a hell of a task in any sort of balance), especially considering the vast array of weapons.
For my RL there are just normal attacks and ‘light’ attacks (which deal less damage but give a boost to accuracy) if you hold down ctrl when attacking, and this works well. It adds some tactical aspects to weapon fighting, but it does so without add tons of complexity.
[quote=“Binky, post:7, topic:4996”]I’d say it’s best to go with light, normal and heavy fighting styles as the maximum complication. Any more and you risk confusion (and a hell of a task in any sort of balance), especially considering the vast array of weapons.
For my RL there are just normal attacks and ‘light’ attacks (which deal less damage but give a boost to accuracy) if you hold down ctrl when attacking, and this works well. It adds some tactical aspects to weapon fighting, but it does so without add tons of complexity.[/quote]
We already have a martial arts style system though. It’s a bit weird to only have it for unarmed attacks, but not allow any of that complexity and variety for situations involving weapons.
Hmm very true. It definitely makes sense for martial arts based weapons and close relatives but you can hardly have a fighting style for a two-by-sword, nail bat or a rusty pipe. I know some people would say that things like escrima can utilize anything, and while I agree to a point, it seems as though the distinctions about what could/couldn’t be used would be a bit arbitrary.