Much as I like slugging out people, I prefer to do it when I feel like it, not be forced to rely on my fists when all my weapons suddenly break to pieces about my ears.
(sidenote: WHYYY must your character slam the roman into the ground at every swipe?)
Posts: 448 | Location: Ohio, USA | Registered: Mon July 14 2003
That's an interesting idea, Krackhead. On one hand, it's a very good idea, because it makes the game more realistic. Real weapons would not take a quarter of the abuse, I think, that they do in Rune.
On the other hand, it's a very bad idea, and I'm afraid that I must hold this view as the correct one. You see, while in real life weapons would be more easily damaged, you would be aware of this and would thus take pains to avoid doing extremely stupid things to your weapons - like, as Yellowhair pointed out, slamming your weapon into the ground every few swings, or smiting the wall with full force. Rune does not allow you any control over your weapon paths (other than by manipulating your entire character, and even then only in the horizontal), so you cannot stop your swing short of an obstacle such as, say, the ground.
Therefore, I recommend that the old proposal to remove the weapon damage be implemented. I am a big fanatic of realism, but in this case it loses as much realism as it gains.
I don't know on this one yet. I do know however that some of my most thrilling moments have come wehre I kill like 5 others without dying and I kill some with throws and my shield breaks and then my roman or shorty breaks and I punch or do a quick pull out of the mace or club or whatever I have left and finish the last guy off while i am 1 hit away from death as well. ( I am sure you have all been through this type thing) But on the other hand it would get dman annoying if you couldn't even get through those 5 guys because yor stuff breaks after one or two people or something....
I don't want to have to run out of the One-on-One Arena all the time just because my stupid weapon keeps breaking on someone's shield. Or, for that matter, just because every single weapon breaks in one match or so. I find it more fun to actually maintain a spree o' death with the weapons I've been fighting with in the first place rather than worry about my darn weapon all the time and whatnot. Plus with most people, my only defense is my lovely short sword.
Maybe make the weapons breaking zoneable? FFA weaps break, 1vs1 don't??? no idea if that is feasable. hey another new thought.... make 1 weapon of each type indestructable/different color. Those weaps would be like magic weapons, and highly coveted, but non stowable hehe.
Posts: 691 | Location: The Ocean! | Registered: Wed January 22 2003
I agree with the whole realism thing but I do not believe it would be as beneficial in this case. I agree with Rhoedd (sp?) that we would not do some of the the things with our weapons that happen in the game, and in addition to that most of us would pretty much stop and fall down in agony if our arm got chopped off . . . *hurl* I think it would take away some of the fun if weapons broke any easier than they already do (is what I term disarming the weapon actually breaking or are they 2 things?) The idea of making them zone sensitive I think is better if something HAS to be done about it (i.e. the chaos of ffa would do more stress to a weapon. If you chose to do that I would think about putting some weapons on the walls like the shield are . . .)
The magic weapon idea is intriguing for sure. Maybe make it possible to 'create' one based on a certain number of kills in a row (maybe in each arena combined) Another idea would be to have a pedestal rise (or just have weapon appear) from the center of the arena when certain conditions have been met but that may screw the worthy warrior from actually getting the weapon. Still yet another idea would be to have the warriors weapon 'evolve' in their hands after they had fulfilled requirements (eitehr make that weapon indestructible or temporarily make it the 3rd degree of weapon class??) again
Hope this does more help than not.
Posts: 141 | Location: TN, USA | Registered: Sat February 14 2004
Well, I noticed that when the fragile weapons first came out it seemed like they were very fragile and now it seems we can get by without breaking your weapon. Mainly the shortsword needs to be more fragile for it is a thin weapon and the roman seems to break before the short would. Kracka
P.S. This is the main reason for the poll.
Posts: 910 | Location: Florida USA | Registered: Sun January 19 2003
quote:Originally posted by Krackhead: Well, I noticed that when the fragile weapons first came out it seemed like they were very fragile and now it seems we can get by without breaking your weapon. Mainly the shortsword needs to be more fragile for it is a thin weapon and the roman seems to break before the short would. Kracka
P.S. This is the main reason for the poll.
oh.
I agree that the Roman should not break as easily as the short. I am no Viking buff but I thought they used the longer sword (straight blade you see in history) and not really a short one . . . either way for game purposes I agree.
Posts: 141 | Location: TN, USA | Registered: Sat February 14 2004
Vikings (be they Scandinavian, Norse, Danish, or whatever) exclusively used shorter swords like the Viking Short Sword (although most of them had a less noticeable crossguard and a fullered blade). The "Viking Broad Sword" in Rune makes me want to kick a cat. Not only is it basically the sword from "Conan the Barbarian," it is a type of sword that was never used by Vikings. In fact, it's not a historical sword at all, as far as I know. Also, with the exaggerated ricasso, it cannot be sheathed like a normal sword, the way it shows it in the game.
Also, Viking shields were flat, not curved as they are in Rune, and tended to be very very thin (the measurements I've seen were all less than a centimeter). They were gripped at the boss with one hand, rather than the way that they are in Rune with an armstrap and a grip near the edge.
Here are some pictures of original and replica Viking swords (original pictures are very hard to find, for some reason, and I'm not flying up to wherever to look at their collection). Saecson (or Saxon) swords tended to be the same as Viking swords.
quote:Originally posted by Thorgrim: I agree that the Roman should not break as easily as the short.
I do, too. The Roman DOES hit the gorund with some swings. Though, I think the durability on the weapons are fair, you can kill a fair ammount people before losing a weapon, and if they were MORE fragile, then the fists would be out sooner!!
Posts: 354 | Location: British Columbia, Canada | Registered: Wed July 23 2003
I could have sworn damage was by swings and not hitting stuff. I may be wrong but I thought I went around just swinging a gobo axe and not hitting anything but it still turned red...
Hey Rhoe, have you seen the swords @ http://www.kirbywise.com/index2.htm? that is Laurie's (from LORT forums) shop she does with her husband, they make stuff for museums etc. Good looking stuff, but pricy.
quote:Originally posted by Rhoedd: Vikings (be they Scandinavian, Norse, Danish, or whatever) exclusively used shorter swords like the Viking Short Sword (although most of them had a less noticeable crossguard and a fullered blade). The "Viking Broad Sword" in Rune makes me want to kick a cat. Not only is it basically the sword from "Conan the Barbarian," it is a type of sword that was never used by Vikings. In fact, it's not a historical sword at all, as far as I know. Also, with the exaggerated ricasso, it cannot be sheathed like a normal sword, the way it shows it in the game.
Also, Viking shields were flat, not curved as they are in Rune, and tended to be very very thin (the measurements I've seen were all less than a centimeter). They were gripped at the boss with one hand, rather than the way that they are in Rune with an armstrap and a grip near the edge.
Here are some pictures of original and replica Viking swords (original pictures are very hard to find, for some reason, and I'm not flying up to wherever to look at their collection). Saecson (or Saxon) swords tended to be the same as Viking swords.
That is what I am talking about . . . THOSE are the swords I think of when I hear Viking swords (long straight blade,fullers and all, no wide cross guard etc). I did not think the Conan sword was authentic to Vikings ut just paid hommage to Arnold/Conan---I do like the runes on the blade in the game though .
I just asssumed that the historic viking swords were 'long swords' rather than short. I think of a longsword as one-handed, c.3-3.5 ft long inc hilt. I think of short swords that are short wide blades more akin to a gladius in length but maybe more triangular blade shaped (wide at base and tapered to a point)
Posts: 141 | Location: TN, USA | Registered: Sat February 14 2004
The Viking Short Sword in Rune is exactly the size as all of those real Viking swords I just linked to. The average Viking sword had a thirty inch blade, a three and a half inch grip, and about two and a half inches of guard, and was thirty six inches in total. Now, while I don't call that a short sword, it is a lot shorter than the "Viking Broad Sword," so I said "shorter" for reference. I'm still undecided on whether the Talhoffer folks or right or not on the longsword issue, but in the meantime I am avoiding the word. When I say "short sword," I too mean something like a gladius or a bronze age sword (or anything else under three feet total). When I say "shorter sword," I usually mean what you are talking about when you say "long sword." I also say "one hander." That is the kind of sword I like, and the Viking swords fall into that category. I use "two hander" to describe anything two handed. A bastard sword is a single hand sword with a slightly extended hilt; the blade should not be elongated.
Anyway, although it looks small, compare the Viking Short Sword to Ragnar. It's over half of his length, making it just the right size for a Viking sword.
Can anyone reveal how long it is in game measurements?
LOL I agree with you on the sword stuff . . . (we are on the same page)
I was getting fooled by the perspective that the Vik short is portrayed in the game or the fact that the balde seems to taper more severely than the one-handers we both think kick ass.
I think in game terms the Vik short is either 5.1648 goblin heads high or 2.1021 dwarf heads high . . . (I guess if we could determine something to be a 'standard' measurement we could scale off of that)
Posts: 141 | Location: TN, USA | Registered: Sat February 14 2004
?
page04c.jpg (87 Kb, 107 downloads) 