Shields

How do you feel about the current implentation of shields?

  • Very good, do not change anything. (except bug fixes ofc)

    Votes: 4 36.4%
  • Pretty good, but some room for improvement.

    Votes: 3 27.3%
  • Badly, shields need to be reworked.

    Votes: 1 9.1%
  • No opinion.

    Votes: 3 27.3%
  • Other

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    11

Eldrath

Well-known member
I did some testing and found that shields only consume more stamina when clicking block (ca 20 instead of 10 to initiate block). Holding a charge or a block consumes the same amount as using the 1h weapon by itself.

What I haven´t tested is the swing arc and any change in damage. Maybe the community can give some input on that.

To me this makes shields a must-have with onehanded weapons. I don´t mind this very much (it´s realistic, people loved using shields), but for varieties sake I thought it would be neat to give onehanders a niche.

What could that be? Should there be a niche for that? How will the introduction of spears change the game next week?

Anyway I just wanted to start an interesting discussing related to combat balance.
 

Anachroniser

Member
Aug 9, 2020
41
13
8
I feel like they should be cheaper to block, less effective on equipment hits and higher durability. We should also see how dual wield works before messing with shield balance too much.
 

Dracu

Active member
Jul 13, 2020
178
175
43
Germany
I like the current state of shields tbh. They are not OP and have their drawbacks.

I actually get to choose if i want to have a shield with the cost of higher stam usage on blocking or go without and focus more on blocking but have more stamina.

Running out of stam and getting focused is devastating when using a shield and that is good.

In mo1 shield were OP.
In mo2 i feel they are in a great sweetspot.
The equipment hit dmg isnt to much and not to little.

They dont feel mandatory to 1h weapons and stay a choice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rhias

Kavu

Active member
Jun 21, 2020
192
195
43
24
USA
I still think they eat up a little too much stamina, but I will reserve my final judgement on that until we have short handle spears and can spear+shield combo properly. Not sure why SV just gave us a bunch of long-handles to test lol.
 

Phen

Active member
May 29, 2020
400
215
43
Earth
For shields... to much power on the push im, should be like 25% more than a normal push. Unless they want to add some damage behind the shields then push should be changed to a shield bash when holding a shield. While removing the left swing completely and making it a shield attack as well.. i don't recall anything showing people attacking from left to right when holding a shield on their left arm. Excluding the true buckler which was as viable as the round shield on the battle field. Though 1v1 the buckler still remained great. Otherwise I'm okay with them. Still wish high blunt damage always had some damage pass through but ehh, can't ask for everything.


I still think they eat up a little too much stamina, but I will reserve my final judgement on that until we have short handle spears and can spear+shield combo properly. Not sure why SV just gave us a bunch of long-handles to test lol.
My guess, looking at most past spears. Not many were truly 1 hand weapon. People used them with shields because they used the shield to prop the spear not needing the 2nd hand on it. I use Spartans and Zulus as fair examples. Neither had a short spear but both carried them one handed.
They need to adjust were we hold the spear when its one handed.
 

Anachroniser

Member
Aug 9, 2020
41
13
8
Its also worth noting that when a spear was used with a shield it was primarily to brace and hold the line, not for stabbing and general offensive purposes. Also very useful against cavalry. I also think that a small and light shield should not have a stamina penalty for blocking but heavier shields have a more aggressive penalty.
 

Kavu

Active member
Jun 21, 2020
192
195
43
24
USA
My guess, looking at most past spears. Not many were truly 1 hand weapon. People used them with shields because they used the shield to prop the spear not needing the 2nd hand on it. I use Spartans and Zulus as fair examples. Neither had a short spear but both carried them one handed.
They need to adjust were we hold the spear when its one handed.
Its also worth noting that when a spear was used with a shield it was primarily to brace and hold the line, not for stabbing and general offensive purposes. Also very useful against cavalry. I also think that a small and light shield should not have a stamina penalty for blocking but heavier shields have a more aggressive penalty.
To you both:
"Long handle" is a denotation in the name of each of the spears in game. Based on all other weapons in the game, this is a modifier of the handle type used in crafting. This implies there is a short handle variant as well, just like in MO1... and IN MO1, short handle spears were infinitely more prevalent over long handle ones due to the stamina benefits and more forgiving strength requirements. It strikes me as odd that they wouldn't toss the spears we've been proven to use more often into the first wave of spear testing. The best theories I have right now are the thought process of relative character strength being quite high with just thursars and humans in the game... it could also be SV just thought "spear long, spear have range, give them long spear" without considering what spear users in MO have traditionally gravitated to (Or maybe quite the opposite! Maybe they DID want to test what we're less likely to use first, that way we don't ditch it and go right for what we know, I'm willing to accept that as well!)

As for spears not being used for stabbing and general offensive purposes...
1.) Stabbing is (not unsurprisingly) the primary use of a spear. Even when holding a line, spear users covered for one another and relied on quick deadly thrusts (usually to someone to the side of them, who didn't have a proper guard up). Spears were an incredibly common melee weapon of many different cultures throughout human history, including ones that never had line-fighting or cavalry. Both with, and without, a shield. Were shields and spear combos always heavy and metal? No! Phen pointed out the Zulus, who used much lighter materials. Although they also had big fat 5 foot long war shields they sometimes used, and used aggressively. (The Greeks actually also used 30 pound bronze plated shields) But anyway see point 2:

2.) That's not how shields get used when coupled with Mortal Online's mechanics. Mortal Online, like most video games, rewards movement and punishes standing there like an idiot hoping to RP your way to victory. It's fine to have a more aggressive version of shield and spear (and that's what short handle and a smaller shield is/was) as well as a heavier more hold-your-ground variety for fighting cavalry or holding a choke. Sure why not, but do not imply that spears should be relegated to some fictional role of stationary anti-cav.

TLDR:
There's a modifier for handle length in the name of the weapon, yet we're only seeing one length, despite it being the one that was less popular in MO1, and there could be many reasons for this.
Appeals to historical accuracy are dumb as there is always many exceptions or missed realities, especially when you gravitate too much of your understanding in only Medieval Europe.
 

Phen

Active member
May 29, 2020
400
215
43
Earth
I'm not one to agrue but my debate for you sir @Kavu . Every spear I've used in my combat classes from 3' to 7'. All were used as 2h weapons. None had the focus of it being strictly one handed at any time.
So you're right they have shorter handled ones and they should have gaves us at least one. Though if the spear tips fit on the handles we have for mauls and sledge then we have short ones just not in game.

Now for the stabbing or thrusting, this just depends on how you use it. If your surrounded you swing side to side while spinning to create space, when charging forward thrusts are used, if they attacked side to side they would hit an ally. The angle changes because the weapon is fairly easy to manover, but we are talkin a game. So maybe giving the spears overhead attack another type of stab as the overhead swings are primarily used with blunt/slash based weapons. For spears irl overhead strikes are more show then go kinda thing.
 

Kavu

Active member
Jun 21, 2020
192
195
43
24
USA
if they attacked side to side they would hit an ally.
Forward and to the side, you're not gonna hit an ally. But again, this is an unnecessary conversation to have in that context, because there's always going to be a million little exceptions and weird spear fighting styles that can be dug up to prove a point that DOES NOT MATTER. I think the sooner we as a community accept that historical accuracy is practically an oxymoron, the better.


So maybe giving the spears overhead attack another type of stab as the overhead swings are primarily used with blunt/slash based weapons.
I'm more for the big haymaker overhead swing that is in game as it is, as it's a bit easier to read. If the center thrust vs. right swing becomes easier to read as well, however, I would probably support your push for an overhead thrust. Especially as it gives spears a second high-damage swing type. Right now there's a lot of debate on spears as they've just released, but I find their strength lays in being very easy to aim, while being difficult for a lot of people to read. This might change after we've played with them more though and people start picking up on the subtle things like the lowering of the torso on a wind-up, or the extending of the forearms on a right swing.