(Quotes are shortened in length)
Villain1 wrote:...how about if wearing a shield on your back, i.e. two-handing your weapon with a shield in the other equip slot, reduced backstab damage?...
I thought
any idea was good a year ago when we started first coming up with them. I was fond of this one in particular. But as I thought of it, this is what I became afraid of…
Forum Pirate wrote:...Its an idea that would wreck balance. Everybody would just slap a grass crest shield on the back of their ug weapon user, heavy armored spear/rapier user and caster would laugh at you because the biggest weakness of those builds is now gone, with all the benifits they already had anyways still intact...
So in end I wanted them to be fixed, not accidentally empowered. One of my first builds was a duel-wielder ya know?!?! I think anyone from Demon’s Souls made a duel-wielder not giving an eff about shields…
boy were we surprised! …
...anyways...
The Letter X wrote:...leaving the backstab system as-is wouldn't necessarily fix it even with reduced damage...
This is why the shield on your back idea would wreck balance. I’m with forum on this.
However...this next quote is my opinion of the
best case scenario with all things considered:
Oh_the_Humanity wrote:...The 2 part backstab may work if done right. I think it has potential...
The only problem with this idea is a HUGE problem. It requires, in my opinion, a major rework of the current coding for the mechanic. It would be an undertaking for sure. I’m not even sure if FROM would’ve considered this before the announcement of Dark Souls 2. Now even less I would imagine.
Forum Pirate wrote:...Reducing the hitbox would also reduce the "tail" btw and servers will help to reduce it further most of the time, and that "tail" is called phantom range which every attack gets...
This needs clarification in my opinion. The “tail” we all have come to hate is the result of lag and is the reason every attack has some sort of phantom range…like forum said.
However, one would naturally assume that a smaller hitbox would only make the “tail” thinner. The girth of the tail is determined by the size of the hitbox, and the amount of lag creates the “length” or “distance” of the tail.
Therefore, based on my limited understanding of latency and lag, I have come to believe that a smaller hitbox would help little. Would it reduce the amount of backstabs? I believe it would. But only at the cost of unnecessarily increasing the difficulty of performing a backstab. The “telestab”, as I like to refer, would still be intact.
However, lock-off stabs, locked-on pivot stabs, and roll stabs would suffer, and I believe they are fine the way they are. I do think roll stabs could benefit from a 1/4-1/2 second delay though.
Forum Pirate wrote:...There has to be an animation so its actually functional as a punish...
This exactly. Backstabs are necessary. I persoanlly, (and this is at you
Oh_the_Humanity and anyone else who's thought of this idea) think the "counter-backstab"
would be effin awesome! :Baal02:
Can you imagine?!?! I'd be jumping out of my seat if I just elbowed a ganker in the face, or kneed em in the groin, or broke thier wrist for trying to back stab muwaaaa I say!!!
I would give FROM a bazillion interweb points if it was done right.
It would have to be difficult to pull off, but managable. I would say at "pro status", it should have no greater than a 30% success rate...maybe 40% idk.
I think there should be a "clock" if you will. I've mentioned an idea before about a tapping and/or holding block gives you a 1/4-1/2 second immunity against backstabs, NOT unlimited immunity.
If done right, it could disrupt the ease of pulling off a backstab, and make rolling a viable way to create space. I don't think you should have to worry about getting backstabbed when rolling. Rolling immunity should apply to backstabs,
and in-game, it certainly doesn't feel that way.
***edits***grammer
by Animaaal Thu Jan 24, 2013 3:04 pm
