Shield sizes

T

Templarmkiii

Newbie
I noticed the shield sizes under version A have a large discrepancy between circular and square.

A 26" round has an area of ~531, whereas a 36" x 24" rectangle has an area of 864.

Is this intentional? It would seem more fair to have the circular shield be 32" diameter (~805 square inches).

As for proposal B: I can tell you my experience is that a tower shield might feel powerful, but there are plenty of tactics that even a single person can utilize to circumvent them, so I'm more in favor of this rule.

Shield size has inherently balanced positive and negative aspects as far as I can see.

The larger the shield, the easier defense of physical stuff is, but the higher the likelihood you'll catch a spell packet and the limitation of shot selection is also a hefty consideration.
 
We believe that the round shaped shields provide a benefit over the rectangular ones in that they are more intuitive to use. Our early play testing actually allowed large circle shields like you described, and the testers thought they were too strong.
 
I can't really agree with that, and think it may be an artifact of a limited section of shield sizes in testing.

I can, for example, easily build a center gripped teardrop with a 24" diameter top curve and 36" of height, which will fight almost identically to a 24" round save for vastly better leg defense.

That's without getting really exotic about shield shapes. The greatest factor in shield usability is weight, and even very large shields built with modernly available materials are not of any significant weight.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, sometimes I forget to answer questions broadly. That is the explanation for specifically why in the one playtest version the differentiation was how it was. Broader and more recent feedback indicates that with the new Disarm/Shatter rules any size shield seems fine, especially because they become unwieldy at exceptional size. It's not for sure yet, but the next iteration may well do away with shield size restrictions.
 
Dan Nickname Beshers said:
Sorry, sometimes I forget to answer questions broadly. That is the explanation for specifically why in the one playtest version the differentiation was how it was. Broader and more recent feedback indicates that with the new Disarm/Shatter rules any size shield seems fine, especially because they become unwieldy at exceptional size. It's not for sure yet, but the next iteration may well do away with shield size restrictions.
Click to expand...

Sad. In my experience playing this game, shields are the biggest cause of head shots and the least balanced part of the game. I was hoping that shield size would be greatly decreased in the new rules, both for IG balance reasons and for safety reasons. I am disappointed that the owners are leaning in the opposite direction.

-MS
 
Personally I have my own reservations, and playtesting isn't over yet. As I have mentioned elsewhere, Disarm/Shatter are very strong against shields but weak against two weapons and useless against claws, so how viable those skills are (and therefore how common) will be a major determinant in how shields play.

From a game design theory standpoint it's pretty interesting interconnection, and allows for someone with stylemaster to have some useful counterplay options. I'd be lying if I said I didn't get nervous about it from time to time, though.
 
mikestrauss said:
Sad. In my experience playing this game, shields are the biggest cause of head shots and the least balanced part of the game. I was hoping that shield size would be greatly decreased in the new rules, both for IG balance reasons and for safety reasons. I am disappointed that the owners are leaning in the opposite direction.

-MS
Click to expand...

That's an interesting perspective. The part about head shots seems like victim blaming. "They ask for it because I can't target anything else!" It's only a symptom of new/less skillful fighters and vertical chop/slot shots in general, not much to do with the shield. As for if head shots are a big deal or not, considering you can get hit in the face with a packet, I'd take a foam sword any time. I've been hit in the head on accident plenty and it doesn't ever hurt except in cold on an ear. Packets to the face hurt far more. Neither is something the fault of wielding a shield and is on the fighter for not checking their shots more carefully. If a blow glances off the shield into the head, then most of the blow's power has already been eliminated anyways.

The part about shields being not balanced has more to do with not knowing how to properly fight them. I can still hit you turtling behind a tower in the shoulder guaranteed. Magic, dmg auras, weapon profs, arcane armor, etc, all are far more powerful than a shield.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the heads up about which way it's leaning right now, Dan. I'm interested to see what comes of it. Especially in a game built on the fantasy of your character and PVE content, I think shield size is largely irrelevant. If shields become a problem in your local area because they get huge, it's easy to combat from a plot perspective: add tons of shatters and massive carriers.
 
Last edited:
Big shields are over-rated. Big huge targets for all those lovely packet attacks and soon to be also weapon disarms. People want big shields? Let 'em. Might as well paint a big ol' bullseye on them while they're at it.
 
To be fair, some of those headshots generate from attempts to abuse the rules. The 'head on a platter' shield style is a thing I have seen several times, wherein the player fights with a large heater tucked up under their chin and tabletopped at an angle to make body shots or leg shots almost require charging.
 
mikestrauss said:
Sad. In my experience playing this game, shields are the biggest cause of head shots and the least balanced part of the game. I was hoping that shield size would be greatly decreased in the new rules, both for IG balance reasons and for safety reasons. I am disappointed that the owners are leaning in the opposite direction.

-MS
Click to expand...

Muir said:
To be fair, some of those headshots generate from attempts to abuse the rules. The 'head on a platter' shield style is a thing I have seen several times, wherein the player fights with a large heater tucked up under their chin and tabletopped at an angle to make body shots or leg shots almost require charging.
Click to expand...

I have to 100% disagree with Mike and Chris, sorry, nothing personal.
As a very long time sword and board player (20+ years) I have styled my shield to not protect my head and I do have my shield at an angle. I rarely give and receive head shots. I'm short. I have even been hit on my back while facing my opponent (I call it the "how you doin" because it reminds me of a pat on the back kind of hug) and still don't receive head shots. I feel the biggest issue is players (npcs and pcs both are guilty) that try to duck a weapon swing and lunge in at the same time so that when a weapon is directed towards their shoulder or upper torso it now it going for the head (which wasn't the intended target). It usually happens with inexperienced players (understandable), but some people still can't get out of that habit.

Inaryn said:
Big shields are over-rated. Big huge targets for all those lovely packet attacks and soon to be also weapon disarms. People want big shields? Let 'em. Might as well paint a big ol' bullseye on them while they're at it.
Click to expand...

Yep. This is why I feel that shields are not as useful. Those disarms are going to hurt.

I hope the cost goes back down from the last rules change.
 
I'm not expecting the disarms to be a huge problem for a majority of players. Cast disarms aren't a huge problem now, after all.

Shatters are going to remain a 'must be this tall to ride' gear-check, because you either have the DS/GS to get a cheap rendered shield or you don't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top