Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19
  1. #1

    Remove Unarmed Combat or Give it Weapons

    Since the latest "balance" for unarmed combat, it is no longer a viable form of combat unless you're fighting naked people who aren't carrying weapons. We did a lot of combat testing prior to the "balancing" of it, and we did agree it was a little too powerful. Now, however, it is completely useless.

    I recommend doing one of two things:

    1. Remove it as a skill from the game.
    2. Give us unarmed weapons like spiked, metal, or blade gauntlets and increase the damage a little bit.

    Additionally, it is possible that unarmed combat is balanced with other weapon types, but that the lame preorder weapons are throwing everything out of whack.

  2. #2
    You ever try to kill someone wearing armor with your bare hands? It's pretty tricky, and without a LOT of skill an unarmed person vs an armed person is going to lose. That's why weapons were invented. I say leave it in as a last resort or for if people want to box. I'm not against the idea of having fist weapons, but it certainly shouldn't be a priority.

  3. #3
    Or it can be left as a tool for boxing tournaments.

  4. #4
    Unarmed combat has been nerfed to shit, plain and simple. It should be restored to something between what it was (significantly OP) and what it is now.

    -From a blade user.

  5. #5
    I think unarmed combat should buffed, and then make it so wearing armor cuts received unarmed damage down by a huge amount. For one thing its kind of realistic. Go fight someone in a leather outfit, then go fight them wearing a loin cloth. I guarantee their punches will hurt a heck of a lot more when its just your skin taking the blow. Plus it encourages people to use armor. If you are running around naked with a weapon pre-order you can easily be zerged by a bunch of little naked unarmed guys. If you bother to gear up, it won't be near as much of a threat.

    Then make it so whenever skill caps or decay is implemented, the points in unarmed combat don't count toward either.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by robofriven View Post
    You ever try to kill someone wearing armor with your bare hands? It's pretty tricky, and without a LOT of skill an unarmed person vs an armed person is going to lose. That's why weapons were invented. I say leave it in as a last resort or for if people want to box. I'm not against the idea of having fist weapons, but it certainly shouldn't be a priority.
    No, I have never tried to kill someone wearing deer, bear, or raccoon hide armor. Nor have I ever tried to kill someone wearing the bones of an animal. However, I'm pretty sure someone like Bruce Lee could do it, and he wouldn't need a weapon.

    If it is going to be a form of combat that's "just for fun," then we shouldn't be able to pump points into it. Everyone should just have the same level of unarmed and leave it at that. I'm not against removing it from the game if this is the case, but I am looking for some consistency. My preferred change would be for them to just change it to something like "Martial Arts," and go from there.

  7. #7
    I vote for a Dim Mak thing and kicks in unarmed what push the peoples or make the others fall....or taunt....wahtever....

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexTaldren View Post
    No, I have never tried to kill someone wearing deer, bear, or raccoon hide armor. Nor have I ever tried to kill someone wearing the bones of an animal. However, I'm pretty sure someone like Bruce Lee could do it, and he wouldn't need a weapon.

    If it is going to be a form of combat that's "just for fun," then we shouldn't be able to pump points into it. Everyone should just have the same level of unarmed and leave it at that. I'm not against removing it from the game if this is the case, but I am looking for some consistency. My preferred change would be for them to just change it to something like "Martial Arts," and go from there.
    I at least giving you credit for using Bruce Lee instead of Chuck Norris in the obvious "everyone saw it coming" marital arts example.

    So now lets look at this realistically. Someone such as Bruce Lee or other masters could very well possibly have 100 as their unarmed skill. But now figure you have Bruce Lee A and Bruce Lee B. Both having 100 skill in all forms of combat in the game. (This is just a demonstration not a commentary on Bruce Lee's technical ability) Now give Bruce Lee A a weapon and Bruce Lee B none and A will win 99.9% of the time, the weapon being the deciding factor. If you drop A's skill down to 50 and leave B's skill at 100 and A will still win most of the time because weapons do exponentially more damage then fists. Throw in the fact that the combat system right now is as simple as swing left and swing right with apparently useless dodge and parry abilities (the dodge and parry would be the most important for the unarmed person needing to avoid the "oh my god it hurts me so much" weapon)

    So overall I say the balance is pretty much right between unarmed and weapons.

    As far as unarmed against armor. The ability to only hit the person as a whole and not target specific weak points takes away any advantage that the unarmed person would be able to garner from his/her skill.

    So yeah, unarmed doesn't do much and without something like fist weapons it shouldn't do much (which in the future there probably will be). But to say we SHOULDN'T be able to put points into it is kinda silly. Maybe someone wants to make the game's best boxer and arrange boxing matches at their homestead where they've terraformed a ring. Or simply for the reason that they want to punch racoons to death. Who are you to tell them that they shouldn't be able to get better at it simply because you don't want to? If you don't like it don't put your points into it, but don't try to say that other people can't enjoy the game the way they want simply because this one skill doesn't cater to your personal play style. To say that you shouldn't be able to put points into unarmed simply because it's not a viable option for PvP is the same as saying that you think terraforming is stupid and should be removed from the game because you don't want to change the landscape.

    And all of this discussing a combat system which is in the middle of being revamped entirely and who knows what the hell it's gonna be like in a month from now. For all we know you could be a master at jiujitsu by next month doing all the unarmed "pwning" you want.

  9. #9
    I can't believe the sheer stupidity in this thread.

    From a pure balancing standpoint

    1.Allow armed to mod unarmed combat(if it doesn't already) and change the name to hand to hand.
    2.remove the mini-stun from barehanded combat(or add unique things to all other weapon types)
    3. insert h2h weapons to allow the skill to grow the same as every other weapon type. (weighted gloves, brass knuckles etc..)

    The op is 100% correct, the unarmed changes were 100% necessary but they left unarmed as worthless. There are people out there who want to fight with hands and the above is an option to keep the needed nerf to naked zergs and still give people that option.

  10. #10
    I think once they allow special moves to come with the skills. You will see a reason for unarmed combat. As it stands now you are 100% correct that UA is not really worth having, and is pretty pointless.

    I would say leave it, and once moves are in you will see the reason for it.
    MrDDT



    "Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win."
    -Sun-tzu


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •