I assume there will be a draw time between using your bolter and switching to your combat sword, You shouldn't be able to simply walk out of melee without knocking the opponent back or something.
I see people rolling out of melee just like Space Marine. Draw time prolly wont be an issue since they prolly will never switch to their melee weapon or draw while rolling. I'm just being realistic here. Like I said.. I love skill based and dynamic melee. But when you mix shooting and melee you will always have to make melee stronger and faster to compensate. That means it's going to be dumbed down in some aspect. Limited ammo would be a viable solution accept for the fact that I can almost guarantee that a support class will have the ability to drop ammo and nobody will ever be out of it.
I would much agree with Partisan. I agree with the aspect of siding with the more SM melee system. It was simple enough but complex enough a veteran would ruin anyone who just wants to run at someone and hack away. Ya the combos weren't real in depth but, I could see going a little deeper with that and not making it so you character stopped if the combo didn't agree with the movement you were aiming for. But never did I think the game was at fault for my ambition of trying to do something my marine couldn't do in a fluid swing (at least what they had programmed him to do). This game is supposed to be massive, alot of stuff going on and as much as we all would like there to be the most skill involved in killing people up close and personal, it simply can't be as detailed as you would like. I could see the SM system added with a block system. Not just a simple button blocks everything easy. Maybe if you press the block button it deflects but with no forward motion/mostly defensive aciton. If you block but somehow parry it by pressing a certain direction in the way the opponent was swinging allows you to go on the offensive easily. That maybe simple enough but maybe not. Thats as in depth as I can see it getting. Maybe thats what most of you were talking about i'm not sure. Not used to hearing the Mouse/Keyboard controls. But i'm all for the less is more in the way of thinking. I wouldn't go less the SM system, but I wouldn't go to far past it either. Not when we plan on having 100's of people fighting eachother. I couldn't think of one game with this kind of ambition that would have such an acute melee system.
The SM melee system was absolute garbage though...it had like a total of 4 combos with a stun button in it for each weapon, and it got so boring extremely fast. I don't think it would be hard to add blocks, specials, grabs, and charges while adding with more combos, better executions, and some stun system that isn't as powerful as in SM. A major selling point of this game is a different and better melee system, so why should they settle for some crap like what SM had?
As was stated earlier, make melee combat too difficult or complex and people will go for ranged classes instead. And you're then looking at mechanics to force people to melee to rebalance which is a) daft, and b) a terribly good way to encourage rage quits. Mount and Blade is an interesting one from this perspective, as both melee and ranged had their own unique skill requirements, but the mechanics of both were very straightforward.
That would be fine, or a system like Rakion. As long as it is not just "oh, we're both gonna smash one button until one of us dies" and you can mix it up with a couple different moves, I'll be fine with that.
Yes, in M&B (NW largely) if you have an inexperienced player go up against an experienced player there is little doubt as to the outcome as long as they have a similar sort of load out (i.e. combat based). Whereas you can have an relatively inexperienced player in a combat class go up against an experienced player in a ranged class and, more often than not, come out on top. On the flip side though, if you pit an inexperienced player in a combat class against a absolutely superb player in a ranged class it can go either way. Of course you can also completely fluke it. The limiting of the combat between ranged classes and melee classes should be wargear. The most obvious of this is making it nearly impossible to block with a combat knife (seeing as it will probably be the default melee weapon for ranged classes). So if you're incredibly skilled you have a chance with your blocks/dodging etc but most of the time no matter how good you are if you get attacked by a melee class you're probably going to die. I like the melee system in Napoleonic Wars because if you get the chance you can run through half a dozen people with your bayonet in a matter seconds but if you come across someone who is ready for you and is equipped to stop you or adequately skilled you can end up having a proper fight/duel. Just my opinion mind, I'm not saying we should run around with bayonets but if the combat system in EC can achieve the same sort of thing (albeit with far greater class and weapon variation).
I would, personally, be absolutely fine with similarish balancing as M&B:NW. There are times and places where both pure ranged, pure melee and ranged-with-emergency-bayonets are dominant and heavily disadvantaged. Both require different types of skills to be learned (purely ranged is arguably slightly easier, but the counterpoint is that its a lot less forgiving if you're out of your distance-based comfort zone). The other critical thing about NW balancing is that although there are situations where a single heroically skilled player can dominate small skirmishes, for the most part its the tactics, positioning and teamwork of the army that determines the victory - no matter how good you are, you can't dominate the battlefield alone vs human players. Put it this way - I was pleased when the EC devs mentioned that M&B:Warband was a "must-play" game for anyone on the development team.
