The Shield Problem(s)

[Musashi]

I still want to see vanilla vs 0 shield testing exhaustive enough to prove that the shield is (Or is not) a detriment. If it's just not any help in melee, I don't care... I'm fine with it only being applied to missile fire. I'm only concerned if it actually hurts in melee, and the only way to prove that is vanilla vs 0 shield tests with identical shield bearing units. The 0 shield stats should be vanilla stats, with just the shield zeroed out, and not added into something else.

[Caesar Vastator]

Try the sheerwood archers that have 0 shield points against feudal knights and you'll see the usulessness of the shield

[Musashi]

That doesn't prove anything. They're different units.

I decided to do a truly controlled test, by copying the entry for dismounted chivalric knights, and pasting it as a new unit called "test knights". Two units with exactly the same stats, same unit entry in the modeldb file, and therefore same animation set, everything.

I got a little over halfway done with my control set (Vanilla stats with the charge bonus zeroed out) but unfortunately medieval has decided to stop working for me now.

[AussieGiant]

Musashi,

I'm not really sure I could accept shields just working for missile fire only.

That's simply not viable in my opinion.

The mere fact they could be detrimental in melee combat is laughable. I'll be interested to see how your test goes once you have the game back up and running.

[Musashi]

I hate to say it... but I'm convinced. I ran a 20 battle control set. The difference in performance between the two units was negligible. I ran my test set and quit after five battles. It was obvious. Suddenly the unit that I zeroed the shield on was winning by 30-50 kills reliably.

Clearly Shield value hurts a unit's performance in melee. I still can't say whether this is because it applies a negative to armor, or because it introduces an extra animation that slows their attack rate however.

For the sake of completeness, this is my control set data:

#############################################
## Control Set                             ##
#############################################
## Test ##   DCK  ##   TSK  ## Win ## Loss ##
#############################################
##      ##        ##        ##     ##      ##      
##  1   ##   119  ##   107  ##  X  ##      ##
##  2   ##   120  ##   111  ##  X  ##      ##
##  3   ##   116  ##   100  ##  X  ##      ##
##  4   ##   100  ##   116  ##     ##  X   ##
##  5   ##   106  ##   119  ##     ##  X   ##
##  6   ##   112  ##   119  ##     ##  X   ##
##  7   ##   119  ##   105  ##  X  ##      ##
##  8   ##   100  ##    97  ##  X  ##      ##
##  9   ##   120  ##   109  ##  X  ##      ##
##  10  ##    96  ##    97  ##     ##  X   ##
##  11  ##   118  ##   108  ##  X  ##      ##
##  12  ##   113  ##   119  ##     ##  X   ##
##  13  ##   115  ##    96  ##  X  ##      ##
##  14  ##   118  ##    97  ##  X  ##      ##
##  15  ##   119  ##   108  ##  X  ##      ##
##  16  ##   120  ##   111  ##  X  ##      ##
##  17  ##   118  ##   108  ##  X  ##      ##
##  18  ##    95  ##   118  ##     ##  X   ##
##  19  ##   112  ##   119  ##     ##  X   ##
##  20  ##   109  ##   119  ##     ##  X   ##
#############################################
## Tot. ##  2245  ##  2183  ##  12 ##   8  ##
#############################################
## Mean ## 112.25 ## 109.15 #################
#############################################
## W/L Ratio   ###############    3:2      ##
#############################################

As you can see it's within the tolerances of "normal distribution" for a 50/50 system.

The first five battles of the test set looked more like 90/50, 100/60, etc. I just threw in the towel.

[Carl]

I may be wrong, but a higher sheild value seems to mean they get the sheild up into a blocking position more often in the animation. unfortuinatly the recovery animation is longer a they have to stumble back a step then lower the sheild. If they don't do that as much they just stumble back, and start hacking again.

May just be me though so don't take my word on it.

[AussieGiant]

I may be wrong, but a higher sheild value seems to mean they get the sheild up into a blocking position more often in the animation. unfortuinatly the recovery animation is longer a they have to stumble back a step then lower the sheild. If they don't do that as much they just stumble back, and start hacking again.

May just be me though so don't take my word on it.

Hi Carl,

I'd say what we have here after looking at Musashi information is the same as the 2handed issue.

There is the "theoretical" concept that is sound, but once implemented into the graphics the end result is not realised.

In this case the result is completely reversed.