Switching to Alternate melee combat…

[Barber[FG]]

It dawned on me last night while I was pressing number “6” on my keyboard to switch from scope to iron sights, that it would be really cool if we could change our melee attack mode the same way with our bolt action rifles.

This way, the player could choose between melee attacking another player with his bayonet or the butt of his rifle depending on situation and simply just for the gun of it.

Anyone else think that this would be a cool feature?

[Clowndoe]

Yeah I've always wanted to be able to push a button that would switch from a one-hit-kill to a short range attack that does nothing comparatively in a contrived manner because melee fights usually give me time to think about these things.

[Barber[FG]]

Originally Posted by Clowndoe

Yeah I've always wanted to be able to push a button that would switch from a one-hit-kill to a short range attack that does nothing comparatively in a contrived manner because melee fights usually give me time to think about these things.

I said it would be cool, not practical…

[CptFoley101]

That feature was in RO1 and it seemed cool(havent played it).I hope it gets implemented in RO2.Atleast for classic mode,since the bayonet is an unlockable in the other modes.

[evil lemon325]

Use the Mount and Blade/War of the Roses melee system. Different attacks based on moving the mouse in a certain direction while using the melee key.

Left/Right for a quick slash attack in either direction that deals a smaller amount of damage and throws the victim's reticule by a good deal.

Upwards to use a medium speed rifle butt attack which staggers the opponent.

And downwards to go for a killing blow, where you raise the rifle and deliberately put in a lot of force, best used in conjunction with the other moves. For example, meet an enemy in a hall, panic slash throw off his aim, giving you time to hit him with the rifle but, leaving him unable to react, then going for the kill.

Also, there should be a choice to charge with the bayonet braced while sprinting. Doesn't allow you to turn very well, gives off a yell, but once you reach an opponent you can stab them instead of having to stop sprinting right in front of them, pick up your weapon, then facestab. Also should generate suppression to enemies in front of you, while reducing suppression to yourself. These effects are magnified the more players you have charging at a time making mass attacks better.

[Cwivey]

Originally Posted by evil lemon325

Also, there should be a choice to charge with the bayonet braced while sprinting. Doesn't allow you to turn very well, gives off a yell, but once you reach an opponent you can stab them instead of having to stop sprinting right in front of them, pick up your weapon, then facestab. Also should generate suppression to enemies in front of you, while reducing suppression to yourself. These effects are magnified the more players you have charging at a time making mass attacks better.

This is already how sprint-bayonet charging works, apart from the limited turning speed. Don't get what the "stop sprinting right in front of them, pick up your weapon, then facestab" bit is though, are you letting go too early?

[Mekhazzio]

I guess he never tried holding the melee button down while sprinting

Also, charges actually do have suppression effects, although it's a little bizarre in that it's team-specific. A German doing a melee charge suppresses enemies around him (with greater effect for how many enemies he's killed that life) and Russians that are sprinting with nearby sprinting teammates are immune to suppression for the duration (and usually screaming their heads off while they're doing it). Pretty gamey, and entirely irrelevant to actual gameplay, but there it is.

[Nikita]

Lol, I didn't know that the melee suppression effects were team-specific... The German effect makes more sense to me personally, seeing as how rare it is to group-melee-charge. Still, both effects are fairly hard-to-notice in-game.

As for a more complicated melee system, the only change I'd be in favor for is adding a minimum required range to the bayonet attack. That way, an enemy without a bayonet equipped still has a viable chance in melee combat by allowing him to close to inside the bayo's reach and bash his opponent. Adding this limitation to the bayonet would also provide a reason to allow a bayonet-equipped soldier to 'switch melee modes' to attack with the shorter-ranged but limitation-less rifle butt.

Anything more complicated than that (multiple attacks, attack speeds, parrying) would require a complete set of melee options that is quite frankly not entirely worth the effort. Melee combat, even in a controlled environment, is so complex and dependant on fine control and perception that it's beyond the scope of a game like RO2 to model.

[Schnitzel15]

Yeah I would like that. I would especially love to remove the bayonet. I don't really like it to be honest, and I think it's sad that only lvl 1 rifles (Kar98) don't have the bayo, but look too dusty (that's why I use lvl 2).

[Mekhazzio]

Originally Posted by Nikita

As for a more complicated melee system, the only change I'd be in favor for is adding a minimum required range to the bayonet attack.

I'm not sure that passes the smell test. The entire purpose of a bayonet is to be a generally superior weapon to anything that's not either a bullet or also a polearm.

Given the awkwardness of fine movement, much less movement reaction in a latency environment, it would also be pretty much random for either side to either exploit or avoid whatever range actually sorts out.

Plus, I'm just not comfortable with a design that says a "butt" strike with an MP40 might actually be a good idea

[Nikita]

Originally Posted by Mekhazzio

I'm not sure that passes the smell test. The entire purpose of a bayonet is to be a generally superior weapon to anything that's not either a bullet or also a polearm.

Given the awkwardness of fine movement, much less movement reaction in a latency environment, it would also be pretty much random for either side to either exploit or avoid whatever range actually sorts out.

Plus, I'm just not comfortable with a design that says a "butt" strike with an MP40 might actually be a good idea

Yes, the bayonet is 'designed' to make a rifle with one mounted superior to a weapon without one, but being able to stab anything 1cm to 2 meters away from you is not entirely an accurate representation of the mounted bayonet's limitations.

When bayonet fencing at proper distance, a bayonet-mounted firearm is indeed markedly superior. When a PPSh-41 equipped soldier steps within the bayonet's reach, however, I would argue that the playing ground is leveled.

Using the wire-stocked MP40 as a melee weapon is indeed comical. However, I for one know that if my hardwood-stock PPSh-41 was empty and I came face to face with a k98-equipped German trying to skewer me, my immediate reaction would be to parry the thrust, step inside the bayonet's reach, and bash the Kraut in the face. In-game, however, the bayonet magically stabs me even when I'm nose-to-nose with the enemy, and so this tactic simply isn't viable.

Just looking for a way to introduce a realistic limitation to the bayonet.

[Mekhazzio]

Mounting a bayonet doesn't mean they can't also butt-strike, with a longer lever, even, so that limitation doesn't make any more sense than what we've got now. In your hypothetical, the guy with the polearm has all the same capabilities you do, and more besides. A spear-vs-club matchup is not really something that's supposed to be fair, especially when both wielders are the next best thing to totally untrained.

[Nikita]

Originally Posted by Mekhazzio

Mounting a bayonet doesn't mean they can't also butt-strike, with a longer lever, even, so that limitation doesn't make any more sense than what we've got now. In your hypothetical, the guy with the polearm has all the same capabilities you do, and more besides. A spear-vs-club matchup is not really something that's supposed to be fair, especially when both wielders are the next best thing to totally untrained.

I'm sorry--I wasn't clear. The bayonet user is not 'helpless' when the enemy is inside his minimum bayonet range. (It's arguable whether or not he has the same capabilities as the club-holder--I would argue he is still at a disadvantage) The minimum-range system would be:

Bayonet-equipped weapon:
--Bayonet usable between, say, 3m and 0.75m (arbitrary distances). Right mouse click.
--Butt-strike possible between 0.75m and 0m. "G" key. (Grenade key is uneccesary, just an example)

Bayonet-less weapon:
--Butt-strike only, range from 0.75m to 0m. Right mouse click.

The point being that the bayonet user is forced to switch to a melee method with less (in-game) stopping power once his club-weilding opponent closes to within arms reach.

Spear-versus-club isn't fair from a general standpoint, no. That's clearly why spears were invented. That said, if the club user closes to a distance inside the spear's reach, I would argue that the fight becomes completely fair. Even untrained. All it takes to close to killing range, after all, is the basic instinct of bashing the spearpoint out of the way or eluding it before stepping in. No fancy swordsmanship required.

Currently in-game, the spearman maintains his advantage even in this situation, because he can continue to use the spearpoint at any distance, enjoying the considerably greater (in-game) stopping power afforded to him by the weapon.

Ideally, the minimum-range system would mean that someone, confronted by a melee-charging opponent, could close the distance. The bayonet-weilding maniac, releasing his right-mouse button, would miss, allowing his opponent to get in at least one melee strike. The bayonet wielder in turn would face the natural choice between backing up to employ his bayonet or electing to club the enemy with his own weapon. This, to me, makes melee fighting far more fair, instead of the current system where a bayonet-equipped soldier need only release his RMB when the enemy is in front of him, regardless of the distance, to net the kill, meaning that a non-bayonet-equipped soldier must have the element of surprise at the very least to even hope to triumph.

EDIT: I realize of course that, melee fighting being such a minor part of the game, this change will probably never be implemented. Just thinking aloud.

[SiCaRiO]

This could only work if we give different mechanics for bayonet and butt-rifle smash.

Bayonet attack would be deadlier, or course, but slow, and should have some kind of penaltie when inside small corridors (you need space to swing the rifle and a bayonet adds lenght to the rifle).

Smashing with the butt of the rifle would be faster, but deal not much damage unless it hits the head. However, when it hits, it will trow your aim and shake your screen like when you are been supressed.