"a swing from the right"
Your right or my right?

My right, your left. Your shield is on your left arm, right?

<Snipped quote by The 42nd Gecko>

My right, your left. Your shield is on your left arm, right?

Yup.

<Snipped quote by Jotunn Draugr>

Yup.

Bueno

So, here's a thing. It's somewhat rare for someone in an arena fight to get taken out by a single heavy attack in isolation or attrition by lots of such attacks. Generally, you have to force the opponent into a bad position where they've got no real good options before you land any meaningful hits. If the attacker and defender are both fully at the ready, any isolated exchanges will generally end up close to null.

After launching a swing that my opponent parries, I typically play off of that position to try force the enemy into a bad spot. For example, in an unarmed fight, I might take a hand from a punch that the opponent parried, thus right next to the opponent's arm, and attempt to grab the parrying arm. Then I might pull him in and off balance so that I can strike with the other hand.

It's certainly possible to win by a single heavy attack in isolation or attrition, but it usually only happens when the fighters are very asymmetrical or one of them pulls off a very clever trick.

So, here's a thing. It's somewhat rare for someone in an arena fight to get taken out by a single heavy attack in isolation or attrition by lots of such attacks. Generally, you have to force the opponent into a bad position where they've got no real good options before you land any meaningful hits. If the attacker and defender are both fully at the ready, any isolated exchanges will generally end up close to null.

After launching a swing that my opening parries, I typically play off of that position to try force the enemy into a bad spot. For example, in an unarmed fight, I might take a hand from a punch that the opponent parried, thus right next to the opponent's arm, and attempt to grab the parrying arm. Then I might pull him in and off balance so that I can strike with the other hand.

It's certainly possible to win by a single heavy attack in isolation or attrition, but it usually only happens when the fighters are very asymmetrical or one of them pulls off a very clever trick.

Huh, alright. Good to note. Still, there's still room for making the fight a bit exciting, and/or realistic, right? I'm not so much trying to play chess with you, as I am trying to create an engaging fight.

<Snipped quote by The 42nd Gecko>

Huh, alright. Good to note. Still, there's still room for making the fight a bit exciting, and/or realistic, right? I'm not so much trying to play chess with you, as I am trying to create an engaging fight.

Engaging and realistic are two different compass, that only sometimes reference the same direction. Realistic, with me paraphrasing a western martial arts instructor, would be rolling a d8 every time you do any attack. On an 8, the defender simply didn't react in time and is hit. More directly, the words of the instructor were along the lines of, if you put a complete novice with a sword against a master, and the master is on the defensive, one in eight times, the novice's strike will land, simply because of luck and the speed of the blade.

Engaging is usually the direct result of sustained exchanges, rather than both fighters exchanging one strike, then backing off. Imagine a lightsaber duel where Luke Skywalker steps forward, swings once, then backs off. Then, Vader steps forward, thrusts once, then backs off. That would be boring as all get out. It would look like an old turn based RPG combat. I would much rather our duels look like this:



Than this:



Notice how, in the For Honor trailer, almost every fight that is interesting to watch, not a main character just annihilating a scrub in one swing, involves a sustained series of blows and positional maneuvering, gaining upper hands on each other. 0:53 is an excellent example of what I'm talking about. Each move flows into each other. 1:22 as well.

TL/DR: It may just be my opinion, but the only way to make the fight engaging and realistic is to have continued exchanges and "play chess" as you put it. The other realistic option* is to have two fighters poke at each other from behind their defenses, until one gets lucky from the other guy just not reacting in time. Currently, we are doing the latter, and I do not find it engaging, though admittedly realistic.

*also featured in the For Honor trailer by randoms scrubs more focused on surviving than winning the fight.
**secondary clarification, there's certainly room for backing off and both fighters taking a breather, but if you do it every time after every strike, it makes the fight stilted in my opinion.
***Realism note, yes, For Honor has some stupid spins, some points where it's like, "Did that guy seriously not have armor where he just got hit? Because that attack shouldn't have gone through armor.", and some improper shield use, but all in all is a fairly good example for media.

<Snipped quote by Jotunn Draugr>

Engaging and realistic are two different compass, that only sometimes reference the same direction. Realistic, with me paraphrasing a western martial arts instructor, would be rolling a d8 every time you do any attack. On an 8, the defender simply didn't react in time and is hit. More directly, the words of the instructor were along the lines of, if you put a complete novice with a sword against a master, and the master is on the defensive, one in eight times, the novice's strike will land, simply because of luck and the speed of the blade.

Engaging is usually the direct result of sustained exchanges, rather than both fighters exchanging one strike, then backing off. Imagine a lightsaber duel where Luke Skywalker steps forward, swings once, then backs off. Then, Vader steps forward, thrusts once, then backs off. That would be boring as all get out. It would look like an old turn based RPG combat. I would much rather our duels look like this:



Than this:



Notice how, in the For Honor trailer, almost every fight that is interesting to watch, not a main character just annihilating a scrub in one swing, involves a sustained series of blows and positional maneuvering, gaining upper hands on each other. 0:53 is an excellent example of what I'm talking about. Each move flows into each other. 1:22 as well.

TL/DR: It may just be my opinion, but the only way to make the fight engaging and realistic is to have continued exchanges and "play chess" as you put it. The other realistic option* is to have two fighters poke at each other from behind their defenses, until one gets lucky from the other guy just not reacting in time. Currently, we are doing the latter, and I do not find it engaging, though admittedly realistic.

*also featured in the For Honor trailer by randoms scrubs more focused on surviving than winning the fight.
**secondary clarification, there's certainly room for backing off and both fighters taking a breather, but if you do it every time after every strike, it makes the fight stilted in my opinion.
***Realism note, yes, For Honor has some stupid spins, some points where it's like, "Did that guy seriously not have armor where he just got hit? Because that attack shouldn't have gone through armor.", and some improper shield use, but all in all is a fairly good example for media.

Alright fair enough. Maybe a balance can be naturally struck as we keep going, because their is a slight difference in subjective enjoyment between the two of us. Of course, I'm still learning, and am up for sticking more to your style.

Sorry for the wait on continuing the fight. Lotta New Years stuff in the way. Might have to wait until the new year before I can really get back to this.

<Snipped quote by The 42nd Gecko>

Alright fair enough. Maybe a balance can be naturally struck as we keep going, because their is a slight difference in subjective enjoyment between the two of us. Of course, I'm still learning, and am up for sticking more to your style.

Sorry for the wait on continuing the fight. Lotta New Years stuff in the way. Might have to wait until the new year before I can really get back to this.

No problem. I don't mean to say everything should be one long exchange that finishes the fight in one go. Fighters certainly do back off after an exchange sometimes. I just don't particularly like it if both fighters back off after EVERY strike. Having a quick one-two-three-back off is perfectly reasonable.

I think I'm a bit confused... So what exactly is Blithe doing?

My post is a less of "What is Blithe doing" so much as "what Blithe is intending to do and why we're in the situation we're in".

The first paragraph explains in none too simple terms, I'll admit: In your post, you covered a fair distance of ground, moving from fully to my front, to my side, while maintaining distance. Thus, Blithe would have had time to start doing her follow up move that she stating she was doing previously, moving to a more neutral stance, with her right side more even with her left.

The second paragraph is me saying, if your character strikes as you intended, it's probably going to result in Blithe stabbing you. Because in my previous post, I stated she was going to rotate her right side (and thus, her sword) forward. You approached Blithe on her right side, meaning, although your strike will get around Blithe's shield, you've also moved directly into the path Blithe was going to swordify. We've gotten into a situation where we will likely both hit each other unless one of us backs down.

Thus, I asked the question in my second paragraph of "Now that we've clarified these things, are you sure you want to do that? Anything you'd like to tweak first?"

My post is a less of "What is Blithe doing" so much as "what Blithe is intending to do and why we're in the situation we're in".

The first paragraph explains in none too simple terms, I'll admit: In your post, you covered a fair distance of ground, moving from fully to my front, to my side, while maintaining distance. Thus, Blithe would have had time to start doing her follow up move that she stating she was doing previously, moving to a more neutral stance, with her right side more even with her left.

The second paragraph is me saying, if your character strikes as you intended, it's probably going to result in Blithe stabbing you. Because in my previous post, I stated she was going to rotate her right side (and thus, her sword) forward. You approached Blithe on her right side, meaning, although your strike will get around Blithe's shield, you've also moved directly into the path Blithe was going to swordify. We've gotten into a situation where we will likely both hit each other unless one of us backs down.

Thus, I asked the question in my second paragraph of "Now that we've clarified these things, are you sure you want to do that? Anything you'd like to tweak first?"

I was actually working under the assumption that the distance had been closed. All Gunnaya did was sidestep, now nice and close to Blithe. Shouldn't take too long. As for "are you sure", if I wanted to play 100% strategically, I'd stay in the trees, and pelt you with arrows and birds. Let's make this exciting. Lock me in, big boy. posted, with a little adjustment

My view of the fight was a little different I see, that's where we can get into problems. I was thinking that, even with my lunge, there was still some distance between us, still in striking range, certainly, but not in grappling range yet.

But I can roll with this certainly.

Soooo......

Oh, bugger! Forgot completely about this, my bad.