Jump to content


Photo
accepted

Weapon and Armor Fixes (by kryptopyr)

mod

  • Please log in to reply
238 replies to this topic

#16 Neovalen

Neovalen

    Talos

  • Mod Author
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,593 posts

Posted 20 April 2013 - 03:16 PM

@Neovalen

Not to answer for her but I read this on the mod description page which would appear to answer your question.

Q. Looking at Weapons & Armor Fixes Remade and USKP in TES5Edit, there appear to be conflicts.
A. There are a few cases where I did correct values edited by USKP. These are relatively few, but yes, in some cases, I did change the values used by USKP. I only did this when I felt the value used by USKP was incorrect, or I had a good reason for choosing another value. Some are a matter of opinion, for example when USKP chose to round a value down, while I felt it was more appropriate to round up. Another example: Volendrung is considered Dwarven by USKP, but I've made it Daedric. You can argue that lore states it was made by the Dwemer, but I would argue that the material keywords indicate the type of material that composes the weapon and not the race of the smith who created it. To me, Volendrung does not look to be made from Dwemer metal and very much has the appearance of a daedric weapon (not to mention the fact that it is a daedric artifact).

I share your sentiments - this appears to a be a great and very useful piece of work.

Thanks,

:)

Yeah, I read that but I also noted that it would break commonality between 2h swords weapon speed (since she didn't "undo" some of the USKP fixes if it was intentional).
  • 0

#17 Smile44

Smile44

    Jarl

  • Editor
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,109 posts

Posted 20 April 2013 - 03:28 PM

Oh well I just assumed that all changes were intentional from that statement, but you have a proven knack for unearthing things that need fixing so I'll step out of this one. :)
  • 0

#18 kryptopyr

kryptopyr

    General

  • Mod Author
  • PipPip
  • 696 posts

Posted 20 April 2013 - 04:35 PM

It's a good question, and I'm happy to explain my reasoning.  While in this case is was an intentional decision, I certainly appreciate having any apparent inconsistencies brought to my attention.  If it is something that I managed to overlook, then it can be addressed.

Almost all of the greatswords in the vanilla game actually had a speed of 0.7 rather than 0.8. As you said, USKP changed this to 0.75. The statement from the USKP changelog is:

According to in-game load screens, greatswords should swing faster than battle axes. Their settings were incorrect though since they were all set to exactly the same speed. Except the Draugr greatwords, which had the correct value. All other greatsword templates have been corrected to match.


Draugr greatswords were 0.75 which, as USKP states, might suggest that this was suppose to be the correct value for greatswords. My choice however was to make the speed consistent with the pattern suggested by the other weapons...

The difference in speed between other 1H & 2H weapons are as follows:
Swords = 1.0, Greatswords = ?
War Axe = 0.9, Battleaxe = 0.7 (difference of -0.2)
Mace = 0.8, Warhammer = 0.6 (difference of -0.2)

Also, the difference in speed among one-handed weapons is a consistent -0.1 decrease in speed (Swords = 1, War Axe = 0.9, and Mace = 0.8). The difference between Battleaxes (0.7) and Warhammers (0.6) is also a -0.1 decrease.

Given both these progressions, I felt that the correct speed for the Greatswords should be 0.8 instead of 0.7 or 0.75. This maintains both the -0.2 difference in speed between Swords and Greatswords, and the -0.1 change in speed between the different 2H weapon types.
  • 0

#19 z929669

z929669

    Ixian Inventor

  • Administrator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,794 posts

Posted 20 April 2013 - 05:19 PM

It's a good question, and I'm happy to explain my reasoning.  While in this case is was an intentional decision, I certainly appreciate having any apparent inconsistencies brought to my attention.  If it is something that I managed to overlook, then it can be addressed.

Almost all of the greatswords in the vanilla game actually had a speed of 0.7 rather than 0.8. As you said, USKP changed this to 0.75. The statement from the USKP changelog is:

According to in-game load screens, greatswords should swing faster than battle axes. Their settings were incorrect though since they were all set to exactly the same speed. Except the Draugr greatwords, which had the correct value. All other greatsword templates have been corrected to match.


Draugr greatswords were 0.75 which, as USKP states, might suggest that this was suppose to be the correct value for greatswords. My choice however was to make the speed consistent with the pattern suggested by the other weapons...

The difference in speed between other 1H & 2H weapons are as follows:
Swords = 1.0, Greatswords = ?
War Axe = 0.9, Battleaxe = 0.7 (difference of -0.2)
Mace = 0.8, Warhammer = 0.6 (difference of -0.2)

Also, the difference in speed among one-handed weapons is a consistent -0.1 decrease in speed (Swords = 1, War Axe = 0.9, and Mace = 0.8). The difference between Battleaxes (0.7) and Warhammers (0.6) is also a -0.1 decrease.

Given both these progressions, I felt that the correct speed for the Greatswords should be 0.8 instead of 0.7 or 0.75. This maintains both the -0.2 difference in speed between Swords and Greatswords, and the -0.1 change in speed between the different 2H weapon types.

I completely agree with this reasoning, both in terms of the apparent existing pattern (but for this one inconsistency), as well as basic physics, A sword's center of gravity is proximal to the wielder, whereas an axe (and hammer and mace) CoG is distal to the wielder. This means more force is required to swing the latter, which should move more slowly and with more inertia (I'll ignore the diffs in length for simplicity's sake ... and because that might drive a wedge into my neat little rationalization ... :P )

This appears to be well analyzed. How about someone reports back after running the appropriate config under STEP?

Marking for testing, OP updated.

#20 WilliamImm

WilliamImm

    Legendary Blue Dragon

  • Mod Author
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,453 posts

Posted 20 April 2013 - 05:22 PM

Great work, krypyolyr. I may even go and show this to the author of SkyRe (who I have assisted before - the BAIN wizard in 1.2 was my creation) for integrating the fixes provided by this mod. Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
  • 0

#21 statmonster

statmonster

    Jarl

  • Citizen
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,245 posts

Posted 21 April 2013 - 11:11 AM

It's a good question, and I'm happy to explain my reasoning.  While in this case is was an intentional decision, I certainly appreciate having any apparent inconsistencies brought to my attention.  If it is something that I managed to overlook, then it can be addressed.

Almost all of the greatswords in the vanilla game actually had a speed of 0.7 rather than 0.8. As you said, USKP changed this to 0.75. The statement from the USKP changelog is:

According to in-game load screens, greatswords should swing faster than battle axes. Their settings were incorrect though since they were all set to exactly the same speed. Except the Draugr greatwords, which had the correct value. All other greatsword templates have been corrected to match.


Draugr greatswords were 0.75 which, as USKP states, might suggest that this was suppose to be the correct value for greatswords. My choice however was to make the speed consistent with the pattern suggested by the other weapons...

The difference in speed between other 1H & 2H weapons are as follows:
Swords = 1.0, Greatswords = ?
War Axe = 0.9, Battleaxe = 0.7 (difference of -0.2)
Mace = 0.8, Warhammer = 0.6 (difference of -0.2)

Also, the difference in speed among one-handed weapons is a consistent -0.1 decrease in speed (Swords = 1, War Axe = 0.9, and Mace = 0.8). The difference between Battleaxes (0.7) and Warhammers (0.6) is also a -0.1 decrease.

Given both these progressions, I felt that the correct speed for the Greatswords should be 0.8 instead of 0.7 or 0.75. This maintains both the -0.2 difference in speed between Swords and Greatswords, and the -0.1 change in speed between the different 2H weapon types.

All very sensible - but should a greatsword be as fast as a mace?  I thoutht all two handed weapons were supposed to be slower than all one handed weapons.  Still 0.8 seems reasonable.
  • 0

#22 z929669

z929669

    Ixian Inventor

  • Administrator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,794 posts

Posted 22 April 2013 - 12:09 AM

a good point, but at the end of the day, consistency (precision) is probably more important than realism (accuracy) ;)

#23 kryptopyr

kryptopyr

    General

  • Mod Author
  • PipPip
  • 696 posts

Posted 22 May 2013 - 09:45 PM

This mod has now been updated with Dragonborn fixes.
  • 0

#24 z929669

z929669

    Ixian Inventor

  • Administrator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,794 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 12:20 AM

Great ... I'd like to accept this one formally.

@kryptopyr
What do you recommend for notes on installation under 2.2.6?

#25 kryptopyr

kryptopyr

    General

  • Mod Author
  • PipPip
  • 696 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 06:40 AM

:D For installation...there's not much to really say; I feel that it's pretty straightforward. WAF should be placed at the top of the load order, but after the Unofficial Patches. Players who have both Dawnguard and Dragonborn should use the Complete version. Otherwise, they should use the Vanilla (or vanilla + Dawnguard/Dragonborn file, if they have one but not the other). I think I have patches available for all of the current STEP mods that need them.
  • 0

#26 z929669

z929669

    Ixian Inventor

  • Administrator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,794 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 10:44 AM

Thanks for the input ;)

Accepted for v2.2.6

#27 z929669

z929669

    Ixian Inventor

  • Administrator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,794 posts

Posted 02 June 2013 - 01:38 AM

Needs mod page created please

#28 BahamutZ

BahamutZ

    Noble

  • Citizen
  • 43 posts

Posted 09 June 2013 - 01:18 PM

So I am installing both the MAIN and the compatibility patch for the three other mods?  Or just the compatibility patch? I assuming both, but seeking clarification.
  • 0

#29 doveman

doveman

    Thane

  • Citizen
  • 76 posts

Posted 16 June 2013 - 07:54 AM

https://wiki.step-pr...n_&_Armor_Fixes "If using the aMidianBorn Skyforge Weapons component of Book of Silence, Improved Closefaced Helmets, and Guard Dialogue Overhaul, use the "Multi-Mod Compatibility Patch" is a bit confusing, as the last two of those don't have any Weapons component. Perhaps it would be clearer to re-arrange the order to say "If using Improved Closefaced Helmets, Guard Dialogue Overhaul and the Weapons component of Book of Silence, use the "Multi-Mod Compatibility Patch""
  • 0

#30 z929669

z929669

    Ixian Inventor

  • Administrator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,794 posts

Posted 08 August 2013 - 01:04 AM

I vote to include the "True Orcish & Daedric Weapons" patch into this as Core component. This is a fix to a vanilla oversight and downright inconsistencies within TES5 perk, crafting and ore/mining progression and all historic TES Lore (including previous games). Can anyone argue that this is not a fix in all of these aspects?



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: accepted, mod, accepted

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users