Thanks for answering.
1. This is a gameplay decision to create a clearer funtional differentiation between weapons. We like it crisp and tight, so weapons have effects which are unique to them. It would be bit bland (allthough may be more realistic) if all weapons would damage shields with just variations in damage numbers.
I understand and agree with making weapons feel different. However, I don’t think that changing shields would make axes irrelevant: you can use an axe to shatter shield on purpose, with 100% hit chance. I’d even go as far as to say that weapons being able to hit the shield would further reinforce viability of shields (as you’d take shield damage), make them less “indestructible” AND make shield cracking even better choice.
Because as of right now you need to spend a ton of stamina only to get rid of a shield. I find it much better to use a two-hander, a flail or attack en masse. One handed axes are only useful against smaller shields at that point (and even then it costs a lot of stamina, leading to another issue: not enough stamina to fight and use abilities. That’s why I feel late in game shield busting loses a lot of value.
But that’s just my opinion.
6. So this is working as intended then Maybe I’m not totally accurate on this but the attack of opportunity should be a normal enemy attack. Shield wall or other defensive maneuvers increase your chances of dodging. This could eventually be made clearer to the player via UI improvements.
I am not arguing that disengaging should be a risky option. Rather I am wondering if there shouldn’t be more tactical info (or the UI improvements, as you yourself have noted) in regard to disengagement, so I can make a tactical decision whether or not I should risk the actual disengaging.
If I am going to risk 3 hits from a two-hander instead of 3 bites, then I am not going to risk it. Especially when all attacks will have 75% to hit me. However, if my chance to get out is around 40% I might, even if it means I may get hit with a two-hander. That’s the difference it’d make for me.