it is like that already?! I always glance with my mw ashwood if someone is to near, have to make crazy jumps and run backwards for a few seconds to hit again.
hey, I'm just bringing in my ideas. (And many of them have been implemented across the life of this mod)
Im not an expert on polearm stab, and usually have no problem with it...
That said, ive seen some people stabbing stupidly fast on melee with awlpikes, and piricing even though im hugging them with my shield... hitting before I swing after ive blocked their thrust with my shield, that seems a bit OP...and the suggestion of only pircing at the right range would fix it.
Nevertheless, this would make many other polearm really bad, and most of them are well balanced as it is.
hey, I'm just bringing in my ideas. (And many of them have been implemented across the life of this mod)
Of course I mostly know the game from my perspective, and they will therefore be a bit jaded..
I don't understand that this suggestion is so bad. Yes, it would further separate 2h and polearms, but this would be good, as they are quite the same right now. (in actual use.)
And of course this would be murder for polearmers dueling swords, but battle efficiency would be much greater if one increased the damage they do.
And honestly Paul, battle efficiency is what weapons should be balanced to, not dueling power. Balancing weapons for duels has created a bias towards certain weapons in battle, at the same time as any weapon can win against any weapon. I would rather have harder counters and weaknesses. If you want a jack of all trades weapon, that weapon would not be good in anything.. But this would of course require a whole change in the philosophy of what kind of game you want.
Kudos to you sir. Yes your change would make it harder for a polearm to 1v1 a 2h. It should be hard to do. Weapons and classes have strengths and weaknesses, I don't like how C-rpg tries to minimize both to make it so that everyone's equal in a duel. Certain things should be hard to overcome. It should be hard to overcome ranged if you are in an open field without a shield. It should be hard to overcome a 2h if you have a long pointy stick and they get closer to you than your stick is long. This is all just common sense, but seems to be lost on the people who decide the direction of the mod.
And honestly Paul, battle efficiency is what weapons should be balanced to, not dueling power. Balancing weapons for duels has created a bias towards certain weapons in battle, at the same time as any weapon can win against any weapon. I would rather have harder counters and weaknesses.
Im not an expert on polearm stab, and usually have no problem with it...
That said, ive seen some people stabbing stupidly fast on melee with awlpikes, and piricing even though im hugging them with my shield... hitting before I swing after ive blocked their thrust with my shield, that seems a bit OP...and the suggestion of only pircing at the right range would fix it.
Nevertheless, this would make many other polearm really bad, and most of them are well balanced as it is.
Nononononononono.
No.
Rock-Paper-Scissors balancing is the worst kind of balancing there is, especially in such a (partly) skill intensive game such as warband.
Nononononononono.
No.
Rock-Paper-Scissors balancing is the worst kind of balancing there is, especially in such a (partly) skill intensive game such as warband.
Thomek's criminal energy in terms of lobbying always surprises me.
I reckon this kinda balance is great, it makes the game feel a bit more like an actual battlefield rather than a load of nobles acting out their fantasies (by that I mean this can feel like an elitists game). I want to see peasants with spears (the militia of medieval times) to gang up and stab up a foolish duelist noble who got cocky (this would be the self proclaimed 'skilled players' in cRPG). I want to see those big noble tears drop as they get piled on by newbies with large rocks (oooh can we have a bigger version of stones introduced, but melee only, the hilarity of beating a guy down with a large rock!).There is isn't much reason to play a multiplayer game in which player skill is not a large factor. At that point, you may as well be playing roulette.
Dunno if this is possible with WSE.. :)
Makes sense.. Polearms are based on a wooden pole, after all. The change should be offset by a buff to damage if the polearmer lands a good hit at the right range.
This would make them completely different from 2h of course. Requiring a different way of fighting, where range control is much more important. It is also somewhat realistic.. (Of course a polearmer could change his grip etc, but this could be the alternate mode?
Just an idea, dunno if anyone kicks on it.
Thomek, let me tell you this:
In close range, I already glance a fuckton, while Mr. Swordsman, let it be 1 or 2h, can deal full damage to me from any angle, even the most absurd and illogical ones, like from behind, or when I'm passing his actual arc, he still catches me.
There is isn't much reason to play a multiplayer game in which player skill is not a large factor. At that point, you may as well be playing roulette.
The feeling of continuously getting better is what keeps a game fun. If you hit a point where you can't get better (or where it has no impact on the game), then there's not much reason to keep playing.
Skill is a factor and always should be, but skill should not get you out of situations that only excessive stupidity and cockiness got you into. In a way you could say that picking your battles is more skillful than being able to fend off 2 players at a time ;)
I by no means am saying everyone should be equal in skill, I am just saying I want the game to be less forgiving to players who think their skill with a sword overides their common sense. If you get into a fight with 4 peasants with pitch forks, you should get ganked by them if they are clever enough, whatever level you are, not be able to spam your way out and go 'Hells yes! I am so fricking awesomeeeee!'.
Thomek, let me tell you this:Bullshit, the glancing in both weapon classes is equally, if not less for polearms. Point blank the stab from a under 150 length polearm rarely glances, even without spinning. The 2h stab always glances at point blank unless its elaborately spun.
In close range, I already glance a fuckton, while Mr. Swordsman, let it be 1 or 2h, can deal full damage to me from any angle, even the most absurd and illogical ones, like from behind, or when I'm passing his actual arc, he still catches me.
If you get into a fight with 4 peasants with pitch forks, you should get ganked by them if they are clever enough, whatever level you are,
Rock paper scissors = Outnumbered players always lose regardless how bad the players are who's attacking the "noble"(the outnumbered one).
but as it is now it doesn't matter much what weapon the skilled person is using..
Bullshit, the glancing in both weapon classes is equally, if not less for polearms. Point blank the stab from a under 150 length polearm rarely glances, even without spinning. The 2h stab always glances at point blank unless its elaborately spun.
And isn't that FUCKING AWESOME?
I can beat up an armored knight with a pitchfork at close range if I play well enough, I don't see why you'd want to reduce that aspect.
"Hooray, I picked the right weapon for this situation, sorry but it doesn't matter what you do now, you're completely fucked!"
...really?
The point is you dont auto win with a certain weapon vs another certain weapons, but you should get a decent advantage when fighting against your counter e.g. cav should always have issues fighting polearms, but should not have to fear a ridiculously over the top stab from 2h's :P Or polearms should always fear 1h/ shield facehuggers, not be able to run and jump into a spin which then does insane amounts of damage. Classes should counter each other and confer advantages vs other classes.
Ah, okay, so the real point here is that you're pissed at 2h as the only class outreaching your lance? :|
Aside from that; why?
Thomek, let me tell you this:
In close range, I already glance a fuckton, while Mr. Swordsman, let it be 1 or 2h, can deal full damage to me from any angle, even the most absurd and illogical ones, like from behind, or when I'm passing his actual arc, he still catches me.
essentially what I mean is 2h's are duelists, close combat specialists and they fight very well vs other infantry but by pulling off a ridiculous animation its too easy for them to take the polearmers niche of anti cav as well... All i think is that too many classes are made redundant by the over flexible existing classes.
...
On the subject of the lolstab, I have always been against it as it basically fills the role of a polearm stab, using a lolstab you can outrange horsemen head on, you can assist in a stabbing motion in melee fights (like a stronger spear) and it gives 2h excessive range that completely nullifies many polearmers advantage. I dont know how to balance this, but if they made 2h's lolstab shorter or less damaging but their cut damage higher I would reckon it might restore 2h to its rightful place as a heavy hitter duelist weapon.
This.
In my book, 2h should be the superior duel choice and superior overall melee weapons. Polearms, because they have all the axes, good against 1h but slightly weaker than 2h. And the only ones able to outreach cav lances. We should see many pikes, but pikes are not really any good when you can outreach a cav lance with a 2h thrust anyway.
I dont use a lance ;) I'm jav cav.
essentially what I mean is 2h's are duelists, close combat specialists and they fight very well vs other infantry but by pulling off a ridiculous animation its too easy for them to take the polearmers niche of anti cav as well. There are more examples, 1h/ shield should be destroyed by crush through, but the slow crush through should get countered by a decent ranged 2h / polearmer. All i think is that too many classes are made redundant by the over flexible existing classes.
This game would be a lot more balanced if people felt there was more niches for classes that are currently unplayed. 2h is just an example of one class where they can fight their would be counters as well as their prey classes (ye i couldnt think of another word).
On the subject of the lolstab, I have always been against it as it basically fills the role of a polearm stab, using a lolstab you can outrange horsemen head on, you can assist in a stabbing motion in melee fights (like a stronger spear) and it gives 2h excessive range that completely nullifies many polearmers advantage. I dont know how to balance this, but if they made 2h's lolstab shorter or less damaging but their cut damage higher I would reckon it might restore 2h to its rightful place as a heavy hitter duelist weapon.
I'm saying that for example if I get ambushed by three people I will obviously be at a disadvantage. But if I play really good (and/or they play really bad) I can fight my way out of it. What you want is for me to just die? Bullshit I say.
You still haven't explained why.
Give me one class that is "underplayed". Pure thrower maybe, but then throwing weapons were never intended to be used as a primary, although they work great as backup weapons.
And yet there are people who make good use of pure thrower builds too.
And I can't believe you don't see the incredible fallacy of your argument when you state that classes are made "redundant" and that that sucks when what you are suggesting will make all classes redundant in the wrong situation.
I'm saying that for example if I get ambushed by three people I will obviously be at a disadvantage. But if I play really good (and/or they play really bad) I can fight my way out of it. What you want is for me to just die? Bullshit I say.
What your change will basically do is make cav OP as they are the class that best offensively can pick their fights. 2h (who SHOULD have their lolstab in my opinion since it's part of what makes them good and interesting in duels and it gives them a way to fight cav. Poles have horsestop while 2h excel at sniping the rider. Seems fair to me.) would be forced to constantly cower behind their pikeman/shielder teammates leading to stale and boring gameplay.
I go on the duel server and see people duelling with everything from katanas to bar maces and scimitars. Isn't that awesome? That you can develop your own unique fighting style and be successful?
Would you rather have it so that if you want to duel you must use a bastard sword because everything else is your supposed counter?
"Hi there Mr Oldmy old friend! I'm Le New Player and I just got hold of this awesome looking Great Sword. Can you teach me how to use it?"
"Sure thing son, first you need to... Hold on, a cav player is headed for your position!"
"Oh, how exciting! What do I do, how can I beat this guy?"
"You just lie down and die, Greatswords are not for fighting cav!"
"What? So I can't beat him? I'm sorry Mr Oldmy old friend, but that's fucking retarded."
"Well son, some people sucked at this game so much they whined on the forums and made c-rpg into a game of counters. Now go and find some pikemen to duel, I'm off to p0wn everyone because I play HA, cya!"
All of you lobbying for this change use the word "should" extensively, but fail to back it up with anything solid.
I am not suggesting a total rock paper scissors overhaul, this is what you interpret from what I have said. I am not lobbying for cav, if anything I am lobbying for polearms that just dont get used. There is really no point in using anti cav spears when you can play as a 2h and be capable of dehorsing the majority of light cav.
You're looking for a class that is under played :
Pikeman, since the nerf
Hoplites have always been underused, there are many alts but they are still rare in battle
Infantry that also can throw a bit (a class I think needs to be buffed)
I am suggesting that these classes become more viable by the other classes being less effective vs well everything.
I want to see this for balance, something you never have understood and i'll clue you in buddy the promoted use of classes mentions actually would put cavalry at a disadvantage. It's all the cocky rambo players like yourself that make life so easy for cav, you run off and go get your kills and when you come back half of your team are dead cause all the 2h's and aggressive polearmers ran off to do their own thing.
As for the 3 on 1 scenario, you havnt read properly because I'm pretty sure I mention that 'if the peasants are clever', at no point do I say auto win, just that it should be a lot harder than it is now to get out of said situation alive.
I hope this clears things up ;) I know you want a world where everyone fights with 2h's, but I really really really really dont, mostly cause it will just benefit cav as most 2h's have got huge ego's but not much to talk about in brains :P Cavalry prey on the stupid, cocky and the heroic, 2h's can be considered all of these things.
There is really no point in using anti cav spears when you can play as a 2h and be capable of dehorsing the majority of light cav.
Why do they need to become more viable?
Anyway, the most important question is, why is flexibility bad?
It's rare that you one-hit the horse with a two-hander, and if you don't do that you'll be one-hit yourself, by the lancer's lance. Polearms are much better for taking down horse because you can keep them out of their stabbing range by rearing the horse.This, facing lancers head on is a bit of a gamble with a 2h. If the horse doesn't die you're toast. And even the arabian has survived getting stabbed in the face by a 28p stab in full motion. You can't hit the rider before the heavy lance hits you, if timed right you can just hit the horse. Any head on charge from a horseman now while I use my ashwood pike means a dead horse and mostly a dead rider. I can get 3 hits in the horse before it can move away, almost always killing it.
It's rare that you one-hit the horse with a two-hander, and if you don't do that you'll be one-hit yourself, by the lancer's lance. Polearms are much better for taking down horse because you can keep them out of their stabbing range by rearing the horse.
The last sentence implies that you're lobbying for cav.
Why do they need to become more viable?
Irrelevant for the most part, but anyway it was never stated how the system would put cav at a disadvantage.
But what if he were rock and all three of them were scissors?
So to recap, there's no reason to use spears because 2hers can dehorse cav, but most 2hers are easy prey for cav, so nerf 2hers ability to deal with cav so the ones that are easy prey start bringing spears in which case the ones that weren't easy prey now become easy[ier] prey? Your other conclusions also have issues with them.
Anyway, the most important question is, why is flexibility bad?
Yawn same 15 year old rubbish I can expect :P
I am not suggesting a total rock paper scissors overhaul, this is what you interpret from what I have said. I am not lobbying for cav, if anything I am lobbying for polearms that just dont get used. There is really no point in using anti cav spears when you can play as a 2h and be capable of dehorsing the majority of light cav.
You're looking for a class that is under played :
Pikeman, since the nerf
Hoplites have always been underused, there are many alts but they are still rare in battle
Infantry that also can throw a bit (a class I think needs to be buffed)
I am suggesting that these classes become more viable by the other classes being less effective vs well everything. I want to see this for balance, something you never have understood and i'll clue you in buddy the promoted use of classes mentions actually would put cavalry at a disadvantage. It's all the cocky rambo players like yourself that make life so easy for cav, you run off and go get your kills and when you come back half of your team are dead cause all the 2h's and aggressive polearmers ran off to do their own thing.
As for the 3 on 1 scenario, you havnt read properly because I'm pretty sure I mention that 'if the peasants are clever', at no point do I say auto win, just that it should be a lot harder than it is now to get out of said situation alive.
Finally your little scenario with 'le new player' (as you so wonderfully put it) doesnt quite work, he shouldnt lie down, he should move out of the way ... Thats quite an obvious suggestion.
So to conclude :
- leaning to more rock/ paper / scissors scenario in fact promotes class diversity and teamwork (cavalry will be at a disadvantage)
- 3 on 1 should not be auto win, but neither should you be able to spam your way out of it
- new players should not come to you for advice cause said advice will send them to their graves
I hope this clears things up ;) I know you want a world where everyone fights with 2h's, but I really really really really dont, mostly cause it will just benefit cav as most 2h's have got huge ego's but not much to talk about in brains :P Cavalry prey on the stupid, cocky and the heroic, 2h's can be considered all of these things.
Random insults are always "win".
Also; This comes from a guy who doesn't back up his arguments.
Of course there is a point in using anti-cav spears and pikes, it's much easier to dehorse someone using one of those. And from personal experience I can say that while my poleaxe and my greatsword (on my 2h alt) are roughly equally effective vs. light cav, the poleaxe is WAY better vs. heavy cav.
"[...] when you can play as a 2h be capable of dehorsing"
As said, yes it is possible for a 2h to dehorse cav. Cav should be at a risk when charging 2h, just as any other class. It's stupid to have any class autowin vs another. Sure it's unaviodable in some cases, but we should strive for all classes being viable against all others rather than resricting actual combat to same class vs. same class.
Again with the insults, bad week?
Anyways; I don't play to win, I play to have fun. And not standing a chance if I encounter the "wrong" class is not fun imho.
Also, there is nothing wrong with those classes (maybe apart from throwing which requires a big investment to be effective, but then I'd rather see too few throwers than too many, and there are people who do good with them), it's just that they are generally boring to play. I am often a pikeman/hoplite in strat, there you will find extensive use of these teamwork-oriented classes but in pubbies most people just want to play and have fun.
Well, getting out of a 3v1 is almost impossible vs people who are good and fairly easy vs. people who suck. And that's how it should be imo.
And moving out of the way beats the cavman how...?
1. If you want teamwork, we have an extensive clan system and strat for that. Let the pubs be pubs. An organized team will beat a disorganized one, it's just a matter of using the tools at hand.
2. If I can spam my way out of a 3v1 that means that those three players suck and/or I got very, very lucky. There is a big advantage in ganging up on someone, but it shouldn't mean that you win even if you play horribly.
3. What is this...?(click to show/hide)
No.
I want a world where every class can fight every other class (to as big an extent as possible, HA will never be able to lose against melee inf for example), and where skill determines the outcome (I regard good teamwork as skill too) and can get you out of any scenario.
I've seen people get out of almost impossible situations, I've seen cav rapetrains stopped by a single player (my record is 9 GK's in one min HURR-DURR), I've seen people using incredible duel techniques and I've seen other incredible feasts of skill. I really like that. That you can still play when the odds are stacked against you. That a 5v1 isn't a hopeless situation, provided you play well enough.
If you look at Warband it's always been an individual's game. You have singleplayer where you strive to become the lord of Caldaria, you have multiplayer with no other actual reward other than making a name for yourself, and getting better. C-rpg amplifies this even further with a system for having a lasting character, with your own unique outfit, style and name. But we have more teamwork-orientated stuff as well. In c-rpg for example we have clans and start for those interested in that. Don't take me wrong, I really like teamwork but pubs should be pubs and you should have a chance as an individual as well.
And imagine that this is me:(click to show/hide)
And imagine that this is me:Thomek is making so much sense right now.(click to show/hide)
Strat has a big"play to win"share out land equally among all peace loving clans -attitude
Anyways; I don't play to win, I play to have fun. And not standing a chance if I encounter the "wrong" class is not fun imho.
Just because you suck doesn't mean the entire shielder/archer community does.
A skilled 1h is probably more dangerous to me than a skilled 2h/pole, partly because I'm not as used to fighting them and partly because of their speed.
I could list a whole bunch of 1h whom I would consider equal/better than me and who regularly beat me up (no you're not among them).
All in all, I think someone owes someone an apology :lol:
Youve never fought me as a 1hander....I fought you plenty with a 1handed weapon when I was a thrower, but most ppl can kill me when they level 30 and backpedal with a polearm and I got no athletics, armour or wpf...so, sorry I hurt your ego buddy.
If Torben plays cavalry, I know I have to be especially cautious after spawning, because he loves rushing to the enemy spawn and stabbing unaware or afk players.