What stats should the horses have?
Inb4 every HA that already had 8 riding anyhow scoops up a +3 eastern or cataphract on the cheap cause all the silly market dwellers think they were nerfed.
Multiply all maneuver values by 1.1, add 2 speed to all horses
Also unfuck riding skill. The problem with horse balance right now is that riding is such a poor skill overall, the only point of it is to get just enough to use whatever horse you want to use. Pretty much like shield skill.I played 25-15 cav for a long time and thought the same. When the notion of increasing riding requirements came to light, I decided to try out what higher riding felt like and the boost was much more noticeable than expected. Trying 15-21, 15-24, 12-27, and 9-30 on STF and looking at their damages, they're actually not too far from each other in effectiveness. The horse's acceleration improves considerably, as well as the ability to accelerate from low->knockdown speeds from bumps.
What stats should the horses have?I don't really think stats are the issue, a lot of cav on will always be lame but there are ways to counter them. I'm not sure if you've seen Giggle recently, but he has 0 power strike and one-two hits most people with his morning star on horseback maybe something with that needs a change.(speed bonuses just trying to throw out ideas.) I agree with de-fucking the riding requirements 8 is TOO much in my opinion.
Edit: Minimum speed before couching would also need to be increased.
Other than that, horses are internally balanced decently enough with each other? Having 44-46 to 53 maneuver on horses would be funny since I can't imagine how such a high value would translate in-game. I think it could actually work (maybe not *that* high, but some cav-wide improvements) as long as the bump mechanics are tweaked. Bump slash/stab damage is way too high for an attack akin to crushthrough, but with it reduced, I feel that horses could receive better stats without that crutch. Doesn't 46 speed already match some of the fastest race horses IRL?
Please don't, I love being able to couch on my donkeyCan confirm. He actually managed to donkey-couch me during DonkeyRace preparation. Not even with a 13 riding STF but with a normal char. :lol:
Trying 15-21, 15-24, 12-27, and 9-30 on STF and looking at their damages, they're actually not too far from each other in effectiveness. The horse's acceleration improves considerably, as well as the ability to accelerate from low->knockdown speeds from bumps.
What stats should the horses have?My arabian should have 55 maneuvre and 32 armor cause lol.
Multiply all maneuver values by 1.1, add 2 speed to all horses
Can confirm. He actually managed to donkey-couch me during DonkeyRace preparation. Not even with a 13 riding STF but with a normal char. :lol:
Horses used to be way better than they are today in speed and maneuver and it didn't cause much problems back then, beside being fun.
Cav is already strong
Either nerf ranged offensive abilities or their abilities in melee. 0 slot 1 handers are way too good. You can use a 2 hander with 1 stack of arrows even. 1 handers are too good without a shield. If you want to do melee you should play a melee character.
That map is really retarded by the way. A city is bad enough, but it even has accessible rooftops like that one.
Horses used to be way better than they are today in speed and maneuver and it didn't cause much problems back then, beside being fun.
On the contrary, city maps provide best cover from ranged. Where will you hide on a map with no buildings, but just one hill on each side and ranged having line of sight everywhere on the map?
EU1 5 minutes ago...(click to show/hide)
i count 8 archers on a team of presumably 30 players, i choose to completely fail to see the problem with this. if you have a clue how to play this game you will --not-- attack that archer fortress, and you will instead wait for the flags system (the whole point of which is to stop archers camping roofs), and win the round.
EDIT: it should also be noted here perhaps that your team is 10 players ahead at this point, so perhaps that ranged roof camping, whilst yes it is lame, is both not effective and easily counterable :))))
i count 8 archers on a team of presumably 30 players, i completely fail to see the problem with this. if you have a clue how to play this game you will --not-- attack that archer fortress, and you will instead wait for the flags system (the whole point of which is to stop archers camping roofs), and win the round.
EDIT: it should also be noted here perhaps that your team is 10 players ahead at this point, so perhaps that ranged roof camping, whilst yes it is lame, is both not effective and easily counterable :))))
you guys all just fucking suck at playing cav
i play the_responsible_cow with a fucking great lance and a destrier and i can still kill archers with no problem
if you can't kill ranged with a heavy horse and a cav sword / lance, then simple, you just suck
the way the game is balanced with regards to archery/cavalry right now is absolutely fair IMO
(Disclaimer: i don't play ranged, so i am not biased on their side)
EDIT: san please don't listen to these guys, look amongst the ranks of the complainers and you'll see there isn't one decent player complaining, the calibre of players here wanting horses to be buffed again are the ones who completely rely on overpowered horses to get all of their kills, instead of actually knowing how to play the game. the balance is perfect the way you have it now.
Yes let's have a boring game. Because it's totally reasonable to wait 5 minutes every single round in order to play for ten seconds and win if you are lucky. If you even are lucky with flag placement that is (I'm pretty sure at least two flag zones on that map are inside the death zone of that roof).
If this tactic is uneffective anyway (which it absolutely isn't because not that many people are tryhards), why not just remove all those accessible rooftops ? They bring nothing of value to the game.
I'm not saying flags are useless, because obviously it was an important step forward. But it wasn't enough.
It's hilarous you start arguing skill when you are the guy complaining about horses being too strong against ground troops. Horse moves are telegraphed and everything they do is immediately counterable no matter what class you play. I call L2P.
flag doesn't take 5 minutes, you're bad
Please don't, I love being able to couch on my donkey
Can confirm. He actually managed to donkey-couch me during DonkeyRace preparation. Not even with a 13 riding STF but with a normal char. :lol:
If they're confident in their arguments, they would put this in game balance discussion. I can always admit to being wrong with a good case against any choice. I made a topic for reducing some of the difficulties a bit since admittedly the charger+ don't *need* 8 riding difficulty and it didn't receive enough votes. There's also that partial respec that could've been handled better, too.,
If 1 team has good ranged and the other team doesn't, it's always going to be a problem without a sufficient amount of hard counters.
I also still don't understand how an xbower with a shield is much better than one without, since there is a skill investment, slot investment, and weight penalty applied to the existing 10-16 weight from the xbow+bolts.
If as a dedicated melee you fail to kill archers and xbowers in melee you are just unlucky or plainly not as skilled as they are. I think it's mostly fine, except the ability to turtle behind a shield, maybe. What isn't fine is that the reverse is completely untrue. It doesn't take any failure to be shot to death, hence the best player can be killed by an absolute scrub easily, if the scrub uses a ranged weapon (like all true scrubs do). That has to change.
I don't see why a melee character shouldn't have a significant advantage in melee range. To make up for no ranged capability the ranged player should be similarly handicapped when they're at melee range. That to me is a fundamental of game balance - pros and cons, strengths and weaknesses, playing to your strengths and minimising your weaknesses by the way you play. If a ranged player finds himself in melee range I don't see why he should have such good melee capability as well. Simply having manual block eliminates the melee player's damage, the same as a shield can. Why do they need more?
About shields..they obviously give you an extra layer of protection - both from actual counters i.e ranged (melee vs melee with few downsides isn't a counter), and it allows even the worst players to take a melee player out of the combat until the shield breaks, unless they outnumber the person 2:1+ and can nudge. If you don't spend your time hitting a shield they will just run away to reload, if you do spend your time hitting the shield you aren't helping your team in more effective areas. Then add on top the ridiculous 1 hand stab and they even have 0 slot 1 handers with a 29 pierce insta stab and OK swings. The balance is just really bad when it comes to hybriding melee with ranged
My argument is that 0 slot weapon stats are too good for the number of slots they take up. 29 pierce 1 hander stab with decent reach and decent side swings is too much. They allow you to have very good ranged and melee with a shield even
Don't know if link will work, but look at the Broad Short Short for eg. I'd rather use that than a lot of 1 slot weapons
http://c-rpg.net/index.php?page=equipshop&cat=onehanded#!?page=itemdetail&id=520
When I say why do they need more..I mean shields only defensively counter a ranged attack, you can't follow up with an attack of your own. So why do ranged need to have good melee to follow up after a manual block? The manual block or shield block in melee completely eliminates the melee damage. Why do you need more considering melee don't do anything against ranged with the shield? Its having your cake and eating it, pewpewing when it suits, then doing decent melee when that suits
I don't even think ranged should use more than light armour, but they do. Plus decent melee weapons (archers use 2 handers even), plus a shield.
Why do you need more considering melee don't do anything against ranged with the shield?
I think the power that ranged classes have in melee is fine. It puts them at a considerable disadvantage against any dedicated melee class such that ranged players only survive an encounter with melee if they are considerably more skilled in melee than whoever attacks them. What you are advocating is basically to remove all possibility to express that skill, and I think it's a terrible idea with respect to everything Warband stands for. I'm running around with very light or no armor at all and a 1h weapon and I don't have much issues killing archers and crossbowmen in melee, at all. Even considering that I'm basically using equipment that makes their job of killing me in melee as easy as possible, as 0 slot anything sucks against any kind of serious armor. When I use my 2h 24/18 char with heavy armor I seldom block against those guys. I have reach, speed, damage, weapon weight, HP and armor significantly better than them, I don't really need a brain.
I acknowledge the same issue as you :
But I would rather change the way a melee player can deal with range (that is, improve it) rather than change the way a range player can deal with melee. Any nerf of the latter can only remove skill from the game and turn this into a RPS a little bit more, and I can't accept that.
Just add a chance for ranged damage to be deflected if you (or a horse) have decent armor on, so they focus on shooting light cav and other archers/agi stacked light guys and let the manly men brawl in the center like the HP sponges we want to be.
I think all pierce damage should be like this, highly damaging but a chance to be deflected like a glancing blow against decent armor. Make stabbing less mindless.
Pitchforks and crap shouldn't rear horses every time at bizarre angles either, add an element of skill so head-on charges still rear, but at the sides or bad timing and you glance. Hell you should still have a chance to be knocked down if you rear a horse with a polearm, since there's no "bracing" mechanic.. which would be a great addition if there was still a coder on the team
Just add a chance for ranged damage to be deflected if you (or a horse) have decent armor on, so they focus on shooting light cav and other archers/agi stacked light guys and let the manly men brawl in the center like the HP sponges we want to be.This. So much.
I think all pierce damage should be like this, highly damaging but a chance to be deflected like a glancing blow against decent armor. Make stabbing less mindless.
Deflects = shitty in game (do you like glancing?)
Pitchforks and crap have good reason enuff to rear ponies
This. So much.
If you read the novel "Azincourt" by Bernard Cornwell (based on tons of historical sources) you'd see the same. A good chunk of the heavy plated french cavalry wore the famed milanese plated armor from Italy, an armor that was shaped and formed to make arrows glance off it. Sure many of these arrows would still hit and sure the French lost the battle of Agincourt, but this kind of armor was still revolutionary in a time where the shield was fading away and replaced by tincans.
Yes, I do like glancing. I think the game was better before they fucked with armor soak and crap, where high armor was more likely to cause glances against cut weapons. Instead they took away glances while also lessening cut damage for whatever reason turning people into HP sponges. Attacks should be lethal if they are well placed and timed, but spamming at someone without skill should be more likely to cause a glance, letting your opponent continue a swing and getting a hit. I think it makes the game more skill based and gives armor more of a purpose than increasing effective HP.
To make up for no ranged capability the ranged player should be similarly handicapped when they're at melee range.Nope, because Melee > Ranged. Pure melee is more effective than pure ranged.
Yes, I do like glancing
Ranged doesn't need a nerf, or a counter, since any class can counter ranged, it all depends of situations.
I say, fuck the autobalance, putting all ranged in a team, and all other guys in another is simply terrible. A good autobalance would solve the problem, not the fucking nerf/buff/nerf/buff infernal cycle.
Nope, because Melee > Ranged. Pure melee is more effective than pure ranged.
"Hey guys, classes are balanced and ranged doesn't need a nerf or a counter but when one team is filled with ranged the game sucks for the other team for some reason. I totally am not contradicting myself."
If there are 50/50 archers, it can be fine.
Not about nerfing or not, even if the numbers are high, it's still much harder to play than heavy cav.
As I said, auto balance should solve this problem.
Again, forcing class-based balance is fixing the symptoms and not the actual problem. We would not need any kind of class balance if the classes were actually balanced. Right now we need class balance because a full ranged team has the advantage over a balanced team. If that doesn't tell you there's something horribly wrong with the game, I don't know what does.
Team full of two-handers should never ever be able to beat a team full of archers,
nor should a team full of archers be able to beat team full of heavy cav.
Full ranged team doesn't have advantage anyway. Full melee team will win every round if you put them up against a full cav or ranged team.
Problems arise when there's just enough ranged and melee on one team, but the other team is lacking one or the other. Then the ranged has enough support that can stop the melee from chasing and the melee gets support from the archers. The full melee team will get shot to pieces - as it should. This is why we need class balance.
Compare it to Bec de Corbin and Awlpike with 36p each, and usually at least 7 PS and 150+ wpf, a Short Sword with 29p, 5 PS and 50 wpf is very weak.
Having a Short Sword against an S-keying dos handres hero is also a pretty bad matchup.
So you start criticizing me for saying things I didn't say, then you point out that against a balanced team "The full melee team will get shot to pieces - as it should." which is exactly my point. A balanced team should be the optimal team. But it isn't. You can have 0 cav and 60% ranged in your team and still win more often than not. That is the real problem. If a balanced team is better, then we don't need class balance to make sure that teams don't get too strong when they are unbalanced, because they will actually be weaker.
Yet a team full of archers does beat a team full of heavy cav, perhaps with some exceptions if the map is extremely favorable to cav.
full heavy cav isn't gonna cut it against full archersI call it bullshit, cav would wreck the archer team on any map except for siege ones.
I call it bullshit, cav would wreck the archer team on any map except for siege ones.
I call it bullshit, cav would wreck the archer team on any map except for siege ones.
Yeah probably. Cuz you still have a team full of infantry after the horses die. As long as some people don't get dehorsed they can bump all the kiting ranged for easy kills. But if you get rid of all the horses before the end of the round it will be kited into a draw by typical archers. Typical cav player wouldn't dare go anywhere near more than 2 ranged huddling that have a clear line of sight around them though and look aware. So in reality I'm sure the cav would circle the border of the map wondering where AFK peasants are until the archers run out of ammo shooting across the map. Then everyone leaves out of boredom.