Horses need their maneuver lowered drasticly and lances shortened abit imo.
I don't agree with the manoeuvre nerf thing. If you've ever used the Arabian Warhorse (50 manoeuvre), you'd know that if it didn't have that manoeuvre, it'd be useless. Its the weakest horse, it's agility allows it to avoid arrows and bolts at medium-long distance.
If you reduced the Courser's (42) manoeuvre, it'd also become useless, since the high speed would no longer be controllable effectively. The courser makes very wide turns as it is.
I think there is an misconception about manoeuvre created by cavalry players. Cav do not ride at full speed all the time. If you slow a horse down, it is easier to turn. The faster the horse is travelling, the harder it is to turn (and decelerate).
Good cavalry players know how to control the speed of their horse for the situation. It may seem like a courser can twist aside from your pike, but that's because the cav player is experienced and knows when to slow his horse and turn. Yes the manoeuvre stat helps, but both Courser users and Arabian Warhorse users generally know their horse quite well, and they know exactly when to slow down and make turns. Also, after a lot of experience, most cav players know the exact range of whatever weapon you're trying to kill them with.
I don't know about shortening lance length either. Yes, lance cav is the most effective type of cav by a long way. But it'd be kind of silly for them all to have really short lances.
I preferred the rotation lock, but I doubt that'll ever be brought back.
Everything is fine with heavy and light horses they dont need any buff or nerf .
the real problem with cav is the unreal 300 ° thrust attack. :twisted:
Remove all lame ,bugged , fantasy, no risk, 300 ° thrust attacks from lances. Make them couchable only.
Set new times for couchable lances. (2-8) sec
Problem with OP Cav solved.
Yes, lance cav is the most effective type of cav by a long way.
Thats a joke??Only when you bump slash infantry lol
1H Cav is more powerful, but you need skill, experience and teamwork.
Let poor horsemen in peace. They are nerfed enough.
Arabian Warhorse is already nerfed a lot.
Thats a joke??
1H Cav is more powerful, but you need skill, experience and teamwork.
Skilled lancer will not give you chance to get close enough to strike.
Ok. I rerolled and I chose cavalry and 1h/shield.I play lancer 543h (steam timer) and belive me they are not op. Maybe i am not so super-good-mega-skilled player as you are, but i know that you have to think hard to kill and not to get killed in battle, especialy last days because there is a lot of horsemans and this stupid, bad, very bad Horsefriendly archers ;D on the battlefield.
Ive had a lance for 15 minutes and I can already tell you they're over powered. Kills are ridiculously easy to get.
Thanks.
My suggestion: Make riding a 6 agility skill requirement again and reduce the riding requirement of all horses by 1 (I would love to see mounted infantry again with sumpter horse riders). The few people who still want to ride the plated charger can, just as almost pure agility, but most people will have to do balanced builds and have 3-4 riding skill. This can be accompanied by +20 hitpoints, +5 armor on all the unarmored horses and +2 speed, +2 maneuverability on all the armored horses. We would see cav diversity on the battlefield again and there would be real tradeoffs for choosing riding skill as it would require a stronger commitment to agilty, so less hitting power and hitpoints.The problem with requiring 6 agi per ride skill point is that to ride any of the 'armored' horses you wouldn't have the str to wear decent armor yourself, so you'd have a plated charger while wearing chainmail at most yourself. That's even taking into consideration that you also suggest dropping the skill requirements for the various horses.
I will retract my statement. The less the players, the easier lancing is.I disagree. Its not easier at all. If there is less players they can see you coming for them easily - they are more vigilant :)
The problem with requiring 6 agi per ride skill point is that to ride any of the 'armored' horses you wouldn't have the str to wear decent armor yourself, so you'd have a plated charger while wearing chainmail at most yourself. That's even taking into consideration that you also suggest dropping the skill requirements for the various horses.
My suggestion: Make riding a 6 agility skill requirement again and reduce the riding requirement of all horses by 1 (I would love to see mounted infantry again with sumpter horse riders). The few people who still want to ride the plated charger can, just as almost pure agility, but most people will have to do balanced builds and have 3-4 riding skill. This can be accompanied by +20 hitpoints, +5 armor on all the unarmored horses and +2 speed, +2 maneuverability on all the armored horses. We would see cav diversity on the battlefield again and there would be real tradeoffs for choosing riding skill as it would require a stronger commitment to agilty, so less hitting power and hitpoints.
You can't even use a light lance with 6 strength, and you can only use a light lance with 9 strength. In effect, your suggestion would stop anyone from using the 'most armored' horses ever again.
So, yes, cavalry is OP.
Stop hating, especially you kesh, assuming uve been lanced in the ass while ur tunneling inn on some poor peasent one too many times and you would rather be the immortal god of everything owning all other classes and if anything kills you its OP and needs to be removed from the game.
And bane, grab a lance yourself and put up a fight instead of using that morningstar all over the place and QQ when you cant jumpslash all the lancer cav after uve been dehorsed by foolishly trying to outrange a lance.
Sorry, im just sick of all the fucking whine.
I agree with giving a small hitpoint/armor buff to the horses. The thing is the tier 2 and 3 horses have a rather high level of both maneuverability and speed (especially courser and arabian warhorse). Part of the original problem was lowering agility requirement to 3 per riding skill, so raising the riding requirement is not going to fix the problem as most cav have over the requirement already because you can still do a balanced build and get 6-7 riding and each point in riding skill significantly increases the horse's speed and maneuverability.
Prior to January patch throwers were not OP because most archers countered them because the archers were OP. After the archer nerfs in January, it finally became apparent over the next few months that throwers were OP (by the way the thrower nerf was a trifle too harsh, coming from a guy who hates throwing). So too OP throwers and everybody being able to be a pocket pikemen kept cavalry's basic OPness in check. But now with most pikes gone except for a few dedicated pikemen with no other weapon and throwers nerfed badly and hybrid xbowmen/archers significantly reduced in amount of ammo, cavalry are having a field day of OPness. I am hoping it doesn't take another 3 months, like they took with throwing, before balancing cavalry, Ia lso hope they don't go too overboard like they did with throwers.
My suggestion: Make riding a 6 agility skill requirement again and reduce the riding requirement of all horses by 1 (I would love to see mounted infantry again with sumpter horse riders). The few people who still want to ride the plated charger can, just as almost pure agility, but most people will have to do balanced builds and have 3-4 riding skill. This can be accompanied by +20 hitpoints, +5 armor on all the unarmored horses and +2 speed, +2 maneuverability on all the armored horses. We would see cav diversity on the battlefield again and there would be real tradeoffs for choosing riding skill as it would require a stronger commitment to agilty, so less hitting power and hitpoints.
And bane, grab a lance yourself and put up a fight instead of using that morningstar all over the place and QQ when you cant jumpslash all the lancer cav after uve been dehorsed by foolishly trying to outrange a lance.
Sorry, im just sick of all the fucking whine.
if you nerf cav remove the ability to jump and swing as well thats what often kills me as cav is the completely plated 2h jumping over my horse and killing me
if you nerf cav remove the ability to jump and swing as well thats what often kills me as cav is the completely plated 2h jumping over my horse and killing me
Stop hating, especially you kesh, assuming uve been lanced in the ass while ur tunneling inn on some poor peasent one too many times and you would rather be the immortal god of everything owning all other classes and if anything kills you its OP and needs to be removed from the game.
And bane, grab a lance yourself and put up a fight instead of using that morningstar all over the place and QQ when you cant jumpslash all the lancer cav after uve been dehorsed by foolishly trying to outrange a lance.
Sorry, im just sick of all the fucking whine.
"Prior to the last big patch, the amount of ranged spam kept them in check to a degree."An HA is using an horse you know. (facepalm) Reducing horse's effectiveness will help deal with thoses. And anyway, one cav alone shouldn't chase an ha, that's just suicide. Do you see archers keeping their bows and running toward shielders ?
That is a big understatement. Cavalry players are kept in check all the time on all maps. As I said earlier, a good HA can humiliate a melee cav. 2 good foot archers will have no trouble defending vs 1 melee cav on open terrain even if the horse is armoured.
"The argument that cav only do well on certain maps is also invalid, since any cav player can dismount and play as effective infantry with no penalties at all."Where is the difference between thoses 2 ? HA become archers with 4-5 PD and at least 6 WM on foot, so decent archers.
Again, there is a big difference between HA and melee cav. Don't put them together. It's like comparing 2h with foot archery.
Anyway, your statement is obviously false as cavalry players most often are underdogs when fighting unmounted.
"Currently its very easy to get a lot of kills as cavalry, with not much effort. Of course, its easier for some types of cavalry than others."
You can say that for any class (except throwing) if you are good enough.
(click to show/hide)
But to be honest, a dismounted polearm cavalry player will fight as an underdog vs a 2 hander.
2H is simply the best in 1vs1 melee situations but I don't mind that. It's the way it should be.
(click to show/hide)
(click to show/hide)
I'll do this point by point.
1) Yeah, that was an opening statement. The rest of the post attempts to explain why. Also, class comparison isn't a particularly valid way to argue this, since cav aren't retarded enough to try to fight pikemen or foot archers alone. They just run away and go kill other people (I know I do). Horse archers are a slightly different situation - yeah, as long as they have arrows and aren't retarded, they'll beat other cav.
2) cRPG isn't an organised battle. Most players on any given map are not in clans. cRPG should definitely not be balanced by letting good players fight each other. 'Bad' players (new players or players who cba to dedicate the time to getting more skilled) should be able to have fun too.
Also I don't understand what you mean about life being balanced like that, so I'll ignore it.
3) Yes, true. The ability to have a pike as part of your standard loadout (for everyone) also kept cav in check. Also, I never mentioned anything about HA being able/not able to counter other cav. And as I said before, ranged do fine against cav, I agree.
4) Yeah, true, I didn't distinguish between types of cav. As I said at the end of the OP, none of it addresses the issues of weapon type on horseback (lance cav/1hand&shield cav/HA/2hand cav/xbow cav/jav cav). HA and melee cav are different, but they all share something in common - they use a horse. And my suggestions were all horse related.
As for cavalry being underdogs on foot, I don't see how its obviously true. I do fine as infantry. I put 7 points into riding - what else would I have put them in? Ironflesh? Or converted a few for an extra point somewhere? Sure, I'm very slightly at a disadvantage vs someone with more ironflesh, but all that means is I have to block better.
Most (if not all) of the top cavalry players do very well as infantry too.
5) Well, no. You can't say that for any class. The problem is that you don't have to be good at cav to get very high scores (until a good cav comes along and out-lances you). The only other classes I've seen able to sometimes match cavalry kills are 2handers or polearms (mainly using long polearms or one of those silly greatswords). And that doesn't happen often, and usually only for good players.
And once again, cRPG shouldn't be only balanced around the best players. It should aim for a situation where every class is fairly difficult and requires a level of skill to do well. Cavalry doesn't do that at the moment.
Edit: sorry, you edited :) The numbers refer to your points, not your numbered replies.
(click to show/hide)
4. Yes, HA are at a disadvantage on foot, true. They can perform as foot archers, but at a disadvantage compared to a foot archer. As for melee, all archers are disadvantaged in melee.
I don't really understand (and have never seen a case) why a lancer would only be carrying a lance... unless they want to not be able to fight dismounted? They can carry a lance, a shield, and a 1 slot polearm, or a lance, shield and 1hander, or a lance and a 2 slot polearm. Two of those mean they can put all their wpf into polearms and not be at any disadvantage in melee.
All melee cav can perform effectively as infantry, with no real disadvantage.
4. Cavalry are under dogs on foot. The only ones who aren't are 1h+shielder cav. An HA on foot, or a Lancer on foot both lack the athletics or wpf in other skills to fight effectively against dedicated melee men. I don't have any 1h wpf, I put it all in archery. So if I go down I'm rather screwed. Lancers will have all their wpf in polearm, if they are only carrying a lance it's quite hard to fight effectively on foot.
There is a big difference between dedicated cav players, and players who are playing a melee/cav build. That distinction need to be made because unless a dedicated cav player is very good, they suck on foot.
Hmm most lancers I see do use dedicated lance. Nothing else. Lance and a shield and that's it. Mostly because a good lancer won't be downed off his horse for whatever reason. And if they are, it's generally considered that they'll just fight with a lance. Some I know use 1h, but they don't have any wpf in it.
1. It's up to the infantry to adequately position themselves to catch the cavalry off guard. The same way cavalry positions itself for the best lance kill ect. If the infantry aren't smart enough to do this then they deserve to die. Having a couple of good pikemen or archers on a team when fighting cavalry makes a huge difference. Because they actually dedicate themselves to the cause. Rather than most infantry who are just in it for themselves.#1 I call BS on that. A pike cannot attack cavalry, he is completely passive and need the cavalry player to be willing or stupid enough to get in range. I play support pike/polearm often and guess what, any cav that sees me facing in his general direction will simply ride around. The most I can do is keep them away from my pike radius till that moment when someone else engages me - archers (no shield), enemy infantry, another cav.
4. Cavalry are under dogs on foot. The only ones who aren't are 1h+shielder cav. An HA on foot, or a Lancer on foot both lack the athletics or wpf in other skills to fight effectively against dedicated melee men. I don't have any 1h wpf, I put it all in archery. So if I go down I'm rather screwed. Lancers will have all their wpf in polearm, if they are only carrying a lance it's quite hard to fight effectively on foot.
#1 I call BS on that. A pike cannot attack cavalry, he is completely passive and need the cavalry player to be willing or stupid enough to get in range. I play support pike/polearm often and guess what, any cav that sees me facing in his general direction will simply ride around. The most I can do is keep them away from my pike radius till that moment when someone else engages me - archers (no shield), enemy infantry, another cav.
#4 I boldfaced the important part for you. Now, who's fault is that? You made a 1-dimensional min/max build, suck it up when you get to use your min side.
bro in european cav style chouhing is the main cus of the weigth of lances but in east lances have less weigth and they mostly used as thrusting
if they are really stacking str
The issue with cav is not that they lack counters, it's that they force upon entire teams a certain style of play, something no other class does. And killing diversity is not balance.
The issue with archers is not that they lack counters, it's that they force upon entire teams a certain style of play, something no other class does. And killing diversity is not balance.
Archers force people to use shields, or to cover themselves from the arrows (behind houses or such). Cavalry forces infantry to stay close to an obstacle, go as a group, bring a pike, play archer/xbow/thrower or tell their archer/xbow/thrower friends to kill the horses.
As you can see, archers force people to do just as much with their playstyle than cavalry does. And with cavalry you have a lot of options to choose from to defend yourself.
I will probably get flamed to death by this post, since Im saying something "bad" about archers, but so be it. I only bring the truth.
Archers : Do not force me to take a shield (it helps, but it's def not a req to fight archers, 2h can be considered "weak" vs them tho), allows me to pick whatever weapon I want to use, I can roam the map freely and ninja them, stick with the group and slug it out in a melee fest, or maybe aid my team in placing ladders or w/e, point is, I have a bunch of options. Same thing for my team, everyone and their playstyle can be effective.
Shielders: Do not force upon me a certain type of equipment, can be beat with any weapon (pure archers will have a harder time, but can atleast run away). I can feint them, crush them with a hammer, break their shields with an axe or whatever. I can flank, I can stick with the group, I can camp (for whatever reason...), - again a bunch of options. Same thing goes for my team, once again everyone and their playstyle can be effective.
2h/poles: I can beat them with any weapon of choice, (no class is really "weak" against them, shielders vs axes only plausible example). I can flank, stick with the group, camp, ninja etc... No playstyle restrictions. Same thing goes for the team, no special class or playstyle is needed (except for maybe skill? :p).
Cav then: Forces either me or teammates to use pikes for defence, force me/my team to use ranged to actually bring them down. Disallows major flanking or ninja, forces my team to stck together in a big blob, can not be ran from, encourages camping (boooring....+delay)... (Unsupported with pikes, infantry with shorter weapons are helpless, archers (non-roofcamping!), are weak to them due to lack of block and bump, 1h-shield cav is also very weak against lancers and HA...)
Yes but those are some very good players. On the whole there aren't that many.
Afaik you use shield + morningstar on horse so changes on polearm builds may didn't effect your game experience.
I think that the solution is, like mentioned in an other thread, to reduce the charge ability of the horses. Then there will be less bumpslashing, and people are happy :D
Reducing the damage done by charge is only half the problem. Reduce the speed an manueverability of all horses except the high end ones and they will be more balanced. Steppe horses that turn on a dime and coursers that are faster than a ferrari need to go.True
I think that the solution is, like mentioned in an other thread, to reduce the charge ability of the horses. Then there will be less bumpslashing, and people are happy :D
Reducing the damage done by charge is only half the problem. Reduce the speed an manueverability of all horses except the high end ones and they will be more balanced. Steppe horses that turn on a dime and coursers that are faster than a ferrari need to go.
Most of the time you're not seeing a courser with 48 speed in battles. You're seeing a courser with 48 speed plus whatever bonus 6-7 riding gives it (and usually an heirloomed courser too). But you shouldn't change the stats on the assumption that everyone who uses it uses it heirloomed and with 6 riding.
Instead, alter the price and difficulty to reflect its stats (and potential stats).
Why ? 1h (swords, maces can use 12/15) are balanced around heirloomed 1h and 6 ps (5ps). Most people have those 6 ridding anyway, and balancing it around heirlooms is good idea (just like archers are balanced around heirloomed bows).
One headshot to an armored horse isn't enough to take it down. I headshot a courser and it still needs another arrow before coming down.
And yes, i use a MW strong bow and bodkin arrows. :rolleyes:
The thing is, saying 3 arrows are enough for a horse is definitely true most of the times, but one lance thrust is also enough for all archers. Do you think an archer has enough time to shoot 3 arrows on a horse before the cav comes and kill it ? Seriously ? And... we can't shoot arrows AND block down. As an archer, i must pass at least 20% of my short lifespan using a melee weapon just to down block, doing nothing else. And once you see an archer using a melee weapon, just run in bumpslash or couch. :S
And.... horses and cav are not EASY to shoot down at medium distance. This is just an asumption because when 4 archers focus you, one hits. "Ah, i got hit by thoses filthy my old friends medium distance, nerf range !". But that's 20%.
#4 I boldfaced the important part for you. Now, who's fault is that? You made a 1-dimensional min/max build, suck it up when you get to use your min side.
Possibly every cav player has 6 riding. But its not certain. Maybe most have 4 or 5 and use other points for ironflesh or athletics or shield.
Personally, I'd rather items weren't balanced around heirlooms, but I don't use any, so I'm biased.
A straight on headshot to a courser with my MS and bodkins kill it. Thing is head shots can be a bit glitchey...if you hit it slightly off it doesn't do as much. But I've also had plenty of people 1 shot my courser as well.
I used to play pure archer before I went HA and all I can say is, you can put 3 arrows in a horse no problem, even with it charging down. If you are a good archer, you don't stand in the open letting a horseman bump you over and over. The best archers tend to find spots near walls ect where they can't be outflanked and if a horse charges them it means death. If you don't have the time to put 3 arrows in a horse, then you aren't playing right. Because there is always time. On nearly every map there's some form of cover to shoot from.
And no, that is not an assumption. Once you play long enough you learn the leads. A lot of archer can put 3 arrows into a horse at long range no problem. Admittedly it's harder now with the giant arc of an arrow, but it's still easy. I've seen plenty of archer who don't even aim for the horse at long range, they aim for the rider and they hit the rider.
I assume the horse was running in straight line to you, so our arrow had an awesome speed bonus. Else, it just doesn't. And shooting like this is "very" dangerous. If you fail, you're dead. If the cav is smart, you're dead.
3 arrows in a long distance horse, no problem ? I thought GK were good cav, but you sir, really don't know how to move your horse if you think it's easy. It's not a question of "how good is the archer", it's a "no matter how good the archer is, if the cav is good, you have no chance". Take for example, Guard_Bifi, GK_Kerrigan, Legio_Veleno. 2 good cav, one good ha. They don't get bothered the slightest by arrows, even in mid distance, cause they know what they do.
And that's the problem, as an archer, i know what i have to do, but i know that if i'm facing one of thoses i have to depend on luck, wich sucks.
Btw, i laughed at the "once you play long enough you learn the leads". But don't take it personnaly of course.
Also, spots near walls are overrated. Or you only face cav bots.
Ah.. how i wich strategus was back so people could actually see me topping the scoreboard and know my damn name. -_-
If manouveability n speed are reduced charge and hit points should be increased. Else cavalry will be an expensive joke.
Anyway, I also saw someone mention that horses should have their tier or requirements changed according to use/effectiveness, not just bling.(click to show/hide)
Maybe:
1: Sumpter
3: Rouncey/Palfrey
4: Steppe/Desert
5: Warhorse/Large Warhorse/Destrier
6: Cataphract/Charger
7: Mamluk/Plated Charger/Courser/Arabian Warhorse
The solution is to make the horse tired after a few charges. If the map doesn't have a river, stream, or lake and plant life, the player will have to equip a bucket, canteen, and bag of oats and take a break in the shade for a few minutes.
If manouveability n speed are reduced charge and hit points should be increased. Else cavalry will be an expensive joke.