cRPG

cRPG => Suggestions Corner => Game Balance Discussion => Topic started by: chief on January 12, 2011, 12:22:57 am

Title: Bill vs Bec
Post by: chief on January 12, 2011, 12:22:57 am
Quote
English Bill   7589   
weight 4
requirement 14
spd rtng 89
weapon length 174
swing damage 27, pierce
thrust damage 29 pierce

Bec de Corbin   7312   
weight 2.8
requirement 14
spd rtng 93
weapon length 120
swing damage 36, pierce
thrust damage 26 pierce

It seems logical that the long, heavy, slow weapon should have significantly more swing damage than the short, light, fast weapon. This seems to be the general idea behind all the other weapons. A Military Sickle has just one less damage than the Bill. Something is off, I suggest raising the swing damage of the bill to a reasonable amount.(Keep in mind that the Bill is overhead swing only).
Title: Re: Bill vs Bec
Post by: Stabby_Dave on January 12, 2011, 12:25:24 am
Yea those stats do seem pretty weird. I was thinking of buying the bill until i saw how bad it was.
Title: Re: Bill vs Bec
Post by: Seawied on January 12, 2011, 12:51:02 am
you're forgetting to mention the reach on it. It gives the weapon a different purpose than the bec
Title: Re: Bill vs Bec
Post by: Vexus on January 12, 2011, 01:03:58 am
I was thinking on using bill too bad you can't use it with shield.

And yea while it's dmg is lower bill's reach is on 150 while bec near 100.
Title: Re: Bill vs Bec
Post by: bruce on January 12, 2011, 01:48:23 am
You do know you can't swing the bill? It's like a pike, stab and overhead only.
Title: Re: Bill vs Bec
Post by: Joker86 on January 12, 2011, 02:01:24 am
Then it's just real crap. Who would buy it over (Long Awl-) Pike?  :?
Title: Re: Bill vs Bec
Post by: Vexus on January 12, 2011, 02:13:52 am
I wanted it for the upward hit in pierce to use as a spear but yea it's kinda useless near the long awlpike.
Title: Re: Bill vs Bec
Post by: Joker86 on January 12, 2011, 02:26:42 am
Long Awlpike
5242
weight 2.25
requirement 11
spd rtng 89
weapon length 185
swing damage 18, blunt
thrust damage 32 pierce
Can't use on horseback

English Bill
7589
weight 4
requirement 14
spd rtng 89
weapon length 174
swing damage 27, pierce
thrust damage 29 pierce
Can't use on horseback

Bad balancing fail.  :?
Title: Re: Bill vs Bec
Post by: Joxer on January 12, 2011, 02:33:11 am
Not so. It does huge damage from the overhead. Almost the same as thrust. No other polearm does that. I love mine and wish to marr... heirloom it few times :D
Title: Re: Bill vs Bec
Post by: Joker86 on January 12, 2011, 02:34:37 am
Even if you are right - this is not worth 7589  :?
Title: Re: Bill vs Bec
Post by: bruce on January 12, 2011, 02:43:10 am
The price is a bit high, but it's not a bad weapon as such when you think about it, I just wouldn't make it my primary choice of a polearm, I guess. The range makes it decent enough for a support weapon, and the high damage pierce overhead is much much better then the (lightish) blunt damage of the, eg. awlpikes.
Title: Re: Bill vs Bec
Post by: chief on January 12, 2011, 02:47:23 am
Not so. It does huge damage from the overhead. Almost the same as thrust. No other polearm does that. I love mine and wish to marr... heirloom it few times :D


What about the bec...you know, the weapon I was comparing it to? Or any of the poleaxes, long axes, hafted blades, clubs or the glaive?

Right now it's a prettier, slightly longer version of the Swiss Halberd, with a crappier overhead attack. It's a mediocre support weapon, the overhead is not even worth the difficulty it is to land, and the thrust is lower than the other support polearms.
Title: Re: Bill vs Bec
Post by: bruce on January 12, 2011, 03:08:22 am

What about the bec...you know, the weapon I was comparing it to?

The bec is really short. Axes, poleaxes, etc are all shorter, too. The bill is much more effective for stopping horses (and generally killing them, 29p is a lot), supporting teammates (174 range makes it much eaiser), etc.
Title: Re: Bill vs Bec
Post by: Joker86 on January 12, 2011, 04:22:09 am
EITHER:

English Bill
3520 (same price a long voulge, I spontaneously estimated about the same value on the battlefield)
weight 4
requirement 14
spd rtng 89
weapon length 174
swing damage 27, pierce
thrust damage 29 pierce
Can't use on horseback

OR:

English Bill
7589
weight 4
requirement 14
spd rtng 92 (89)
weapon length 174
swing damage 34(27), pierce
thrust damage 31(29) pierce
Can't use on horseback

Title: Re: Bill vs Bec
Post by: chief on January 12, 2011, 04:48:48 am
The bec is really short. Axes, poleaxes, etc are all shorter, too. The bill is much more effective for stopping horses (and generally killing them, 29p is a lot), supporting teammates (174 range makes it much eaiser), etc.

"Not so. It does huge damage from the overhead. Almost the same as thrust. No other polearm does that."

I was responding to the above (which is false), the other attributes of the weapons I mentioned are irrelevant.
__________________________________________________________
Any way...
The bill doesn't really have a niche, there is no one saying "I want a weapon with less reach and thrust damage than a pike that also has an inferior overhead to a long voulge". It's above average at stopping cav, less than average at support, and useless in 1 on 1.

My suggestion for new stats,

English Bill   
weight 4
requirement 14
spd rtng 88
weapon length 174
swing damage 35, pierce
thrust damage 24 pierce
bonus against shields?
___________

 Just by looking at it, stabbing shouldn't be its' specialty. It should be for taking the rider off of a stopped horse (something that a pike isn't really able to do), taking the shield out of someones hand, dealing damage to an occupied knight...thoughts?


Title: Re: Bill vs Bec
Post by: Joker86 on January 12, 2011, 04:49:37 am
It was said, this thing has no sideswing. I think this is very important fighting cavalry.  :?
Title: Re: Bill vs Bec
Post by: chief on January 12, 2011, 04:54:30 am
It was said, this thing has no sideswing. I think this is very important fighting cavalry.  :?

An overhead can be just as effective as a side swing when dealing with cav, stop it with a thrust and take down the horse with an overhead. Plus, I'm pretty sure they want to avoid having really long weapons that have sideswings, (for FF and balancing purposes).
Title: Re: Bill vs Bec
Post by: Joker86 on January 12, 2011, 04:56:49 am
Yeah, of course, you are right. But sometimes a sideswing can do wonders, as it should go against the riding direction and thus getting insane speed bonus. A very important tool for anti-cav-players. Especially with long polearms.
Title: Re: Bill vs Bec
Post by: chief on January 12, 2011, 05:03:02 am
Yeah, of course, you are right. But sometimes a sideswing can do wonders, as it should go against the riding direction and thus getting insane speed bonus. A very important tool for anti-cav-players. Especially with long polearms.

I would personally love for it to have sideswings, balance wise,, I don't think it would happen. Beg for a long bill and a short bill.
Title: Re: Bill vs Bec
Post by: Vexus on January 12, 2011, 02:08:38 pm
Honestly not only the Bill is underpowered even the halberd which lost bonus to shield and swingable.

If nothing changes on them one is better using long voulge then any of them plus it's swingable.
Title: Re: Bill vs Bec
Post by: bredeus on January 12, 2011, 02:25:32 pm
agrred halber now is really hard to use
Title: Re: Bill vs Bec
Post by: Joxer on January 12, 2011, 02:25:59 pm
Sory, I meant to say spear like weapon instead of polearm. Was tired :D
Title: Re: Bill vs Bec
Post by: Joker86 on January 13, 2011, 12:04:28 am
Wasn't in the game yet: halberds can't be swung any more?  :shock:

Well, although I was shocked as I read this, during work I thought a bit about it, and it seems fine to me. Halberds are long weapons with a heavy head, and polearms are meant for fighting over distance, mainly by stabbing. Also I think we need a bigger difference between two handed weapons and some polearms. So let's have a try with it.  :D
Title: Re: Bill vs Bec
Post by: Vexus on January 13, 2011, 12:10:02 am
Yes but check it's stats and they removed bonus to shields which is the point of using an axe.
Title: Re: Bill vs Bec
Post by: Joker86 on January 13, 2011, 12:40:11 am
Yeah, I would have let them at least this  :?
Title: Re: Bill vs Bec
Post by: UrLukur on January 13, 2011, 12:42:47 am
I approve removal of side swings, been looking for such weapon for ages. I would roll polearm, but with my extremely limited time for the game it's hard task. Since the patch i managed to level one goon to lvl 26 :(
Title: Re: Bill vs Bec
Post by: Tai Feng on January 13, 2011, 01:56:17 pm
I also don't understand what the niche of Bill is. Stats look horrible.

Anti-cavalry weapon? Pike beats it at all it does. Anti-cavalry weapon isn't the one that requires cavalry to bump into something and some to a full-stop - every weapon is anti-cavalry one at that moment.


I would love to have some refreshing unique weapon, a long one with good upper swing only might be fun, but Bill just doesn't cut it.
Title: Re: Bill vs Bec
Post by: Noble Crassius on January 13, 2011, 06:59:32 pm
Wasn't in the game yet: halberds can't be swung any more?  :shock:

Well, although I was shocked as I read this, during work I thought a bit about it, and it seems fine to me. Halberds are long weapons with a heavy head, and polearms are meant for fighting over distance, mainly by stabbing. Also I think we need a bigger difference between two handed weapons and some polearms. So let's have a try with it.  :D

Lu bu could swing his halberd...just saying  :)
Title: Re: Bill vs Bec
Post by: chief on January 19, 2011, 01:29:49 am
Overhead damage has been raised to 31, this is reasonable, thank you crpg devs. :P
Title: Re: Bill vs Bec
Post by: Vexus on January 19, 2011, 03:50:52 am
Yea but halberd is still crap for it's price.
Title: Re: Bill vs Bec
Post by: DrKronic on January 20, 2011, 04:57:58 pm
The fact u only have 2 attack directions combined with a basically regular length polearm with sub becdespammin damage leaves u with an expensive but basically useless weapon

Even the first poleaxe is ten times more useful than the current incarnation of the billhook