Messages

1

Suggestions Corner / Re: A new approach to lancing

« on: May 30, 2011, 02:47:58 am »

Disable manual blocking on all lances

About this specifically, it might be interesting. It'd mean lancers would need a shield for blocking while on horseback, and that'd reduce their choice of other weapons because of the slot system.
It would change cav vs cav combat a lot - introduce a lot more risk for lancers.

2

General Discussion / Re: 360/180 degrees or wtv polearm stabs

« on: May 29, 2011, 07:25:29 am »

A: Yes, if B is implemented
C: Maybe, would have to have a case by case basis
D: No. Would allow for spamming. This would destroy the block/hit pattern in M&B. Potentially very game breaking.

Spear and shield needs some love, but there's no quick fix for it.

Dunno if it would allow for spamming on the hoplite's part. Spear + shield thrust isn't really on the fast side with any spears that I've seen. I understand why they do spinthrusts and drag the attacks - they glance too much in close and the hitboxes are weird. Its just a lame way to make hoplite playable.

If spear + shield could attack and block at the same time (I dunno if that's even possible to implement), you'd get a support class that can advance while poking. Would make for some cool tactics and a much bigger role for hoplites. They wouldn't be able (with a locked rotation) to spam stab you in 1vs1, so the enemy would have to concentrate on breaking their shields to mess up the formation.

I think it'd be really cool for formation tactics.

3

General Discussion / Re: 360/180 degrees or wtv polearm stabs

« on: May 28, 2011, 06:46:36 pm »

Lock rotation on stabs, increase spear thrust damage, increase length of all spears. And also make it so you can block and attack at the same time with spear and shield combo

4

Game Balance Discussion / Re: Horses have no natural predators

« on: May 28, 2011, 06:39:58 pm »

Completely agree with Plazek.

Especially this:

Anyway my real point was all these guys are complaining about "cavalry" but the real problem they are describing is that of lancers. It is easy and overpowered, even compared to other cavalry types (which are not massively challenging anyway if you play them wisely).

If the lancer is powerful even compared to the already strong general melee cavalry class then maybe it should be balanced?

Most of the suggestions to limit cavalry will affect lancers the least and other cav the most.

5

Suggestions Corner / Re: Cavalry stuff

« on: May 25, 2011, 02:41:03 pm »

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).

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. 

6

Suggestions Corner / Re: Cavalry stuff

« on: May 25, 2011, 12:53:56 pm »

(click to show/hide)

I totally disagree with you on this thread Bane.
I used to pay 1k gold every damn round to "repair" my sarranid horse when i was a cav.(I experienced my champ arabian warhorse got 1 hit killed by throwing dagger on its head btw.)
Considering increasing ranged spam these days,forcing cavalary to use shittier horses will make this game more imba.
They already forced lancers to equip lance or light lance with 175-180 cm long...they gave infantry 3 meters long pikes.
If you are a lancer / polearm build you cannot grab a shield and infantry weapon just in case your horse dies.So you have to choose between getting a shield and praying god to let your horse survive or getting an infantry weapon (GLA,LHB,Bec etc...) and praying god to let you survive on horse.
Afaik you use shield + morningstar on horse so changes on polearm builds may didn't effect your game experience.
Light horses die like cats in this game.If you throw a dagger to a horses head could it be insta kill ffs ? Horses are not cats but sadly in this game they die like cats...So if a light cav makes scores thats the retardness and unawareness of the enemy ranged units.With the speed bonus they can kill horses so easy.
I think slot system screwed the OP cav mechanics.They did quiet good,it is already hard to play as cav.It is always normal to get more kills in this situation because cav = mobile which gives the advantage to attack when they want and retreat if things go bad.If a cav not a retard he/shee will try to flank the enemy , attack them from the behind first wipe off the ranged.
Those tactics always work ;) That is why riders invented ! To surprise the enemy and change the course of the battle.
And increasing horses riding requirement and lances STR requirement doesn't seem logical to me.As a lancer , 21str 18 agi works best .
So it won't change anything =)

I'm sorry but I have no sympathy for the argument that lance cav now have to choose between a shield and a 2 slot polearm
They can use a lance, a staff, and a shield. Or no shield and a poleaxe or something instead. No-shield on cav just means you have to play differently, and lots of lancers do fine without it (Leed and Torben for example).
And no, I don't use shield on horseback, and never have.

Yes, horses die fast, especially the lighter ones. But then I'm not suggesting any kind of stat nerf for horses. And I don't want a lance str requirement increase.

Maybe you're right that the horse riding requirement increase won't change anything (its a point that Overdriven made as well a few pages back). With 18 agility you can have 6 riding, which gives you all the horses. Even 7 riding will still give you the ability to use nearly every weapon and every piece of armour.
This is fine, I think - playing cav shouldn't restrict you to a completely agi stacked build. I do wonder though, how many cav players actually go to 6-7 riding. Certainly I'd imagine all the top lancer players do. But I've seen people talk about their builds with 4 riding, so I dunno.

Anyway, I also saw someone mention that horses should have their tier or requirements changed according to use/effectiveness, not just bling.
Maybe:

1: Sumpter
3: Rouncey/Palfrey
4: Steppe/Desert
5: Warhorse/Large Warhorse/Destrier
6: Cataphract/Charger
7: Mamluk/Plated Charger/Courser/Arabian Warhorse

would be better. Together with stat changes to make armoured horses actually worth their requirements.

Also, about the cost. A 15% or 25% cost increase would reduce the amount of cavalry you see, there's no doubt. Cav players won't play cav on every map (which is fine imo - as I said, every cav except HA can function fine as infantry). And I don't really see the problem with cost currently - I make money as a cav player. Sure, I don't have millions, but I'm nowhere near bankrupt.
Cav will also choose lower tier horses more often to save money. As long as their stats are changed so there's a choice to be made, this is good I think. All I see are coursers and arabian warhorses.

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 

That's the solution to removing 1hand/shield and 2hand cav from the game and forcing anyone who wants to play cav to be a lancer, yes.
Not to mention that most horses will rear whenever they hit a peasant.

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.

Yeah, reduce steppe horse's manoeuvre. Because that 38 speed stat, 85hp, and 14 armour will really make it worth buying once you reduce its limited ability to escape from faster horses (every other light horse except the sumpter) and ranged fire.

The tier 4 horse's stats are fine. Its just that their price and difficulty requirements do not in any way reflect their stats and worth when compared to other horses. They are (obviously) better than the lower tier horses, and far better than the higher tier ones too.
So buff armoured horses, shift some stats on the lighter horses for more variety and choice (and usefulness), increase cost and difficulty of tier 4 horses. Except maybe the destrier.

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).



 

7

Suggestions Corner / Re: Cavalry stuff

« on: May 24, 2011, 02:33:32 pm »

(click to show/hide)

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.

2. I accept your point here.

3. See my previous post for suggestions about the pike. I think it would make a big difference.

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.

5. I can accept this fact, but how could that possibly be changed? I don't think any of your suggestions will work, as I countered in my other post (to which you haven't replied. Seems you only like replying to the rants). I think the answer lies in doing something to other classes, not in doing something to cavalry.

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.

5. Yep, I haven't replied to your comments yet because for once they were actually quite sensible, and I'm still thinking about them. It's harder to reply instantly to valid criticisms.
As for doing something to cavalry, even disregarding its balance compared to other classes, I still think horses need some internal balance. Armoured horses need to be made worth the cost (or worth anything at all, though 1hand/shield cav with armoured horses are increasing), and some horses need to be differentiated (steppe/desert, warhorse/large warhorse, to a lesser extent rouncey/palfrey). I'd also like there to be a valid choice apart from the tier 4 horses.

8

Suggestions Corner / Re: Cavalry stuff

« on: May 24, 2011, 02:04:11 pm »

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.

Dunno, depends what the lance cav does. They have to make a sacrifice because of the slot system, so to use a high tier polearm and their lance they have to ditch the shield. I don't really see that as much of an cav-to-inf sacrifice, but then I'm 2hand cav so I don't use a shield anyway.

As for 2hand vs polearms, its another discussion (though I think both polearms and 2hand categories have silly weapons).

9

Suggestions Corner / Re: Cavalry stuff

« on: May 24, 2011, 01:24:51 pm »

(click to show/hide)

I agree with the +1 riding skill requirement for courser and sarranid as well as a few other things. However I mostly disagree.

"So, yes, cavalry is OP."
In what way is it OP? You could say that about anything. Seriously.
Being a cavalry lancer myself I can't even touch a good HA, pikeman or foot archer. Are they OP? Of course not. That is the way it should be. Some classes owns others.
Is cav OP because it is so easy to kill bad players? What kind of reasoning is that?

"Anyway, cRPG shouldn't be balanced only for dedicated, organised clans or teams."
Ironically melee cav is pretty much useless in organized battles in the presence of HA's or archers.
cRPG should be balanced by letting good players fight each other, not bad players. That is the way all things in life are balanced.

"Prior to the last big patch, the amount of ranged spam kept them in check to a degree."
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 or not.

"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."
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.

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.

10

Suggestions Corner / Re: About horse charge

« on: May 24, 2011, 12:47:18 pm »

I think horse charge got nerfed then buffed again iirc.

Of course, speed bonus affects it so a courser at full speed (or maybe a champion courser at full speed) probably does as much charge damage as some of the armoured horses at full speed.
Though, a plated charger will usually knockdown at even medium speeds.

Reducing desert and arabian warhorse charge to 5 will do very little in terms of damage - they don't go fast enough for their 16 and 20 charge (respectively) to do damage to anyone except very lightly armoured players. Of course, it would mean that they'd come to a complete stop whenever they hit anything. So you'd make them useless for everyone but lance cav, and heavily nerfed even for them.

I think charge got buffed again because cav players were tired of their horses rearing when hitting a peasant, or bouncing off of tin cans.
Maybe you could reduce courser charge by 2 points, maybe even 4. But the rest of your stat suggestions are crazy.

11

Suggestions Corner / Re: Cavalry stuff

« on: May 23, 2011, 08:39:01 pm »

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.

Well, courser and arabian warhorse are tier 4 currently. I'd like to see them raised to tier 5 - 15 agility would then give cav players access to the three best light horses and two armoured horses. That way it doesn't limit builds too much - someone can still go for a strength focused build as a dedicated cav player. Of course, stopping at 15 agi/5 riding would still make their horses slower and less manoeuvrable than someone with 6 riding.
Also, I only suggested a hitpoint/armour buff for armoured horses, to make them more durable. Also the rouncey, but only to bring it up to courser level so it makes a basic all rounder (+5hp, +2 armour, +4 charge).
The other horses don't need any hp/armour buffs. They die fast to ranged, but they should (the lighter ones anyway). Well, they die fast to longbows, xbows, and throwing weapons at least, and the weaker ones like the Arabian die fast to anything.

The lower level horses don't have particularly high speed or manoeuvre. Of course, most players using them have high riding skill (5-7) and are trying to save money, so the horses perform better than their actual stats.

The reason why you rarely see mounted infantry with sumpters now is the cost. It used to be quite common (to get to the ruins on field by river before the enemy etc), but now no-one wants to risk a 4,700 gold piece of equipment breaking just to get somewhere and dismount. And of course with the level cap, people are planning their builds more specifically and carefully, and won't waste 2 points in riding just for transport. Actually, I wouldn't mind seeing the sumpter reduced by 1 difficulty - its a terrible horse anyway, only useful for transport.

Returning riding skill to 1/6 agi isn't a good idea. As Bulzur says, you'd see a lot more lower level cav - everyone will have a horse. The idea of anyone who wants to ride a plated charger having to be an agi stacker is lame. I want to see effective heavy cavalry, plated knights on plated horses. Obviously though this would be ridiculous if people could do it all the time, which is why I suggested a huge cost increase.
There's no reason why people should have to choose between an armoured horse and armour. Increasing the stats of the armoured horses wouldn't make up for it being useless to ride one wearing a linen shirt and using a sickle.

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.

Yeah, so you didn't read it either? Its ok, there were a lot of words. I'm not complaining about lances being the most effective weapon to use on a horse. That has always been the case, and I doubt it'll change. I choose to use 2handers from horseback because I enjoy it, not because its innately effective.
I don't try to jumpslash lance cav.

Well, either read it properly, or don't comment.

12

Suggestions Corner / Re: Cavalry stuff

« on: May 23, 2011, 03:48:47 am »

Let poor horsemen in peace. They are nerfed enough.
Arabian Warhorse is already nerfed a lot.

I can understand why you didn't read past the first sentence, it was a pretty long post. But to make it clear, I didn't suggest any change to Arabian Warhorse's stats. I think its fine.
Also, this wouldn't really be a nerf, just an increase in difficulty and price. The stats I suggested changed aren't nerfs, they're mainly buffs or shifting around stat focus.

Thats a joke?? 
1H Cav is more  powerful,  but you need skill, experience and teamwork.

No, it isn't a joke. 1hand&shield cav can of course be very effective. Two players who do so very well are Merc_Lizardman and Merc_Phazey (or whatever that alt of his is called). Those two play very smart - they know how to support effectively, and they do very well.
I've seen others do well, some 22nd guys too.
But of course because of the way they have to play (they have to get closer and risk more than lance cav), they're not as able (though far more able than 2hand cav because of the shield, faster weapon, and usually longer range weapon) to rampage all over the map. And obviously in cav vs cav fights, lance cav have all the advantages.

Also, couchable only lances is silly.

(click to show/hide)

ppl always whining about classes.every time they cried cus of archery it get nerf at every patch.now they r cryin cus of cav.tell me wasnt cav the most powerful force in battlefields of medieval times?if u say yes so there is no need to nerf horses or skills.also it heavily nerfed.if u cant remember i can tell at first days sumpter was 1,palfrey rouncey steppe and rabian was 2,courser,sarranid and hunter for 3,warhorses for 4,charger and chatap for 5 and plated and mamaeluke was 6 riding.and they nerfed horse archery too.u could give 1/3 skill point to horse archery skill but now 1/6 and every archery nerf nerfed horse archery too.so u guys just stop crying and playin better.and i got a question in medieval times can a pikeman  kill a swordman with shield or 2h swordman in close fight?noo.admins talkin about items historical correct for adding mod but why they dont look to historical reality in wars?another didnt english longbowmen defeat french knights at agincourt?yes.so archery nerfs r sucks but thanks god bows r still good enough at a good player hand.horseman nerfs sucks too but horses and lances still powerful at good players hand.
btw u got 3 option:
1)go a high ground or get in a building,
2)get a pike(i know what u say my 2h sword got 2 slot and if i get pike too i cant use my xbow or whatelse like that.but damn if u got  a xbow or throwin stay at high ground with archers)
3)just become a cav and if u r thinnkin u r good fighter u ll be good cav too.

Yeah, cav was the most powerful force at certain times in history. So?

Also Akinci, yeah obviously I remember what horse requirements and stats used to be like. It doesn't make a difference. The game changes, the balance changes. Otherwise we might as well say 'remember that time when you could use GLA from horseback? Cav have been nerfed enough!'.
I don't want any stat nerfs to horses. I want armoured horses made better, and lower tier horses more common (and interesting). I want cav to be difficult again.
Light cavalry shouldn't be riding around with triple the kills of every other player. They should be support.

The historical realism argument is a bit suspect, since cRPG (and warband) take a lot of liberties with historical accuracy. The way I understand it, cRPG is aesthetically modelled on the medieval world.

And:

1) Not always an option. And it shouldn't really be the answer to cavalry dominance, I don't want to see more roof camping.
2) Not everybody wants to play a pikeman.
3) I am a cav player    (also, its different skills, so a good fighter won't necessarily be good cav).

This isn't a suggestion to nerf horse stats. Its to rebalance horses, and make armoured horses worth the cost. Also, to raise difficulty and price to compensate for how easy it is to be cav.

Also, to restate another point: none of the suggestions will affect the issues of cav weapons. I don't see how you can realistically change lance effectiveness without changing game mechanics.

13

Suggestions Corner / Re: Cavalry stuff

« on: May 22, 2011, 07:14:56 pm »

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.
 

14

Suggestions Corner / Cavalry stuff

« on: May 22, 2011, 04:55:06 pm »

So, yes, cavalry is OP.

Prior to the last big patch, the amount of ranged spam kept them in check to a degree.

The arguments that cav only do so well due to unaware players are partly true, but it isn't just awareness. With a certain amount of cav, awareness won't help. The same goes for organisation. Anyway, cRPG shouldn't be balanced only for dedicated, organised clans or teams.
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.

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.
But I don't think buffing ranged is an answer. Currently ranged don't suffer the most from cavalry, infantry do. Since infantry are less able to protect ranged players from cav, ranged also suffer. Ranged do fine against cav, its just that the cav have killed the rest of their team.
Nor do I think nerfing the stats of horses in general, or nerfing the effects of the riding skill, are a good solution.

So, my suggestion is to make playing as cav more difficult, and to internally rebalance horses a bit. I think light cav (horses below destrier or warhorse maybe) should have to play a support role. At the moment, while some players do indeed perform a support role very effectively, the problem is that they don't have to. Lance or 1hand/shield + armoured horse cav can quite easily act completely alone and get lots and lots of kills.
Armoured horses should be far more effective than they are now. The only players I've seen get any use out of them are 1hand+shield cav, because they can combine horse and player durability. Horse archers also do quite well with them.

So:

1) Increase difficulty requirements of all light horses except sumpter, rouncey, and palfrey by 1. Also increase cataphract and charger difficulty by 1. So then you have Sumpter tier 2; Rouncey and Palfrey tier 3; Steppe and Desert tier 4; Courser, Arabian, Destrier, Warhorse, Large Warhorse tier 5; Cataphract, Charger, Mamluke, Plated Charger tier 6.

3-4 riding is quite low for dedicated cav. 5 riding (15 agi) becomes the standard for a dedicated cav player. This still leaves an option of playing a more strength or agility orientated character - not forcing cav to be agi stackers only.

2) Give tier 3-4 horses more variety and use.

Make the rouncey a cheap all rounder (increase its hp, armour and charge to courser level). Increase Palfrey speed by one, reduce manoeuvre by two.
Give the steppe horse more speed and less manoeuvre and more hp (+8,-7,+5, so 46,42,90). Give the desert horse one more manoeuvre.

3) Increase tier 6 (cata, charger, mamluke, plated) horses manoeuvre and speed by 2 points each. Increase their armour by 10 and hp by 15, and charge by 2.

4) Sort out warhorse and large warhorse. Give warhorse +1 manoeuvre, +5 armour, +5hp, and give large warhorse +1 speed, +5 armour, +10hp, +2 charge.

5) Include horse scale stat in equipment menu - it does have an effect in choosing a horse.

6) Increase price of all unarmoured horses by 25%, increase price of all armoured horses by 50%.

So then you'll see fewer players with the ubiquitous courser/arabian. You'll see more people choosing lower tier horses, and actually making a decent choice between them - rouncey for all round stats, palfrey for speed, or one tier up: steppe for speed and desert for manoeuvre.
You'll see even fewer armoured horses, but they'll actually be worth the cost for a change.
You'll also see cav nerfed, because of even more crippling costs, and higher difficulty. More common weaker horses (tier 2-4) will mean they die faster and are less effective.
Unarmoured horses will be forced to play more support roles and not charge around racking up kills. Armoured horses will be devastating, but so expensive people will cry.

None of that solves the issue that some types of cav are far more effective than others (both in cav vs cav and cav vs inf fights), but I'd rather see all cav nerfed (and some types hit far harder) than the current situation. It won't stop lance cav being more effective than all other types, or 1hand shield cav being more effective than 2hand cav, but then that's the way its always been (except for a brief period when lance rotation was locked).
This may also make horse archers more effective, since they'll be shooting weaker horses, and can afford far more upkeep than other cav.

Anyway, I'm sure you're glad you read all that. Discuss etc.

15

General Discussion / Re: Test on Shield and Polearms

« on: May 22, 2011, 05:36:24 am »

unbalanced weapons can't do a few types of feints, but that is it.

Unbalanced doesn't just affect feints.