Observations Regarding the Current State of cRPG

[Topsnus]

1h and shield has always been at a disadvantage to 2h. To all who think it is easy, change to 1h, i am a 1h and i think it is far easier to fight other 1h than 2h. Because with a 1 hander, if worst comes to worst, you can usually break their shield and then kill them.

I also think it is kinda unfair how they made the mauls and poleaxes and whatnot. A poleaxe can break a shield in like 3-4 hits, and then the 1h is at a all around disadvantage. And some of the maul builds are nearly impossible to beat without an agility 1h build, which does take a rediculous amount of hits to kill.

What i don't understand is why we need to include weapons in this game for 2h to beat "turtles." If someone is legitly "turtling," spam their shield, then when it breaks, kill them. Turtling gives no advantage to the turtle. I believe the problem lies in 2h becoming angry if it takes them more than 6 seconds to get a kill. Try being a 1h, where it is very difficult to feint, you do very low damage, your attacks are often blocked by unbreakable swords, while your shield deteriorates, etc. A 1h killing a 2h takes about as much time as a 2h killing a "turtling" 1h. So i don't understand why we have to have special weapons to increase the speed at which a 2h beats a 1h.

Also, 1h have a VERY hard time with cavalry, who i personally feel are a little too powerful, which might be because im a 1h, and cavalry literally HAVE to screw up for a 1h to beat a horse. A skilled horseman CANNOT lose to a 1h and shield, while they can easily lose to a 2h or polearm.

[MrShine]

I haven't been around from the start so I missed some of the really imbalanced days.

Game seems pretty good right now as far as balance goes.

As others mentioned I agree with most of what the OP said except for 1h/shield, which I think is very strong.  I generally find 2-h fights to be pretty easy.  Depends on the player ofc, but as long as you keep good footwork I feel that the advantage is with the 1h/shielder since you get so many 'free' blocks.

[Ozwan]

Finally some good thread from someone who hasnt joined cRPG a month ago or so.

About shielders: even though I'm currently playing as one I dont think they need any fixes really. The thing is that shielder, I think, isn't at all a 1v1 type of character, it's underpowered in those situations. What he excels at is area and possible movement denial and creating massive pressure in group fights while remaining totally invulnerable (except hammers) for long period of time unless he decides to strike. In short, he's meant to work in a group and overcome enemy by superior positioning and timing, not to try to fight 2h/poles as equal on their terms.

The one thing that annoys me absolutely are glances. One-handers deliver such low damage usually that the hits simply glance off even while hitting foes in medium armor, not to mention heavy or heirloomed. And it usually has fatal consequences.

[Gorath]

The one thing that annoys me absolutely are glances. One-handers deliver such low damage usually that the hits simply glance off even while hitting foes in medium armor, not to mention heavy or heirloomed. And it usually has fatal consequences.

^
Agreed (with your whole post actually, especially shielders being team-based support characters- balb and manofwar notwithstanding).  Truly about the only thing that is rather stupid with shielders is the glancing issue, even after the armor changes.  The part of it that bugs me isn't so much the glancing from terrible positioning but that it's more effective to face-hug with a 2her or polearm than a 1her because the 1her will glance while the 2her either hits the feet, hiltslashes or hits the head at point blank range for full damage.  Polearms as well.  Everyone has dealth with point blank lol-spinstabs from both 2hers and polearms (and I abuse the hell out of them myself).

[Lansamur]

Sword&Board:

   In their current state, players who go one-hander and shield are under-powered, they are still relatively useful in a support capacity, by harrying the enemy whilst the more damaging, heavy-hitting two-handers or polearms kill them, and of course they offer protection against ranged weapons; however, in any kind of one-on-one, a shield-user is always far less powerful than a polearm-user or two-hander. When fighting two-handers, I find that the only successful tactic is to play extremely safely, only hitting when one has taken about three of their hits and are at kicking distance so one will actually be able to get a hit in, and even then one’s hit will generally bounce on their armour, meaning that they can continue to spam one. I don’t believe the problem of balance here lies with the shielders themselves, their stats are fine as they are, they shouldn’t need more speed, range or damage. The problem lies with the fact that the most popular two-handers in the game are hugely over-powered. The Danish and German Greatswords for instance are both ridiculously long and fast, and the only problems that two-handers face essentially comes from ranged weapons. In any kind of melee situation, two-handers always dominate. Even though shielders are useful in a support role, two-handers are better.

Well, I've been playing 1h/board almost all the time. I disagree with them being underpowered if you play them aggressively and with a corresponding build. I usually pick 24/15, 8PS and 5 Shield, Ath and WM. I can 3-4 hitkill platers if I get a shot at their head. They need about the same for me when they're polearmer or 2her and I'm in my Lordly Transitional.

At the moment, I think cRPG seems quite balanced, except archers being underpowered in their damage-output.

[DrKronic]

can someone give me a one sentence summary of the ragewall, he lost me at the picture of the guy from NAKED GUN

[Espu]

Cleaned the useless spamming from the thread. Some people had better learn that when they have nothing to say on the subject, posting in the thread is not necessary.

[Rangerbob]

I polearm build and a I can say shielders annoy me more than anything else in group fights.  Good shielders know that they shouldn't go for counter attacks when theres other 2 handers around.  They just stay around my right or left swing with their shield raised and I have a terrible time trying to counterattack other shielders/2 handers.  If I lose my concentration and swing into their shield its over.   Facing 2 sheilders at a time is why I have good agi so I can look for easier targets.

[Corrado_Decimo]

Sorry but I do agree with the sword and board observation, as they are underpowered in that there are far fewer effective shielders then there are two handers or polearm users. Even the statistics gathered reflect this, both from the official ones released for the EU servers by Fasader and the ones that you can find elsewhere like www.nacrpg.net.

i disagree about the shielders part. good teamplay minded shielders (even if not so deadly like pompom, LoR, kinngrimm) will make a team win (especially in siege). bad shielders will try to go for kills leaving the main line vulnerable to ranged (the one maybe that want to have a good position in the quoted reply's statistics page)

Tears, measuring a build value with the k/d ratio or streak kills is wrong. (because the k/d ratio only see the deathblows... not the overall damage done.)

shielders are not meant to go in the mess and kill stuff. they're meant to advance under ranged fire, give ranged cover,advance and make space for damage troops.

and EVEN this way, aggressive shielders (mtemko, LoR, Tot, akingibegi, cyber, etc etc) will still have that good k/d ratio you seems to put above all.

[Corrado_Decimo]

Well, I've been playing 1h/board almost all the time. I disagree with them being underpowered if you play them aggressively and with a corresponding build. I usually pick 24/15, 8PS and 5 Shield, Ath and WM. I can 3-4 hitkill platers if I get a shot at their head. They need about the same for me when they're polearmer or 2her and I'm in my Lordly Transitional.

At the moment, I think cRPG seems quite balanced, except archers being underpowered in their damage-output.

lansamur, i got 1hit by some headcuts by cleaver and steelpicks even with a 50 armor helmet and 70 hp. just to say.

[Corrado_Decimo]

1h and shield has always been at a disadvantage to 2h. To all who think it is easy, change to 1h, i am a 1h and i think it is far easier to fight other 1h than 2h. Because with a 1 hander, if worst comes to worst, you can usually break their shield and then kill them.

I also think it is kinda unfair how they made the mauls and poleaxes and whatnot. A poleaxe can break a shield in like 3-4 hits, and then the 1h is at a all around disadvantage. And some of the maul builds are nearly impossible to beat without an agility 1h build, which does take a rediculous amount of hits to kill.

What i don't understand is why we need to include weapons in this game for 2h to beat "turtles." If someone is legitly "turtling," spam their shield, then when it breaks, kill them. Turtling gives no advantage to the turtle. I believe the problem lies in 2h becoming angry if it takes them more than 6 seconds to get a kill. Try being a 1h, where it is very difficult to feint, you do very low damage, your attacks are often blocked by unbreakable swords, while your shield deteriorates, etc. A 1h killing a 2h takes about as much time as a 2h killing a "turtling" 1h. So i don't understand why we have to have special weapons to increase the speed at which a 2h beats a 1h.

Also, 1h have a VERY hard time with cavalry, who i personally feel are a little too powerful, which might be because im a 1h, and cavalry literally HAVE to screw up for a 1h to beat a horse. A skilled horseman CANNOT lose to a 1h and shield, while they can easily lose to a 2h or polearm.

well if in your team you 1handed/shield go chase and suicide against a polearm or 2h, you will not really help your team. you will tho if you make your DPS troops advance under arrows rain and going to form with the team on a better place.

just try to make a random plains battle with all 2h/polearm in one team and a mixed shielders/2h/polearm/cav/ranged in the other. you'll see the 2h/polearm team being killed round by round.

EDIT:

My God man, learn to edit your posts!

did i done it right?
and ofc... learn to not go offtopic too much

My God man, learn to edit your posts!
I am perfectly aware of that, but it is the standard that most people use.
My main is an archer, trust me, I know that maintaining a good K/D ratio is not important seeing as my primary targets are horses which don't show up at all.

weird. you use it to support your opinions though. even when arguing about a teamplay build that last thing it needs to do is to create more kill hunters.

is like saying how a car is good only measuring the top speed.

[Tears of Destiny]

My God man, learn to edit your posts!

Tears, measuring a build value with the k/d ratio or streak kills is wrong. (because the k/d ratio only see the deathblows... not the overall damage done.)

I am perfectly aware of that, but it is the standard that most people use.
My main is an archer, trust me, I know that maintaining a good K/D ratio is not important seeing as my primary targets are horses which don't show up at all.

[San]

Finally read all the responses in this thread.

Well thought out post. I think in terms of strategus, a lot of the standard builds are just fine.

1h+shield are less powerful, but I think it's supposed to be that way. I just wish the shield slowed us down less, then we'd actually be able to chase archers better and be able to help better in a 2v1 situation (I have since switched to an awlpike + shield since I'm too slow/weapon too short to help my teammate much in 2v1).

Then there's the weird bad angle hits when facehugging, I've gotten so many free hits on 1h users because of that, just because I was a little close.

I fear 1h+shield users far less, since they can't chase me as well, even in a 2-3v1, while 2h/polearm can hit me from far away. It's easier to single out a 1her easier. Even if my shield breaks first, that just makes me faster than them, so I can just outfeint and circle them.

With 8 IF and 27 strength, after recently upgrading to higher end armor, I can take 4-6 hits from 1hs if a few of them are bad angles.

[Kafein]

Shielders aren't meant to be star players, although there ARE shielder star players and people already mentioned them here.

However, most top k/d shielders are aggressive shielders, with small shields, fast and hard-hitting builds, attacking and finding themselves alone vs multiple opponents very often, and usually winning those 1vs2 and 1vs3 fights because they know how to use their shield and block multiple attacks at the same time. To use their advantage to full extent, top shielders try to find 2 or 3 opponents they can safely engage and defeat.


The most common type of shielder is the defending, teamplay oriented, heavy shielder with large shield, that forms up shieldwalls, protects pikes and ranged, covers 2h and polearms, blocks enemies, is first on ladders etc. That way of playing is probably just as effective for the team given the same skill, but is clearly not as rewarding in terms of k/d.

[Turkhammer]

Well, I've been playing 1h/board almost all the time. I disagree with them being underpowered if you play them aggressively and with a corresponding build. I usually pick 24/15, 8PS and 5 Shield, Ath and WM. I can 3-4 hitkill platers if I get a shot at their head. They need about the same for me when they're polearmer or 2her and I'm in my Lordly Transitional.

At the moment, I think cRPG seems quite balanced, except archers being underpowered in their damage-output.

How do you get 24/15 strength/agi?  What level is that?  I have 18/18 at level 30, gen 1.