Steel Pick (continued discussion)

[Noble Crassius]

I tried to verify the 2x/3x head damage.
I made a new char (test with lvl3, 6str, no ps) and equipped him with a spiked club with 20p and a hammer with 21b.

Then I joined a duel server and tested the headdamage against an unarmored head.
The damage was nearly the same... so I cannot confirm the 3x pierce damage against head.

If somebody wants to make more or different tests please let me know.

Yes pics of the red bar would be nice =/. However your peasants damage would be negligible. It would be hard to notice a difference between 1/16th of my life gone and say 1/14th  if you have a high level character (and a nice helm) I will gladly hit you in the head a couple of times. I have a warhammer and a steel pick although slightly different damage values it should be close enough to see if there is a greater difference. 

If you only have a mid/low level char I can down grade to softer hitting weps.

[Diomedes]

I do however agree with you that perhaps it is better/equal to the warhammer due to whatever (I base this on the amount of Picks I see to the amount of warhammers I see) So either drop warhammer price or raise the picks up a tad

This sort of change was what I was going for.  I never claimed the pick was exceptionally OP or anything, just that its stats seemed incongruous amongst comparable 1-handers.

This is true. While it's rare to survive a headshot with any weapon, you won't survive one with a pick unless heavily armored.

And the warhammer has knockdown, which is a major feature, no? It also does blunt damage, which is better against armor than cut.

The pick is the 5th most expensive 1h; about as expensive as a Knightly Arming Sword. It's a pain to repair. I'm still not sure why you think the gold cost is off.

As mentioned earlier in the discussion, a x3 headshot with a steel pick normally does 61+ damage to a well-armoured opponent.  It's a killing strike in all but the most extreme circumstances.  You're also arguing glibly in what I've attempted to make a very evidence-based discussion: Yes, knockdown is a "major feature" - as already mentioned.  Yes warhammers deal blunt damage - as already mentioned.  Yes, blunt damage is better than cut - as already mentioned (though this point specifically is irrelevant).  The distinction I'm trying to draw is not between a knife and a sword but a good weapon and an exceptionally good weapon.  Though they're both expensive weapons one is still considerably cheaper than the other.

[XavierX]

Picks, Axes and Maces need to be longer, slower and do a little more damage than their nimble sword counterparts. I see no reason for a warhammer to be faster than a sword.

[panderson]

Picks, Axes and Maces need to be longer, slower and do a little more damage than their nimble sword counterparts. I see no reason for a warhammer to be faster than a sword.

This.

[Kherr]

After the last damage test (3x, 2x) I wanted to ask more than the steel pick discussion participants about their opinion.
So i started a new thread http://forum.c-rpg.net/index.php/topic,2002.0.html  (3x, 2x damage question only).

[Diomedes]

Picks, Axes and Maces need to be longer, slower and do a little more damage than their nimble sword counterparts. I see no reason for a warhammer to be faster than a sword.

I find they're balanced - for the most part.  I've found that weapons are generally imbalanced if they excel in more than 2 of the following traits:

- speed
- damage
- length
- crushthrough

The warhammer has a fair 1-handed speed, good damage, very short length, and knockdown.  The steel pick has good speed, good damage, very short length, and some eccentric perks.  They're both very good weapons, deserving of top tier prices, but they're not imbalanced on a battlefield.  As for realism, as a person who's used a lot of hammers in his life (lived/worked on a farm), I can vouch for their uncanny speed when they're balanced properly.  The main difficulty is in trying to reign in their weight after a swing, but that's why the warhammer has a requirement of 15.

[zagibu]

Why should a mace be longer than a sword? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever...

[XavierX]

Why should a mace be longer than a sword? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever...

Not longer than a sword, but definitely longer than they currently are. Thus, make them slower. They were cheap weapons that hit hard back in the day, whereas a sword was painstakingly balanced and VERY expensive. It should be faster than an unbalanced broad headed axe. I'd also like to see certain 2 h swords able to be used 1h without the damage penalty, like the bastard sword and longsword.

[Elmetiacos]

This sort of change was what I was going for.  I never claimed the pick was exceptionally OP or anything, just that its stats seemed incongruous amongst comparable 1-handers.

It's an incongruous weapon, really: it's the Native Rhodok pick, which seems to be based on a mountaineer's ice axe rather than any actual mediaeval weapon. Here's a photo of two actual picks from a museum in Poland

(click to show/hide)

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

They aren't short; they were meant to be used on horseback so more weight, more length and less speed would be the realistic option.

[Engine]

Horseback pick?

I'm so erect right now!

[Murrogh]

It's an incongruous weapon, really: it's the Native Rhodok pick, which seems to be based on a mountaineer's ice axe rather than any actual mediaeval weapon. Here's a photo of two actual picks from a museum in Poland

(click to show/hide)

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

They aren't short; they were meant to be used on horseback so more weight, more length and less speed would be the realistic option.

War Picks very similar to that actually existed. As an infantry weapon they got more popular in the 1500's.

[Elmetiacos]

War Picks very similar to that actually existed. As an infantry weapon they got more popular in the 1500's.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that those actual picks existed, and that's why they're in a museum...

[zagibu]

In fact, I would go so far as to say that those actual picks existed, and that's why they're in a museum...

A bold claim.

[Soldier_of_God]

personally, i think that these weapons are well balanced. its shortness, like axes, is offset by its damage output.
does it suck to get hit by one, yes. is it in need of a nerf? no. i think that as an educational experience, you should try fighting with either and see that while rewarding, it is a difficult weapon to fight well with unless you spam... which everyone does with every weapon anyway, so really trying to get a nerf is a moot point.

[Spawny]

It's an incongruous weapon, really: it's the Native Rhodok pick, which seems to be based on a mountaineer's ice axe rather than any actual mediaeval weapon. Here's a photo of two actual picks from a museum in Poland

(click to show/hide)

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

They aren't short; they were meant to be used on horseback so more weight, more length and less speed would be the realistic option.

The picks in that pic *lol* are horribly unbalanced. All the weight is towards the swinging end, making it terribly heavy to swing more than once. Most likely the reason they were used from horseback, if you use that on foot, you can swing it 10 times before your arm is so tired it falls off.