What is wrong with Slamz' text, Zapper?
Sigh, I don't have time for this, but nevermind.
Ok, first of all he comes with bullshit arguments. Let's start with the answer to "you are contradicting yourself"
The mace is a good weapon. Fact. You say there are dedicated 2handers who doesn't use it? Actually, there are. Many of them. They don't use it all the time, but I have seen many of them use the mace and the mace only. Besides, just because many people don't use it all the time as their main weapon, doesn't mean it's not a GOOD weapon! Take for example the Heavy Bastard Sword. A pretty good weapon. It's long enough, does decent damage and is faster than most 1handers (LOLWUT, I just saw the speed rating of that thing!). So we can all agree it's a good weapon. So why aren't everyone and their grandma using it? Because there is a slightly better, but more expensive, version of it. The Longswords. Almost exactly the same, but slightly longer. Still, most people use that one instead. Same goes for the Military Scythe and the Glaive. If you can choose between them, choose the Glaive. But the Military Scythe is STILL a good weapon. Saying otherwise just shows you're an idiot.
With the mace, it's almost the same, and the slightly better and more expensive version, is the Long Iron Mace. It's a bit slower, but longer and slightly more damaging.
Regardless. The Mace is a good weapon, even if everyone doesn't use it as their main (which there even are some people who do), and it can more than stand it's own in a melee fight.
In addition: even IF you have a "worse" melee weapon, you also gain the mind blowing advantage of fighting a guy that
is already damaged. You can easily put an arrow or two in him, which these days is usually half their health, and then fight him in melee with your "inferior" 2h mace. If I had the choice between fighting a guy with full health and a Greatsword while I had a Greatsword, or fighting a guy with half health and a Greatsword while I had a mace. I'd take option 2 every single time. ESPECIALLY when during any time in that fight, a friendly archer can put an arrow into them while we are fighting. Fuck, I'd gladly fight TWO enemies with greatswords, one at half health and me with a 2h mace, if I had an allied archer standing nearby shooting at them.
"Not that hard if your equipment is triple heirloomed"
Ok, let's just ignore the fact that you should NEVER balance around heirlooms and the fact that everyone doesn't have heirlooms.
NO. People do NOT run around with 70+ armour. And those that do, usually spend a lot of money doing that. Compared that to the "expensive" archers (bitch, even with the increased ammo repairs, archers are still the 2nd cheapest class to play) that still aren't close to most other classes with upkeep while still being just as dangerous.
And last but not least, the reply that made me facepalm. The answer to the video. I am gonna quote what Slamz said in the beginning:
Standard melee: kill a dude, kill another dude, kill two more dudes, kill another dude, down a horse, kill the rider, get shot by an arrow, declare archery is op.
Sigh. What that video was about was the ridiculousness of those imagined "warrior societies" were everyone had killed lots of others to prove themselves! This is ridiculous for all the reasons shown in that video. Go watch it, it's really good.
And here's what Kafein was trying to convey and which shows just how stupid Slamz is:
He says that a "standard" (that means, the average or normal) melee, kills one guy (in melee), then another guy (in melee), then two more guys (still in melee), then one more (you know.... melee), then kills a horse (with his melee weapon), then the rider (with, guess what?, his melee weapon!) and the gets shot by an archer, thinking archery is "OP".
Let's do the counting. That's six (6!) guys, in any normal fight, and that EVERY SINGLE MELEE FIGHTER DOES THAT IN THE SAME FIGHT! If you don't get how that is fucking retarded the you should go and cry yourself to sleep. Every melee guy can't kill 6 enemies, because there aren't enough people on both teams! YES, one guy could do that. But those guys he killed? Did THEY also kill 6 enemies each? I'm sorry, but for this to work there would have to be a 1-6 ratio of melee to other, and EVERY SINGLE MELEE GUY would have to kill those 6 others. This is NOT how it is on the servers and saying this is just retarded. Look, there simply IS NOT enough people for this to happen! Or as Kafein said,
At the end of a battle, the loosing team has 0 survivors, not minus 50.
And no, Slamz wasn't just "exaggerating" or something. Because then he would have recognised what Kafein said and come up with a proper reply instead of quoting some historical battle and the numbers from it, which are completely irrelevant.
Poll