Suggestion: Polearms glance when enemies are close.

[Dezilagel]

but as it is now it doesn't matter much what weapon the skilled person is using..

And isn't that FUCKING AWESOME?

I can beat up an armored knight with a pitchfork at close range if I play well enough, I don't see why you'd want to reduce that aspect.

"Hooray, I picked the right weapon for this situation, sorry but it doesn't matter what you do now, you're completely fucked!"


...really?

[Gurnisson]

Bullshit, the glancing in both weapon classes is equally, if not less for polearms. Point blank the stab from a under 150 length polearm rarely glances, even without spinning. The 2h stab always glances at point blank unless its elaborately spun.

The stab of the polearms seems better, yes. However, while polearm bounce less on stabs than two-handers, they neither have a long length, nor a long duration. Those two-handed stabs can damage you for full damage way longer than the animation actually does stab, while the greatswords stabs outreach the ones of bills/halberds etc.

They both have their positive aspects

[B3RS3RK]

Yeah, Dezi is right.

If I want to play Stone paper Scissor I do so.

[Lorenzo_of_Iberia]

And isn't that FUCKING AWESOME?

I can beat up an armored knight with a pitchfork at close range if I play well enough, I don't see why you'd want to reduce that aspect.

"Hooray, I picked the right weapon for this situation, sorry but it doesn't matter what you do now, you're completely fucked!"


...really?

The point is you dont auto win with a certain weapon vs another certain weapons, but you should get a decent advantage when fighting against your counter e.g.  cav should always have issues fighting polearms, but should not have to fear a ridiculously over the top stab from 2h's Or polearms should always fear 1h/ shield facehuggers, not be able to run and jump into a spin which then does insane amounts of damage. Classes should counter each other and confer advantages vs other classes.

[Dezilagel]

The point is you dont auto win with a certain weapon vs another certain weapons, but you should get a decent advantage when fighting against your counter e.g.  cav should always have issues fighting polearms, but should not have to fear a ridiculously over the top stab from 2h's Or polearms should always fear 1h/ shield facehuggers, not be able to run and jump into a spin which then does insane amounts of damage. Classes should counter each other and confer advantages vs other classes.

Ah, okay, so the real point here is that you're pissed at 2h as the only class outreaching your lance? 

Aside from that; why?

[B3RS3RK]

Well when I play Polearms 1h/shield are my least favorite enemy already.Anyting else I can kill just fine, but 1h/shield is tougher.

[Lorenzo_of_Iberia]

Ah, okay, so the real point here is that you're pissed at 2h as the only class outreaching your lance? 

Aside from that; why?

I dont use a lance ;) I'm jav cav.

essentially what I mean is 2h's are duelists, close combat specialists and they fight very well vs other infantry but  by pulling off a ridiculous animation its too easy for them to take the polearmers niche of anti cav as well.  There are more examples, 1h/ shield should be destroyed by crush through, but the slow crush through should get countered by a decent ranged 2h / polearmer. All i think is that too many classes are made redundant by the over flexible existing classes.

This game would be a lot more balanced if people felt there was more niches for classes that are currently unplayed. 2h is just an example of one class where they can fight their would be counters as well as their prey classes (ye i couldnt think of another word).

On the subject of the lolstab, I have always been against it as it basically fills the role of a polearm stab, using a lolstab you can outrange horsemen head on, you can assist in a stabbing motion in melee fights (like a stronger spear) and it gives 2h excessive range that completely nullifies many polearmers advantage. I dont know how to balance this, but if they made 2h's lolstab shorter or less damaging but their cut damage higher I would reckon it might restore 2h to its rightful place as a heavy hitter duelist weapon.

[Mala]

Thomek, let me tell you this:

In close range, I already glance a fuckton, while Mr. Swordsman, let it be 1 or 2h, can deal full damage to me from any angle, even the most absurd and illogical ones, like from behind, or when I'm passing his actual arc, he still catches me.

Hmm, with 1h and not that less power strike i wiff quite often at close ranges, but then with 2h i get more successful strikes even with low ps and wpf.

[Wraist]

essentially what I mean is 2h's are duelists, close combat specialists and they fight very well vs other infantry but  by pulling off a ridiculous animation its too easy for them to take the polearmers niche of anti cav as well... All i think is that too many classes are made redundant by the over flexible existing classes.

...

[Lorenzo_of_Iberia]

...

gotta love an intelligent counter argument

[Kafein]

On the subject of the lolstab, I have always been against it as it basically fills the role of a polearm stab, using a lolstab you can outrange horsemen head on, you can assist in a stabbing motion in melee fights (like a stronger spear) and it gives 2h excessive range that completely nullifies many polearmers advantage. I dont know how to balance this, but if they made 2h's lolstab shorter or less damaging but their cut damage higher I would reckon it might restore 2h to its rightful place as a heavy hitter duelist weapon.

This.

In my book, 2h should be the superior duel choice and superior overall melee weapons. Polearms, because they have all the axes, good against 1h but slightly weaker than 2h. And the only ones able to outreach cav lances. We should see many pikes, but pikes are not really any good when you can outreach a cav lance with a 2h thrust anyway.

EDIT : buffing pikes would also provide for a reduction in cav numbers. And ffs it's needed. I die more because of cav teammates stopping me than to pikes.

[Lorenzo_of_Iberia]

This.

In my book, 2h should be the superior duel choice and superior overall melee weapons. Polearms, because they have all the axes, good against 1h but slightly weaker than 2h. And the only ones able to outreach cav lances. We should see many pikes, but pikes are not really any good when you can outreach a cav lance with a 2h thrust anyway.

Kafein you are a wise man indeed

[Joker86]

The problem with making classes less flexible and approach towards a rock-paper-siccors-mechanism (approach, not make one class beat another without any other possible outcome) that could increase teamplay (as you need to rely on your teammates to deal better with certain enemy classes), is the fact that certain classes are more flexible than others.

Some of you perhaps remember what I posted once: a graphic with all the known classes, and then I have drawn coloured line from one class to the others, to show how well you can deal with them. I used a pikeman and a horse archer. The pikeman had not only enemies he could not harm, in addition he even had enemies he couldn't defend himself against (which was the horse archer, for example). Then I took a look at the horse archer, and saw that he had no enemy class that was particularly strong against him, and there was not a single class he could not attack. (Even shielders turn away sometimes. Way more often than horse archers ride into pikes)

What I want to say: the RPS-system only works if all classes have the same amount of other classes they rock or suck or have equal chances against. Or at least if the "sum" stays zero.

But you can never achieve this, due to the fact that the game still bases on history, and historic warfare wasn't build around an RPS-system.

I don't say that this is the reason against making the game more team based, in fact I support this gameplay direction wholeheartedly, but all I want to say that it is an incredibly difficult matter. If you don't do it carefully, you can break everything.

Balance in cRPG is finally on a good way now, as soon as ladders get removed from battle. Some classes still need some minor adjustments (in my eyes pikemen/hoplites and throwers could receive a small buff), but all in all it's quite good.

If you could make single horsemen more vulnerable (e.g. having a chance to get knocked of your still living horse, and so on), but groups of horsemen buff each other (e.g. increased shield bubble against ranged, higher horse armour and charge damage) you would have real cavalry attacks, and you would need walls of spearmen and pikemen to stop those, or they can trample through the entire enemy team. Which would be great fun, at least for my understanding of fun, and also a nice example of how less individual skill but more teamplay can improve gameplay. This could also make being cavalryman cheaper than it is now, so that we could eventually even see heavy cavalry that's no OP.

[Fluid]

Nobody really wants there to be a completely RPS solution, but as long as there's going to be a clear advantage based on weapon type, it should be something like this IMO:


Two-handers (axes, swords, etc.): Poor against charging cavalry, good/strong against shielded infantry (sword/axe respectively), great against defensive polearms, equal to offensive polearms.

Shielded one-handers (most/all of them): Bad against charging cavalry, generally poor against two-handers, great against defensive polearms, poor against offensive polearms.

Defensive polearms (long spear, pike, halberd): Great against charging cavalry, bad against shielded one-handers, poor against two-handers/offensive polearms.

Offensive polearms (bec, battlefork, longmaul): Poor against charging cavalry, good (great for the maul) against shielded one-handers, mostly equal to two-handers, and good against defensive polearms.

Archers/crossbowmen: Overall great against unshielded infantry, bad against shielded infantry, bad against charging cavalry.

Cavalry: Overall superiority when charging (except for defensive polearms), overall inferiority when stationary. Falls to teamwork but is good against stragglers and uncoordinated teams.

Throwing (with a shield): Great against archers/crossbowmen and unshielded infantry, okay against shielded infantry, poor against charging cavalry. Has less ammo capacity than bows/crossbows.


This doesn't take into account difference in armor or pierce/cut/blunt damage, just how the weapons would fight each other.
When stationary, a cavalryman doesn't have the same mobility as he would have on foot and when he falls off his horse, is completely vulnerable, hence them being generally weak to everything when still.
Just my suggestions, they might not be good for everyone.

[Joker86]

Yes, this is how it should be, and more or less is, at the moment. The only question is: if we look at the effectivity under the bottom line, will every class have the same value?