Axes: Polearm vs 2-Handed

[Xant]

Your reasoning fails, Jarlek, because nobody is whining that "2h has no weapon that does as much damage as polearms". There is no weapon comparable to GLA, for example, in 2h category. People are talking about the best-tier, most used polearms vs the best-tier, most used 2handers. You have to take all the other things into account as well. It doesn't do much good if you have a weapon that does 2000 damage but has reach of 1 and speed of -3. 2h has lots of shitty weapons with high damage, yes, but polearms have lots of good weapons with high damage.

Do a comparison between Danish, German, SoW and Greatsword vs Great long axe, long war axe, poleaxe, german poleaxe and elegant poleaxe. GLB (46 cut) and Flamberge (46 cut) aren't even toptier, just expensive.

So no, your post certainly doesn't show how "stupid the QQ is."

[Leshma]

Polearms are OP because when you put your points in polearms you can use wide variety of weapons and none of them is worse than best 2H weapons have to offer, swords.

[Jarlek]

Your reasoning fails, Jarlek, because nobody is whining that "2h has no weapon that does as much damage as polearms". There is no weapon comparable to GLA, for example, in 2h category. People are talking about the best-tier, most used polearms vs the best-tier, most used 2handers. You have to take all the other things into account as well. It doesn't do much good if you have a weapon that does 2000 damage but has reach of 1 and speed of -3. 2h has lots of shitty weapons with high damage, yes, but polearms have lots of good weapons with high damage.

Do a comparison between Danish, German, SoW and Greatsword vs Great long axe, long war axe, poleaxe, german poleaxe and elegant poleaxe. GLB (46 cut) and Flamberge (46 cut) aren't even toptier, just expensive.

So no, your post certainly doesn't show how "stupid the QQ is."

I'm guessing you're talking about my old post, right? The one I quoted? Yeah, people haven't really complained about polearm damage here. Except Teeth in this quote beneath.

I'd say the main advantage is the damage, but this is true.

As I said in my first response to this, it's just completely wrong. 2handers deals the most damage, and I dug up this old post of mine so I didn't have to do a new comparison. You are obviously right in that you can't compare damage alone. Reach, speed and all that matters just as much. I completely agree on that. But if that's the problem (having a lot of damage while still being fast, long or what-have-you-not) then they should have mentioned THAT and not a "Polearms do way more damage than 2handed weapons". I want more that people complain about the RIGHT thing instead of complaining about things that are completely wrong or simply not true. Same as I would object if people started complaining about the reach of 1handers being the longest in the game or the staffs being the fastest. It's not true, check shit before you complain. You can complain about staffs being fast, but don't come and say they are the fastest.

And you asked me to compare the greatswords with the top-tier polearms? What I see is the long axes having more damage, but no stab and lower reach; and the poleaxes with same-ish damage, slightly longer reach, much shorter stab, but the stab is balanced back with more damage. Do you mind pointing out exactly where the big imbalances are?
I also see you didn't name the Claymore. Any reason to that? I usually use the Sword of War or German Greatsword. Haven't used the claymore that much.

Sorry if I repeat myself. It's late here and I'm tired. Hope you got the point.

PS: I wouldn't say that 2h has a lot of shitty weapons with high damage. As mentioned the morningstar is pretty good, so is the flamberge (yes, I consider it a top-tier, buy-me-kills weapon) and you can say what you will about the Great Maul, but it does have it's uses and it is the highest damage dealing weapon in the game (against realistic use of armour).

[BlackMilk]

Anyway, let's try to answer you, bit by bit:I've been playing M&B since the original came out and have been playing since then. Yeah, I remember when they changed it, but that was for cRPG only. As Gurnisson and Christo mentioned as I wrote this, you also got the time AND the changes wrong. Morningstar is still dastardly OP in native, as it always was, and unless you are talking about original M&B (which I thought you were talking about) you got it completely wrong with when it came out.

Well I've been playing native today and I can ensure you that there is no such thing as crushthrough on sideswings for a morningstar, atleast for infantry. And as I stated above there was a thing called Multiplayer Beta and iirc that was when crushthrough on sideswings was taken out for Rhodock infantry.

What does this have to do with anything anyway? I remembered when it was super OP, how does that apply to me thinking it is still too powerful for its price?
Sigh. Try to read better next time. I'm not comparing them vis-a-vis each other. I was making a not that the morningstar does more pierce damage than the highest damaging one-handed weapon. Just to show how powerfull it really is. I never said 2handers shouldn't do more damage than one-handers. I was trying to put things in perspective. Do you get it now?

I don't. 2handers should do more damage than one-handers and so does the morningstar...so?

And jeeeeez luise. Of course I know about the penalty when used in 1h mode. What does this have to do with anything? Did I mention it or make a point about it? Did I ever talk about the morningstar used as a one-handed weapon? You see, I can also drag in unrelated information, reminding you that you never mentioned it and then using it as an argument about how wrong you are.

Ehm I thought you were talking about the 1h mode of the morningstar cause you....compared it to the other one-handers damagewise. Cause if you with the penalty the mornigstar as a 1h weapon does less damage than the military pick or steel pick while also being ALOT slower. (Damage penalty was like 30% to speed and damage wasn't it?)

How am I the whiner here? I'm saying I love the Morningstar because it is OP, making me easily decimate everyone, I say that I would like a new 2h axe added to the game, and I say that I DON'T see a problem with the unbalanced tag. How can I be the whiner when I'm saying I like how everything is now? The only thing close to whining I've done in this thread are about idiots who didn't get my first post, i.e. the 2h axes aren't super-awesome-omfg! because they are cheap. You wouldn't compare the Wooden Stick with the Flamberge, now would you?. Yet still retards keep comparing the 2h axes with the poleaxes. It's just plain retarded.

kk nvm then :3

First of all. Morningstar isn't really shorter than most one handers. Most one handers are less than the 82 length of the morningstar AND the morningstar has a bigger bonus from animations in all but the right-to-left swing. Don't believe me? Count the number of 1hs with less than 82 reach. Sure. The most USED one handed weapons probably have an average of 90-ish. I'll be fair to point that out (see? We don't have to only point out the stuff that support our own views. More people should try that), but that is a point that is outside of what we are talking about. You say it is short, and I say yes. I agree. But it's NOT shorter than "most" 1handers. Agreed? That being said. It isn't short enough to be a problem. It is still viable with reach on all it's swings unlike, let's say, the iberian mace. Because of it's short length (70) and 1h animations, you kinda have to use the right-to-left swing most of the time. This isn't a problem with the Morningstar as all it's swings are roughly the same length, and they all have a decent length.
  I'd also like to point out that the bec. The polearm equivalent of the morningstar, is just as short. Yet, does anyone really have anything to complain about the reach of any of them? They aren't THAT short that it matters. Does anyone really have a problem with the length of the morningstar/bec?

I certainly do have a problem with the length of the morningstar. I get outreached my MANY one-handers, and apart from GM and Mallet all two-handers and polearms. You really got to be a dedicated w-key hero (like Corrado) to use the morningstar is what I sometimes think.
Last gen I've been using the steel pick and I don't think that I used the right to left swing once in the whole gen. Just overhead and left to right swing spam. Lame but succesfull.
duh, dude the Bec is 120 length and the Morningstar 82, I don't see how they are equal in length. Yes, the morningstar get's the weird 2h length bonus, but still...

Secondly. You say it has "a high Weight which is Great for stuns and shitty for the Speed". I'm sorry to inform you about this, but weapon weight does not affect it's speed. If you are talking about MOVEMENT speed, then I see what you say, but I have to disagree. 3.7 weight isn't a lot. Anyone who has used a shield knows that 3.7 is NOTHING. Most shields are 6+ weight, and even there you can get some decent speed. Only when the weight goes to 8+ you really start feeling the weight. Long story short. A weapon with 3.7 weight doesn't slow you down a lot. Nowhere NEAR the ammount armour or a shield would slow you down.

Who cares about the weight then lol. It's only 0,7 more than on the SoW. Also : Isn't it like that : More weight -> less effective wpf? So in the end the weight slows you down a tad.

Thirdly. Bonus against shield is a plus. That is correct. Unbalanced tag is a minus. That is correct. But the Unbalanced tag is WAY too little a minus to balance out the Bonus against shield. Or anything else, for that matter. The only thing "Unbalanced" does is making you unable to stop the attack after you started it. Yeah, sucks in some situations like Leshma said (enemy died and you can't stop the swing, so you hit your teammate), but there really isn't that many places where it will be a problem or liability. It's a bad thing for sure, but very, very minor. You say it is "difficult to play with", then I have to say "No, it isn't. L2p." No offense Blacky, but it really isn't hard to use them.First of all, it's not a "cheap" weapon, it's just not an expensive one. It's in the middle (and I think it should be in the lower end of expensive territory).
It is also high damaging. But NO WAY is it a "slow" weapon. It's 92 speed, same as the greatswords and only 3 of the axes are faster. It isn't a katana, but it's nowhere near "slow". You also call it short, but as I mentioned earlier, it isn't short enough to be an issue.  It defiently isn't "really Short weapon" like you said. Sure, you get outreached by most 2handers and many polearms, but you still got more than enough range to keep some distance with. Lastly, you call it "very difficult to play with". That's BS. Yeah, it's not the EASIEST weapon in the game (Greatswords), but it isn't the hardest weapons either. Personally I would put it somewhere in the middle on the "how easy to use" rankings. You wouldn't want to use it as a bad player, but you haven't got the be a badass to use it properly either. Case in point: HRE loves this weapon.

Are we talking about the morningstar in native or in crpg? In native it is easy to use cause you just have to hold one strike (overhead) and crush through anything. In crpg things are different. If you compare the length to the damage it isnt really good at all. Katana gets like 101 speed at 95 length, a greatsword 92 speed at 123/124 length. You get my point there?

PS: For the love of God. Please try to at least THINK about correct spelling and grammar next time. It hurts my brain to look at those mistakes!

Not even considering this.

I also found the old post where I show which weapon category has the highest damaging weapons. Making a new post to keep it seperate from my reply to Blacky.

It's a good read and really shows how stupid the "QQ polearms are so OP and does so much more damage than 2handers" whining is.

(click to show/hide)

Jarlek I get your point there but Id like to add one thing : The stab is important too. I would say that polearms to more damage than 2handers cause eg. the Morningstar has (38+38+38+0)/4 damage but the bec has (34+34+34+26)/4 damage. Not sure if its correct but makes a whole lot more sense to me

[Vibe]

Greate axe off horseback omnom

[B3RS3RK]

The Great axe is a formidable weapon.Leshma, I know you are a good player, but I guess you are just too used to your greatsword hm?

Any good weapon can be excellent in the hands of a player who knows how to use it, and any shitty weapon can become a good one.

The 2h axes really are the first type.

High cut damage with shield-breaking ability are 2 really big advantages..The unbalanced tag is no problem if you know how to handle it.

[Digglez]

all your stupid arguements dont mean much if you look at the numbers.  Humans will always gravitate toward the path of least resistance.

poleaxes outnumber 2h easily 5:1...theres a reason, the 2h suck

[Aleta]

all your stupid arguements dont mean much if you look at the numbers.  Humans will always gravitate toward the path of least resistance.

poleaxes outnumber 2h easily 5:1...theres a reason, the 2h suck

What servers are you playing on? NA? Since I'm playing on EU and on average I this dividing among the different class types:

• Archers 40-50%
• 1hand + shield 20-30%
• 2handers 10-15%
• Polearms 10-15%

This is an attempt of giving some ish vaules of what normally is on battle servers. There is no big difference between the amount of 2handers or polearms, but I'd say it's leaning a bit more towards the 2handed great swords over polearms in general. (Danish greatsword is used a LOT) But as you can see archers take up nearly half the amount of players. Oops, I forgot cavalry o.O they are very fluctuating in amount based on the different maps, but on horse maps I'd say about 10% of the players are cav.

[Tzar]

What servers are you playing on? NA? Since I'm playing on EU and on average I this dividing among the different class types:

• Archers 40-50%
• 1hand + shield 20-30%
• 2handers 10-15%
• Polearms 10-15%

all your stupid arguements dont mean much if you look at the numbers.  Humans will always gravitate toward the path of least resistance.

Buuh Buuuuh!! nerf Archery!! buuu!!

[Leshma]

Any good weapon can be excellent in the hands of a player who knows how to use it, and any shitty weapon can become a good one.

That is correct. I can successfully use Practice Longsword, Shortened Military Scythe, Great Axe, Mallet, name it. But that doesn't mean Great Axe is awesome weapon for infantry player. Can't really feel the difference in actual combat between Great Axe and cheap Battle Axe, that's how good it is.

[Casimir]

2h shield breakers are fine as they are, removing the unbalanced tag would make them far to powerful.

Leave that for the polearms, at least they they have something other than pole stagger to make up for the derp reach and animations.

[Memento_Mori]

all your stupid arguements dont mean much if you look at the numbers.  Humans will always gravitate toward the path of least resistance.

poleaxes outnumber 2h easily 5:1...theres a reason, the 2h suck

What servers are you playing on? NA? Since I'm playing on EU and on average I this dividing among the different class types:

• Archers 40-50%
• 1hand + shield 20-30%
• 2handers 10-15%
• Polearms 10-15%

This is an attempt of giving some ish vaules of what normally is on battle servers. There is no big difference between the amount of 2handers or polearms, but I'd say it's leaning a bit more towards the 2handed great swords over polearms in general. (Danish greatsword is used a LOT) But as you can see archers take up nearly half the amount of players. Oops, I forgot cavalry o.O they are very fluctuating in amount based on the different maps, but on horse maps I'd say about 10% of the players are cav.

I think he's talking about POLE AXES and 2h AXES.

[Malaclypse]

I think he's talking about POLE AXES and 2h AXES.

Yeah, thread awareness fail. It even says it right in the title.

[B3RS3RK]

That is correct. I can successfully use Practice Longsword, Shortened Military Scythe, Great Axe, Mallet, name it. But that doesn't mean Great Axe is awesome weapon for infantry player. Can't really feel the difference in actual combat between Great Axe and cheap Battle Axe, that's how good it is.

Talking about that, I cant really feel the difference between the practice Longsword and the Greatswords either.

Oh, sure, more damage and a bit more length...And the practice longsowrd even has more speed!Awesome!

Ditch your greatswords, people!Practice longswords are just as good because I cant feel the difference!

The difference is the 6(!) Speed and 3 length the Great axe has in advantage of the battle axe.Oh and slightly more Damage, too.


Just look, the Great axe costs about 6,6k gold.Even the CHEAPEST polearm axe is more expensive than that(only by 300g, but it is).

This means you can´t just magically expect it to be a better weapon.Your infamous greatswords cost over 15k, more than double the price of the great axe.


Compared to the other weapons in his price category, the Great axe is just as good a weapon as any of them(Well, the morningstar might be slightly better...).

[Leshma]

Speed isn't much of a factor when both weapons have unbalanced tag. And you surely gonna feel those 3 more length...

I rarely can feel the difference in length between Danish GS and Greatsword and that's 4 length difference.

We are talking about battle, not dueling. For duels greatswords are better but in battle having polearm proficiency owns.