Throwing Nerf

[Noble Crassius]

The buy a shield argument didn't work for archers...just saying

[Tydeus]

Boohoo! Throwers are killing me! Nerf them!

Shut up, buy a shitty shield and laugh as you close the distance and murder them in melee because any dedicated thrower will have no ironflesh, at max 50-60 wpf in a melee weapon, and will rarely have more than 3 athletics because any good thrower has power throw 10 so you can two/three hit people with war darts.

You have a problem with lances? Buy a shitty shield or two, and watch them waste their only 2 lances on those shields...and then murder them

You have a problem with javelins?  See above

You have a problem with axes? Dodge them until you are close and use above shitty shield that requires no skill to use

You have a problem with darts/snowflakes/knives/rocks? BUY A DAMN SHIELD


With my thrower I laugh at all the 2h spammers that just run at me and get a lance in the chest or foot or where ever it actually hits them. I then cry as I see anyone with a shield coming right at me because unless the 2 lances I have break their shield...I am boned. With my 2hander, I again laugh as a thrower desperately tries to run away as I am faster than them, and soak up or dodge all their weapons and then murder them in melee.

In short...BUY A DAMN SHIELD

The buying a shield argument is terrible for two-handers, polearms and bows. Why? Well maybe because you are completely defenseless behind that shield.

Let's create a basic scenario that I see all the time. A thrower(you can substitute in any type of throwing weapon for this example) and any melee person are on the same team and the melee is acting as somewhat of a guard for the thrower. 'You' put on the shitty shield you speak of and the melee will destroy it in only a couple seconds, if not a single blow(actually several throwing weapons oneshot the lowest tier shields). At this point you're vulnerable to the thrower and the melee as you currently don't even have your weapon out. Obviously at this point you would pull out whatever melee weapon you had but then you'd be stuck in the same position if you didn't even have a shield except with possibly less health since your shield broke.

Or we can change the scenario up a bit, you use an elite cavalry shield instead, a rather decent shield that won't get one shot. So you pull out this elite cavalry shield and now you're making your way towards the thrower, but wait! The melee appears and now you have no way to attack either of them if you don't want to get raped by the thrower, so you drop your shield to reduce the total weight you're wearing and yet again, you're in the same position that you would be, if you didn't have the shield at all.

Sure you can argue that the shield would help you get in "close" range, but you don't ever need a shield to do that anyway. We all know throwing is just SO inaccurate that you have to use it in melee range, right?

Edit: You stated "sheild or two" at one point. This is completely unacceptable to -any- athletics build. Because of athletics mechanics, you simply cannot be hauling around that much weight.

[ThePoopy]

its actually 17% more damage at 100 wpf, but you're looking at a weapon that requires considerably less strength than a throwing lance... and the pierce damage for 2h isn't that great anymore. They're really apples and oranges. I wouldn't make a comparison between the two.

the whole thread is about nerfing throwing and when he compare the ~best~ 2h with the ~best~ throwing wep you say the 2h are to weak to compare with, while at the same time you try to defend throwing.
............

[Seawied]

the whole thread is about nerfing throwing and when he compare the ~best~ 2h with the ~best~ throwing wep you say the 2h are to weak to compare with, while at the same time you try to defend throwing.
............

No, I'm saying that 2h have more damaging attacks than the thrust. Don't put words in my mouth.

Also, stating that weapon is "the best" isn't true either. I wouldn't consider either of those weapons "the best" in their class.

[Spawny]

The buying a shield argument is terrible for two-handers, polearms and bows. Why? Well maybe because you are completely defenseless behind that shield.

Let's create a basic scenario that I see all the time. A thrower(you can substitute in any type of throwing weapon for this example) and any melee person are on the same team and the melee is acting as somewhat of a guard for the thrower. 'You' put on the shitty shield you speak of and the melee will destroy it in only a couple seconds, if not a single blow(actually several throwing weapons oneshot the lowest tier shields). At this point you're vulnerable to the thrower and the melee as you currently don't even have your weapon out. Obviously at this point you would pull out whatever melee weapon you had but then you'd be stuck in the same position if you didn't even have a shield except with possibly less health since your shield broke.

Or we can change the scenario up a bit, you use an elite cavalry shield instead, a rather decent shield that won't get one shot. So you pull out this elite cavalry shield and now you're making your way towards the thrower, but wait! The melee appears and now you have no way to attack either of them if you don't want to get raped by the thrower, so you drop your shield to reduce the total weight you're wearing and yet again, you're in the same position that you would be, if you didn't have the shield at all.

Sure you can argue that the shield would help you get in "close" range, but you don't ever need a shield to do that anyway. We all know throwing is just SO inaccurate that you have to use it in melee range, right?

Edit: You stated "sheild or two" at one point. This is completely unacceptable to -any- athletics build. Because of athletics mechanics, you simply cannot be hauling around that much weight.

So you basically want every 2h to be able to kill 2 players at once with no risk of getting killed?
You're alone against 2 people. OFC you're in trouble. Maybe if you find a teammate with a huscarl shield to hide behind, you can close in and murder the thrower while your teammate keeps the other guy busy or you kill the other guys while the shielder murders the thrower.
It's the same with 2 archers. You're not going to kill them if they don't stand on eachothers heads. Even as a shielder, you will get killed if they play it smart.

[Tydeus]

So you basically want every 2h to be able to kill 2 players at once with no risk of getting killed?
You're alone against 2 people. OFC you're in trouble. Maybe if you find a teammate with a huscarl shield to hide behind, you can close in and murder the thrower while your teammate keeps the other guy busy or you kill the other guys while the shielder murders the thrower.
It's the same with 2 archers. You're not going to kill them if they don't stand on eachothers heads. Even as a shielder, you will get killed if they play it smart.

You've managed to completely miss the point and attempt to put words in my mouth. I'm merely pointing out the reality of the uselessness of a shield for two-handers and polearm users. I've stated nothing referring to how 2hers should be able to kill 2 players at once with no risk.

And for your example, fighting 2 or more ranged units isn't very much like fighting 1 ranged and one melee. You will always be able to put the ranged and the melee on your screen at the same time, if you make it your goal to. With two ranged, you can't exactly do that. If you're fighting one of them and both are on your screen, they're not even trying to surround you. Meaning they aren't playing smart.

[Spawny]

You've managed to completely miss the point and attempt to put words in my mouth. I'm merely pointing out the reality of the uselessness of a shield for two-handers and polearm users. I've stated nothing referring to how 2hers should be able to kill 2 players at once with no risk.

And for your example, fighting 2 or more ranged units isn't very much like fighting 1 ranged and one melee. You will always be able to put the ranged and the melee on your screen at the same time, if you make it your goal to. With two ranged, you can't exactly do that. If you're fighting one of them and both are on your screen, they're not even trying to surround you. Meaning they aren't playing smart.

Not really. The way a 2h player should use a shield is to close up on ranged. When you get close enough, you drop the thing and pull out your weapon. Not that hard to do when facing a single ranged unit. When there's more of them (either more archers or melee), you can get help from more of your team too. If you can't, you're either flanking by yourself or your team got killed.
You're telling us the "buy a shield" argument doesn't work and give an example with more than 1 enemy vs just you.

Secondly, if you're fighting a melee and a ranged unit and they play it right (most of the time they do), the melee guy will move to your backside forcing you to turn around or get hit in the back. When you turn, guess what? The archer is now behind you. Even making you turn 90 degrees is enough to give his archer teammate a clear shot at you.

[Kophka]

Demanding that 2handers/polearmers buy a shield is the same thing as demanding cavalry to dismount and play infantry. That's not their class or build, and while it's a necessary thing, or rather, a smart way to play, it shouldn't be used as an argument in balance threads. That said, personally, I feel that 99% of throwing is just fine, and the people calling for a blanket nerf because they hate PT 11 players, or can't stand throwing lances need to look at the big picture, not what kills them personally. There's other solutions to the problem, but your normal jarid/jav/wardart player are just fine, leave us the hell alone. 

[Tydeus]

Not really. The way a 2h player should use a shield is to close up on ranged. When you get close enough, you drop the thing and pull out your weapon. Not that hard to do when facing a single ranged unit. When there's more of them (either more archers or melee), you can get help from more of your team too. If you can't, you're either flanking by yourself or your team got killed.
You're telling us the "buy a shield" argument doesn't work and give an example with more than 1 enemy vs just you.

Secondly, if you're fighting a melee and a ranged unit and they play it right (most of the time they do), the melee guy will move to your backside forcing you to turn around or get hit in the back. When you turn, guess what? The archer is now behind you. Even making you turn 90 degrees is enough to give his archer teammate a clear shot at you.

When facing a single ranged, sure. How often is it actually a single ranged not accompanied by any allies? It's rare. Just as rare as you not having any allies of your own. Though even if you outnumber them by a few, battle doesn't just come down to 1v1s, it's not as simple as 10v10 = 10 1v1s. That's just not the case.

It's not that the melee guy will move to your backside, it's that he'll try to move there. You actually have the advantage in this situation(trying to keep both on your screen) because the enemy melee can't see behind himself to tell where the ranged is moving, while you can. If you're a sword and board all you have to do is simply back pedal while you fight the melee and there isn't much of anything he can do to get around you.

Now, if the enemy melee gets to one of your sides and runs parallel to you and doesn't bother trying to attack and you're a 2her with your shield out to take cover from the ranged, since you can't attack him and get him to slow down by forcing him to block, he'll probably get behind you rather quickly.

I'd be more than willing to demonstrate this to you on a duel server, I've done fights like this several times. If you're actively fighting each other, you will not be able to get behind your opponent if he's only back pedaling, period. If you have no way to attack, you have no way to slow your opponents movement down, meaning they can get behind you easily. This specifically shows another disadvantage to using a shield with a two-handed weapon or a polearm.

Regardless, this part specifically of how to pull off a 1v2 just amounts to theory crafting. My point was that in battle, things aren't as simple as people are making it out to be in this thread. Simply having a shield doesn't save you and it can hurt you as well(I gave multiple examples to show this).

I feel like I should really reiterate the point earlier in this post to make sure no one misses it. Battle where you have a 10v10 in a small area does not simply amount to 10, 1v1s. It's just not that simple. The idea of fighting that thrower in a 1v2 is more realistic than fighting him 1v1.

[MrExxc]

I just got one-shotted by a throwing lance, I'm lvl 30, 5 IF, and was wearing 40k stuff, with heraldic Tabard. I mean c'mon?!

The guy obviously was a dedicated thrower, so he carried 8 lances. Couldn't we limitate the amount of throwing ammo? I mean where the hell does he put his 8 lances while running?

Now obviously this is a game and after all we do carry ladders... But in one way restraining the amount of ammo might nerf them kind of, because I do think that a throwing lance thrown at full speed can one shot a man whatever he might be wearing (except maybe full plate).

Same is to the guys who carry like 20 axes of course...

[Tydeus]

I just got one-shotted by a throwing lance, I'm lvl 30, 5 IF, and was wearing 40k stuff, with heraldic Tabard. I mean c'mon?!

The guy obviously was a dedicated thrower, so he carried 8 lances. Couldn't we limitate the amount of throwing ammo? I mean where the hell does he put his 8 lances while running?

Now obviously this is a game and after all we do carry ladders... But in one way restraining the amount of ammo might nerf them kind of, because I do think that a throwing lance thrown at full speed can one shot a man whatever he might be wearing (except maybe full plate).

Same is to the guys who carry like 20 axes of course...

So you're saying a Throwing lance, when thrown, should be more powerful than a Greatsword with the weight of its user behind it? To be honest, a throwing lance couldn't 1shot someone unless it hit a vital. Ever try throwing one before? They don't have nearly as much penetration as a bow and arrow or a crossbow, unless you ARC the jav. Meaning you throw it with at least a 45 degree angle and let gravity do the work(meaning you have zero accuracy). This isn't how Javs or lances are thrown in crpg though, they're thrown directly ahead, parallel to the ground.

Balancing a throwing lance by only allowing 1 per stack still wouldn't balance that ONE throwing lance.

It's 16 throwing axes for a total of only 20 weight. And that's the most realistic weight. Two Throwing Lances with a length of 130 only have a combined weight of 3, Jarids and Spears only have 1 weight per ammo.

[Seawied]

I just got one-shotted by a throwing lance, I'm lvl 30, 5 IF, and was wearing 40k stuff, with heraldic Tabard. I mean c'mon?!

The guy obviously was a dedicated thrower, so he carried 8 lances. Couldn't we limitate the amount of throwing ammo? I mean where the hell does he put his 8 lances while running?

Now obviously this is a game and after all we do carry ladders... But in one way restraining the amount of ammo might nerf them kind of, because I do think that a throwing lance thrown at full speed can one shot a man whatever he might be wearing (except maybe full plate).

Same is to the guys who carry like 20 axes of course...

I have a similar build on one character, and I frequently get 1 shot by melee weapons. Why do throwing lances need a nerf when a melee weapon can do the same amount of damage, minus ammo limits?

[Nemeth]

I have a similar build on one character, and I frequently get 1 shot by melee weapons. Why do throwing lances need a nerf when a melee weapon can do the same amount of damage, minus ammo limits?

I would love to see your build then, because there is no way you are gonna get "frequently one shot" with anything close to what MrExxc posted.

[Seawied]

I would love to see your build then, because there is no way you are gonna get "frequently one shot" with anything close to what MrExxc posted.

Its not as difficult as you would think. They just need a well laid hit. Here's the damage formula


maximum potential damage =1 * weapon base damage * power strike bonus * weapon profiency bonus * speed bonus + strength bonus

We will use a non-heirloomed great maul wielder with strength of 24, power strike of 8, and weapon proficiency of 150 to calculate the damage
121.945375= 1(45 (1+0.64) * (1+150/200 * .015) * (1+0.50)+ (24-14))

that's about 122 raw damage before armor is taken into effect. This is also from a strength influenced build, not a pure strength build like most throwers are limited to.


Lets calculate the damage after armor. Heraldic mail has body armor of 40. For simplicity's sake, we will assume he hits the torso of the character with a side swing. If this were an overhead attack, he would have a higher damage bonus and would most likely hit the head, resulting in even more damage.


maximum remaining damage = potential damage - 0.5 * armor value * soak factor (formula courtesy of Urist)
Blunt carries a soak factor of 0.5, unless this has been changed by the development team for c-rpg.
112= 122 - (0.5 * 40 * .05)

Final damage= 112



Lets calculate how much life my main character is.

My main character is currently a level 26 polearm character, with 18 strength and 6 IF.
Health is calculated the following way
Final Health=Strength - 3 + (Iron Flesh * 2) +Base health
62= 18 - 3 + (6 * 2) + 35


Remaining life after being hit by a well placed swing.

62 - 112= One Dead Seawied



This was calculated from a swing of a strength leaning character (not a pure strength build character) with a decent speed bonus.

[Nemeth]

Well obviously if you take one of the most damaging blunt weapon, combine it with 24 str and 50% speed bonus (if I read the formula correctly), you can die in one hit. But that is expected from a weapon most people pack with str build for the crushthrough. The question wasn't if you can die in one hit though, but how often do you actually die in one hit.