Have long stabbing weapons dumbed down the game?

[Joker86]

I think teamplay should always be more important than "duels". I mean, after all it's a battle, and numbers should count in battles. I see no reason to cater those veterans/no-lifers who win fights against 5+ people on a regular base, as they definitely don't represent the majority. I don't think any good about a game which is fun for 10%, and the remaining 90% are working to have that fun the upper 10% already enjoy.

That said, I also think that "dumbing down" is the entirely wrong expression. It is not dumbed down, rather the opposite, because now not only skill, but also teamplay matters. First of all you need to influence the preconditions of a fight by good teamplay, so that the advantages and numbers are about even, and then, when two equal groups meet, the skill will decide which group will win. So skill still matters a lot, but it's not the only decisive factor. Don't tell me this is dumbing down the game. A game which determines the winner by pure reflexes is dumb, like Counter Strike or Call of Duty.

Edit: I forgot something, but Teeth wrote it down a few posts below: it's not the long stabbing weapons which brought the change, they always existed (most of them). It's the slower gameplay, the long weapons are only the reaction. But I would recommend to only increase it slightly, for the reasons I told in my first two paragraphs. Don't make this game a stage for no-life skill monsters and their one-man-show.

[Spanish]

I love 1v groups and actually find it more challenging to fight with teammates because I have trouble predicting where they will be and end up getting team hit a lot.

But fighting a bunch of hoplites and pikes really isn't that much different than fighting a group without these weapons, it still comes down to who's using them. The other day in community I was soloing a group of 5 or 6 guys for a couple rounds then went to siege and got brutally murdered by kutts team tactics and was forced to try and split them up and kill them one at a time. Weapons do matter but to an extent obviously a guy with a stick isn't likely to be very effective but it all depends on the person who's using it, a good example was the Assasino_ATS who just ran around stabbing everybody with a long dagger.

Where I'm goin with this is that pikes and long spears sure are good for teamwork but I think a group without spears is just as effective and this is the way Crpg is going as more people realize they win if they stay together and as the community gets smaller the talent level gets higher as the newbies leave first.

Edit: +1 joker said it way better dumbing Down is the wrong word. And I have a life! D:

[Overdriven]

Good melee players can still win/do hellish damage against groups of hoplites and pikes. Naturally only the best should be able to do that, so in standard battle it kind of makes sense that group work and long supporting weapons will win over soloers. Satisfaction comes from conering a 2h with 2 hoplites and taking it in turns to stab in into a stun lock till death.

In all reality though, I think this raises the skill ceiling. Now you have to be very good in order to win over groups. And that's just as it should be. Numbers should win against the average player.

I know it took most of PL with hoplite shields and spears to finally pen Chase and his awlpike in on one particular map. We actually had to surround him to stand a chance against him, otherwise it was death 1 by 1. And that's a perfect demonstration of how a good player can still win, but teamplay and organisation should beat it if executed well.

[Teeth]

I'm almost feeling flattered that I see an enormous increase in longspears since I started using it a week ago. But I know there must be a different reason for it, cause well, Chase was a lot better than I was. I would like an explanation of the sudden increase.

As for the OP's thesis. I think the mass employment of long stabbing weapons is a sign that the game is too slow. To effectively and quickly kill a lot of people, a long support weapon is really effective in these days of high average blocking skill. Longspears etc. are extremely effective in making people failblock their other attackers or the stab.

Time to speed up the game.

[Osiris]

making the game faster doesnt really show whos more skilled. only who has better reflexes and a better pc/connection

[Teeth]

making the game faster doesnt really show whos more skilled. only who has better reflexes and a better pc/connection

Reflexes are part of skill I'd say, the mod has been much faster in the past and native is still faster. A bit of a speed-up wouldn't harm anyone.

[Elindor]

Well apparently WPF curve is being reworked so maybe it will get faster, who knows.

[Rhekimos]

A bit of a speed-up wouldn't harm anyone.

The whole mod shutting down wouldn't harm anyone. Except maybe GTX.

All the rest would find something other to do with their time, but remain unharmed.
 

[BlackMilk]

Well apparently WPF curve is being reworked so maybe it will get faster, who knows.

Yeah, and Strat 2 release date is December 2010. They announced it months ago i bet that they are not reworking the wpf curve at the moment or anytime soon...

[Piok]

Today I saw biggest number of steel pick ever on EU1

[Thomek]

(click to show/hide)

It's not just long stabbing weapons, it's long weapons in general. Length is worth too much, especially with all the ganging up that people do. Take the most effective weapons right now and compare their stats to each other. The one thing almost all of them have in common, is length. I don't really think these weapons need a huge nerf, but there is certainly a disparity of effectiveness that is directly related to weapon length, and that is an issue.

Glaive
weapon length: 160
weight: 2.8
difficulty: 16
speed rating: 90
weapon length: 160
thrust damage: 22 pierce
swing damage: 39 cut

Hafted Blade
weapon length: 132
weight: 1.7
difficulty: 13
speed rating: 94
weapon length: 132
thrust damage: 20 pierce
swing damage: 36 cut

Four speed is somehow worth 30 length, 3 cut damage and 2 pierce? Really? I know the hafted blade is just a shitty weapon in general and greatly in need of a buff, but that's a bit excessive.

Danish Greatsword
weapon length: 124
weight: 2.5
difficulty: 15
speed rating: 92
weapon length: 124
thrust damage: 24 pierce
swing damage: 40 cut

Two-Handed Sword
weapon length: 110
weight: 2.2
difficulty: 12
speed rating: 95
weapon length: 110
thrust damage: 22 pierce
swing damage: 38 cut

Three speed for 2 cut and 10 length? No thanks, length, even if it is "only" 10 is way too effective, especially because you have to think about all the people that you're now able to out-range because of that 10 extra length.

As weapons get progressively shorter, the ratio of speed:length and Damage:length needs to be increased as compensation for increased loss in effectiveness due to being so much shorter than the average. It doesn't make sense that 5 length should always translate into x damage. The difference in effectiveness between 150 length and 160 length polearm weapons for example, is rather minimal but the difference between 110 length and a 120 length two-handed weapons, is quite large. The 150 length weapon has a range advantage on almost all of the weapons that the 160 length weapon has, but the 120 length weapon has a range advantage over the majority of the weapons in crpg while the 110 length weapon is only average or slightly above.

Tydeus, thank you for advocating this fact. I've said this since 1 1/2 years, but to deaf ears..

(click to show/hide)

Perhaps because I was advocating a (righteous) katana buff that we eventually got at the same time!

Anyway.. Really really hope the balancers take to their senses and re-think the balance formula. At one hand, they want "realism" on the other hand, what is the most effective are the conan swords..

[Butan]

A game which determines the winner by pure reflexes is dumb, like Counter Strike or Call of Duty.

There is good positioning/strategy and numbers in those two games, it just happens with weapons capable of dealing damage with the speed and range of a bullet

[Vodner]

A game which determines the winner by pure reflexes is dumb, like Counter Strike or Call of Duty.

There's a lot more to winning a 1vN (or a 1v1 for that matter) than reflexes. Being able to block quickly is important, but footwork, timing, and unpredictability are all also very important. Personally I feel that player skill should be the most important element of any player vs player game.

For that matter, Counter-Strike is also far from a purely reflex driven game (at least in organized play). Reflexes are important (mandatory, really), but there's an enormous amount of effort that goes into predicting what your opponents are doing and setting yourself up accordingly.

[Joker86]

There is good positioning/strategy and numbers in those two games, it just happens with weapons capable of dealing damage with the speed and range of a bullet

There's a lot more to winning a 1vN (or a 1v1 for that matter) than reflexes. Being able to block quickly is important, but footwork, timing, and unpredictability are all also very important. Personally I feel that player skill should be the most important element of any player vs player game.

For that matter, Counter-Strike is also far from a purely reflex driven game (at least in organized play). Reflexes are important (mandatory, really), but there's an enormous amount of effort that goes into predicting what your opponents are doing and setting yourself up accordingly.

Still, with good reflexes, you will get out of most situations. I saw enough videos where someone was shot from behind, then turned around within a split second and placed a headshot. And not only once. In a game I would have designed, letting someone shoot you into the back would mean sure death.

If we assume that a game has only the two factors teamwork and skill, then I would say the importance of teamwork has to be at least 51% or more, skill has to determine the rest. If you have less than 50% teamwork, well skilled players won't need teamwork at all, and a whole aspect of the gameplay concept is being dropped. If a game wants to promote teamwork, the importance of it must be 51% or more. I would say teamwork importance of Counter Strike and Call of Duty is about 10-20%. Rest are reflexes and aiming. Sure, it helps, but if your aiming is mad enough you can run around the map like a headless chicken, as you are close to having an aimbot.

[Vodner]

Still, with good reflexes, you will get out of most situations. I saw enough videos where someone was shot from behind, then turned around within a split second and placed a headshot. And not only once. In a game I would have designed, letting someone shoot you into the back would mean sure death.

That very rarely happens in high level games. There's a reason clutch ace videos are enjoyed so much - clutches are a rarity. At high level play everybody has great reflexes and aim, so you can't rely on those alone.

In that example, the first player screwed up by failing to score headshots. His advantage of getting the drop on his opponent would have led to a kill if he did. Positioning is important, but aim is also important.

If you have less than 50% teamwork, well skilled players won't need teamwork at all, and a whole aspect of the gameplay concept is being dropped.

Only if the teams are stacked skill-wise. And frankly, if they are stacked, then the stacked team should win (and the autobalance should be improved).