Revert the turnspeed nerf for most weapons

[rustyspoon]

i'm glad we've come to this agreement, rustyspoons. if you haven't been on duel in "a couple of months" then why exactly are you telling me i'm shit at dueling/aiming overheads in duels/lecturing on how easy it is to hit an overhead in a duel?

I never said you were bad at dueling, I doubt I've even seen you duel. I was commenting on the video. In the video is someone obviously doing the wrong things in a situation that is not even a duel, most likely done to overly exaggerate the issue then saying that overheads are broken because of it.

Are overheads harder now? Yes, but I definitely wouldn't say they're broken. They're high risk, high reward attacks. Do I miss sometimes with overheads? Of course, but it's not like they are incredibly difficult to do.

I don't think that the turn speed nerf was the best way to fix the initial problem, but it's not that big a deal. I also main 1-hand which was the hardest hit by the turn-speed nerf.

[CrazyCracka420]

Two things,

Overheads are pretty terrible after the turn nerf

However...

The person was chambering where the person was at the time, not trying to anticipate where they were going to be. 

The turn rate nerf should just be removed (IMO), or only applied to the weapons it was meant to hurt (mauls/long pointy sticks).  For mauls it wasn't so much that you could helicopter spin and hit anyone in your circumference, the problem was more that the maul would be at the swingers knees, or worse on the ground and you would still be able to count a hit on someone.

[San]

I just think the active hitboxes while dragging along the ground should be removed. That way, it doesn't matter how much you spin when your sweetspot has already ended after your swing missed on your screen.

[Zlisch_The_Butcher]

My basic idea of solving that problem would be to significantly speed up the dynamic, connectable part of attack animations while compensating this with a longer, harmless release time window(without turn limitation) before the swing starts. With that the old silly 360° overheads and stabs would be impossible because the turn limitation would be there during the actual swing. However one would still be able to aim one's attack properly because the time window where the turn limitation is active would be very short.

It would probably be the best to make the swing duration independed from the weapon speed which is different than it is handled currently. With that even slow weapons will have a short connectable time window
of their attacks. In balance their ready time and inactive release time(just after releasing a swing) could be longer.

Should definitely not be applied to stabs though, 2h stabs are pretty brokenly strong already.

[Casimir]

Seems like a dumb situation to use an overhead in...

[Elindor]

Using overheads did get pretty weird after the nerf, I do recall that.   Since then landing them has become a bit hit or miss and it also appears sometimes when I think Ive moved clear of an overhead from someone else, it still hits me - kinda like in Kulin's gif examples.

Was under the impression that the nerf was mainly meant to hinder the jump spin stab that very long polearms were doing - which they still do, just not maybe as effectively. 

Not 100% sure on the details of the nerf and why it was made but I am concerned that it "missed the mark"

[Kafein]

Anticipating in that situation is bullshit. The running guy is just doing that, running. Since he isn't blocking, he's at sprint speed, which makes him pretty hard to anticipate. The fact that in cRPG everybody is an inertialess mosquito with a jetpack (aka even when at max speed you can do a 180 turn without losing speed) doesn't help.

[Kaoklai]

Hi, my name's Rusty and I'm barely decent with a shield and trash without one.  Therefore I like to take to the forums and argue for horrible design decisions by implying that I'm good at the nerfed attack in question.  This appeals to me because it makes me feel special and I would be equally terrible if the turnspeed nerf were reverted anyway, so I benefit at least emotionally from the nerf remaining.  Fighting with more than two viable attack directions is too complicated for me, so don't expect me to address that either.  Also, I'm dumb and say things like "Joe Louis was slow for a boxer" and "it's unfair that 12 year olds have faster reflexes than me."

And what's up with stun stab these days?  Seems like half the time I block a stab, the enemy locks up for two seconds and I get a free hit in.  Clearly, after the turnspeed nerf cRPG combat was becoming too dynamic so the devs decided that one of the [nerfed] attacks should give your enemy a free hit when attempted. 

[Pentecost]

My basic idea of solving that problem would be to significantly speed up the dynamic, connectable part of attack animations while compensating this with a longer, harmless release time window(without turn limitation) before the swing starts. With that the old silly 360° overheads and stabs would be impossible because the turn limitation would be there during the actual swing. However one would still be able to aim one's attack properly because the time window where the turn limitation is active would be very short.

It would probably be the best to make the swing duration independed from the weapon speed which is different than it is handled currently. With that even slow weapons will have a short connectable time window
of their attacks. In balance their ready time and inactive release time(just after releasing a swing) could be longer.

Unless I'm understanding you incorrectly, you would definitely still be able to helicopter stab with a pike/long spear in the wake of these changes. Unless you also introduced a turn speed penalty for holding an attack, you would just need to hold your thrust until you reached near the end of your spin before releasing, as opposed to releasing halfway to two-thirds of the way through like you do now.

Also, is it too complicated to just tie turn speed to a combination of the weapon's weight and length? It's simpler than what you're suggesting, and it would actually give players a reason to consider using shorter and lighter weapons over longer and heavier ones.

[Uumdi]

You know we cooooooould just revert the change for overheads only.  Thrusts are still accurate and connect well, since the low time to execute the readied attack.


Revert the change for overheads only, cmon guys whaddya say?  The weapons where its problematic are generally thrust only.  God forbid the heavy lance can overhead the way it used to.

[CrazyCracka420]

The nerf was two fold (in my mind) to address long pointy weapons being used to run away, chamber, jump and stab (gaining speed bonus to hit the target, which you would likely not been able to do without the spin stab).  HOWEVER, this was just as big of a deal with the mauls being able to helicopter spin and hit people after the weapon animation was in the dirt.

[Grumbs]

The way you could adjust a maul by rotating into people's feet at the last second and doing full damage was crazy before. If mauls were somehow made harder to land like now I could justify some reduction of the nerf. But personally I feel like the game just got harder to play, and people had learned a particular style that just didn't work anymore. So people just need to get good with the new style imo, and not feel like they should be able to pull off crazy moves. You have to predict more, its just harder imo and thats not necessarily a bad thing

But I could also go for some lessening of the nerf, I don't particularly mind. Just don't want mauls with their easy crushthrough overheads

[rustyspoon]

"Hi, my name's Rusty and I'm barely decent with a shield and trash without one.  Therefore I like to take to the forums and argue for horrible design decisions by implying that I'm good at the nerfed attack in question.  This appeals to me because it makes me feel special and I would be equally terrible if the turnspeed nerf were reverted anyway, so I benefit at least emotionally from the nerf remaining.  Fighting with more than two viable attack directions is too complicated for me, so don't expect me to address that either.  Also, I'm dumb and say things like "Joe Louis was slow for a boxer" and "it's unfair that 12 year olds have faster reflexes than me."

Lulz. He mad.

[Tzar]

This Turnspeed nurf needs to gtfo.....

Nothing but a dumb down on the cRPG gameplay experience it makes all the slow 1h swords impossible to perform a stab with.

All short weapons overheads are fecked because of it..

Sure it was a needed nerf for the ultra fast polearm stabbers and the maul users.. but tbh i couldn't give a feck about those 2 weapons since i love being able to use all 4 attack directions on any weapon...


But imho i think its just the overhead attacks that got screwed over the most on small reach weapons.. if they could just try an fix that 

[kinngrimm]

I would like to see a dynamic turn speed nerf, before we actually revert it. The longer and heavier a weapon is, the slower it turns. And perhaps we can limit it on stabs mostly, whereas overheads are affected less. Unless it's a crushthrough weapon, of course.

But if even such a stepped system proves as bad, I am also for a reversion.

this

combined with

My basic idea of solving that problem would be to significantly speed up the dynamic, connectable part of attack animations while compensating this with a longer, harmless release time window(without turn limitation) before the swing starts. With that the old silly 360° overheads and stabs would be impossible because the turn limitation would be there during the actual swing. However one would still be able to aim one's attack properly because the time window where the turn limitation is active would be very short.
...

this

It would probably be the best to make the swing duration independed from the weapon speed which is different than it is handled currently. With that even slow weapons will have a short connectable time window
of their attacks. In balance their ready time and inactive release time(just after releasing a swing) could be longer.

why/what ... i think i don't quite get this point could you explain a bit more please?