BUMP ARMOR

[Chumley]

[Pentecost]

Aren't you that teutonic guy who rolls around with a tincan loadout + heavy horse and somehow manages to have a worse score and k:d than people with a gear cost 1/5th of yours?

[Miwiw]

More armor helps you if people attack you with pierce damage anyway? Are you sure, such a buff would help? Sometimes it is better to take less armor, thats why most roll with medium gear, not only upkeep and weight are a reason.

[Raki]

Yes please, strength builds with +3 armor need a buff, I have seen some of them die occasionally.

[Phew]

I use a 38 cut weapon with 6 power strike, and it takes me 6-12 swings to kill your average Strength 2h hero in transitional (they total about 70 armor after gloves and looms). I have 57 body armor and 53 HP (can't afford ironflesh until lvl 33+ with a 1h/thrower hybrid build), and I get 1-shot all the time by Strength 2h heroes, and I never survive more than 3 of their hits.

So right now, armor makes 1h swords do pathetic damage, but high damage 2h weapons still do great damage to everyone, regardless of armor. So a Strength 2h Hero is impervious to 1h swords, and they only fear other Strength 2h Heroes.

[zagibu]

Your implication is wrong. You cannot expand the group of [1h swords] to the group of [all 1h weapons].

[Phew]

Your implication is wrong. You cannot expand the group of [1h swords] to the group of [all 1h weapons].

Swords are vastly more popular than the pierce/blunt weapons within 2h, because you don't need pierce/blunt damage to do decent damage when you are rocking say a 46 cut +3 Highland Claymore. A greatsword might take a whole extra swing to kill someone than a morningstar, so why sacrifice speed/balance/reach and take the morningstar?

Within 1h, the difference between say a steel pick and a nordic champion's sword isn't 1-2 swings to kill someone in good armor, it's more like 5-6 extra swings. Why should 1h have to make such a huge damage sacrifice to enjoy the reach/speed of a sword, but 2h makes virtually no sacrifices?

My point is that I'd like to see armor affect 2h swords as much as it affects 1h swords, so more mitigation and less soak. You might see more hammers/maces/picks on the battlefield then, instead of 2h swords everywhere.

[oprah_winfrey]

Swords are vastly more popular than the pierce/blunt weapons within 2h, because you don't need pierce/blunt damage to do decent damage when you are rocking say a 46 cut +3 Highland Claymore. A greatsword might take a whole extra swing to kill someone than a morningstar, so why sacrifice speed/balance/reach and take the morningstar?

Within 1h, the difference between say a steel pick and a nordic champion's sword isn't 1-2 swings to kill someone in good armor, it's more like 5-6 extra swings. Why should 1h have to make such a huge damage sacrifice to enjoy the reach/speed of a sword, but 2h makes virtually no sacrifices?

My point is that I'd like to see armor affect 2h swords as much as it affects 1h swords, so more mitigation and less soak. You might see more hammers/maces/picks on the battlefield then, instead of 2h swords everywhere.

It just so happens that you can carry a sword, a shield, AND a blunt/pierce weapon!

More on topic, I would like to see armor values get bumped as well. Bumped down.

[Phew]

It just so happens that you can carry a sword, a shield, AND a blunt/pierce weapon!

More on topic, I would like to see armor values get bumped as well. Bumped down.

And yet most 2h users don't even bother with the weight of a pierce/blunt weapon, because their greatsword still kills everyone in a few swings. Why not make 2H users carry armor-busting sidearms like 1H users basically have to?

Bumped down? I got one-shot by a +3 Miaodao (a 97 speed weapon) yesterday on a hit to my torso, while I had 59 body armor. If I had maxed IF, maybe I could have survived a whole two swings. This was done by a guy that it takes me over 10 swings to kill with a +3 1h sword (he has about the same body armor as me). Armor is too effective against 1h swords, and too ineffective against 2h swords.

Lower soak values, increase mitigation, and 2h heroes might see the need to carry something other than their lightsaber.

[oprah_winfrey]

With a brig and plate mittens I never got one shot as a one hander. With a haubergeon and plate mittens, I very rarely got one shot. Maybe you should get some iron flesh.

[Phew]

With a brig and plate mittens I never got one shot as a one hander. With a haubergeon and plate mittens, I very rarely got one shot. Maybe you should get some iron flesh.

Ironflesh or no, the fact that 59 body armor on a balanced lvl 30 build isn't sufficient to prevent being one-shot by a fast, medium-damage 2-handed sword is a little ridiculous, especially considering that it can take me up to TEN TIMES as many swings to kill a typical strength 2h-er with my +3 1h sword. Obviously 2h should have higher efficacy than 1h (maybe 2X could be argued, since they require twice the number of arms to wield), but 10 times?

And I'm not even saying buff 1h damage (all I ask is that the thrust and right swing animations not glance so much), I just think armor should be more effective against high cut damage, to encourage some more weapon diversity. Or are you arguing that a great sword should be the ideal weapon for every situation?

[Taser]

Yes please, strength builds with +3 armor need a buff, I have seen some of them die occasionally.

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[zagibu]

And yet most 2h users don't even bother with the weight of a pierce/blunt weapon, because their greatsword still kills everyone in a few swings. Why not make 2H users carry armor-busting sidearms like 1H users basically have to?

Bumped down? I got one-shot by a +3 Miaodao (a 97 speed weapon) yesterday on a hit to my torso, while I had 59 body armor. If I had maxed IF, maybe I could have survived a whole two swings. This was done by a guy that it takes me over 10 swings to kill with a +3 1h sword (he has about the same body armor as me). Armor is too effective against 1h swords, and too ineffective against 2h swords.

Lower soak values, increase mitigation, and 2h heroes might see the need to carry something other than their lightsaber.

I think you have a point. 2h swords should indeed do a lot less damage against armor. I'm just not sure if it's possible, but maybe with WSE2?

[Sagar]

Damage with 2H weapon is fine (maybe need buff for more damage).

- 1H sword have 1kg, its shorter and have less damage.
- 2H sword have 3 - 3.5kg, its longer and make more damage.

If you never hold a sword, try it. Take one 1H and one 2H sword. Make some training dummy and take some hits with both swords.
Than come here and write us results.

If you cant get swords, take crowbar between 1 and 3 kg, and see the difference.

[Kafein]

Damage with 2H weapon is fine (maybe need buff for more damage).

- 1H sword have 1kg, its shorter and have less damage.
- 2H sword have 3 - 3.5kg, its longer and make more damage.

If you never hold a sword, try it. Take one 1H and one 2H sword. Make some training dummy and take some hits with both swords.
Than come here and write us results.

If you cant get swords, take crowbar between 1 and 3 kg, and see the difference.

As far as I know, in our physical world, hitting objects without momentum (aka turning into your swings ingame) doesn't have a great effect, yet this is the key difference between 2h and 1h.