As far as i see the whole s/s (sword[or1h]/shield) vs 2h(or poleaxe[im excluding spears and pikes cause i think they are no problem to beat 1on1]) discussions i would say theres a good ammount of arguments for both sides that are true. however i still find 2h OP and ill gladly explain why.
whenever a s/s user QQs about helicopters, the 2h community goes like: lol a decent player can sneak hits in pretty well and outsmart the helicopter with ease!
- theres the first mistake in my opinion. you compare a (in your opinion) bad s/s to a bad 2h and tell him a good s/s would win against a bad 2h. but what about a decent helicopter? ive had fights where good 2h players could hit behind my shield pretty well by countless retard-movements.
it is mentioned to outmaneuver the 2hander to win, while if he is good he will easily take advantage of superior speed and weapon range until your shield breaks, or try to helicopter behind your shield with hiltthrust- attack types.
i would NOT say a helicopter is better than an s/s player by spamming alone, but its about possible attack-moves! while the only viable attacks for a 1handed weapon are the basic 4 attack types and feinting, the 2handed has much more to offer.
with a 2hander you can hiltthrust with left and right swings (exploit thats being treated as a feature), 5k mousespeed helicopter (tried that on s/s and i didnt work because my character turnes too slow for some reason[maybe cause of shield?], but even if he did its kinda useless with a 90* length weapon), helicopter-feint (unreadable), helicopter-thrust (exploit treated as a feature [also useless with 90* length 1handed]) and i also found it easier to chamber with 2h +you have the 4 normal attack types.
(*) im using the 90 length as a basic range for 1h because most 1handed are around 90 and counting only 100 length weapons would mean the others are useless.
-the probably worst argument is the "shield is immune to ranged!" one. 2h players can grab shields or crossbows or throwing weapons or bows too ... plus evading arrows is not really that hard with a speedy character, while my shield is already half broken in the time i need to approach.
-point is that 2h players seem to think it is fair that they own in duels because it is hard to play with manual blocking. while i agree with the thought behind this argument, i totally disagree on the argument itself.
a 1h with no shield should rock in duels cause youre not being hindered in your speed/movement like you would be with a shield. you also could switch to 2h swing with your 1h to do decent damage if you see the opporunity for a good strike or use your left hand for punching, shoving, grabbing, dual wield etc.
but a 2handed weapon should by no means be good in duels, its totally unrealistic that a 2h can win vs a shielder and anybody that ever fought in a steel-weapon skirmish in reality would agree on that. you simply move point blank and he cant do shit, shove him with your shield and stab him to death. 2handers ARE support weapons and not duel weapons.
we need a dual wield possibility in this game....
1h/dual wield should be better vs shield, shield should be better vs 2h and 2h should be better vs 1h/dual wield (cause you cant parry a 2h with a 1h) that would be realistic and fair if you ask me. atm its only about which team has the most high-gear/high-level/high-helicopter 2h's and that team usually wins.
all in all i think the balance is not too bad, but when it comes to skilled player battles or pro gaming 2h is simply OP because it has much more possibilities to offer with nearly no drawback at all (for a skilled player). + skill system on crpg is unbalanced cause 2h max-agi builds are too fast and still have good damage while you would hardly go through any armor with a 1h max-agi build.
just my 5 cent
please DONT reply before you read the whole post, spare me your nonsense
