Why not 2h?

[Tor!]

Higher risk, higher reward. Getting shot to pieces will get you frustrated too. I see both archers and 1h/shielders topping the scoreboards, but topping the scoreboard is more of having good awareness and being an opportunist than choice of class to be honest 

[bilwit]

2 handers got a speed decrease in the patch to the point of balance.

Okay. That still doesn't change my stance.

Another interesting possibility which avoids weapon balance altogether would be introducing something like a block-penalty where there's a split second of recover time if you're attack is deflected.

[Vibe]

Okay. That still doesn't change my stance.

Another interesting possibility that avoids weapon balance altogether would be introducing something like a block-penalty where there's a split second of recover time if you're attack is deflected.

What you're asking for is realism. In this case, we would have to rebuy the horse each time it died, lances would break in one hit, 2 handers would be slow as shit, shields wouldn't have forcefields, most of the 2h attacks wouldn't be blockable by 1h without a shield, you would need to feed your character like a tamagochi and also: permadeath.

[bilwit]

What you're asking for is realism. In this case, we would have to rebuy the horse each time it died, lances would break in one hit, 2 handers would be slow as shit, shields wouldn't have forcefields, most of the 2h attacks wouldn't be blockable by 1h without a shield, you would need to feed your character like a tamagochi and also: permadeath.

lol @ slippery slope argument.

[Vibe]

lol @ slippery slope argument.

Thanks, it was written that way on purpose.
Doesn't change the fact that what you're asking for is balance-breaking.

[bilwit]

Thanks, it was written that way on purpose.
Doesn't change the fact that what you're asking for is balance-breaking.

You have yet to explain why you think this is balance-breaking other than implying that you use 2-handers and you don't want to get nerfed.

1-handers should have superior attack speed.
2-handers should not attack as fast.
1-handers with shield should not attack faster than 2-handers depending on shield weight/material/size.

Oh no this would completely destroy the game!! What a crazy and outlandish concept!

[Tydeus]

1-Handers should be able to attack fast. A lot faster than 2-Handers as they do considerably less damage at a considerably less range.
1-Hander + Shield shouldn't be able to attack as fast, depending on the weight/size of the shield, sacrificing otherwise superior attack speed for defense.
2-Handers should have the most damage, but having 90-98 speed is laughable.

If the mod was balanced like this swashbucklers would be less of a novelty.

I can tell you're new to crpg. These three things that you stated, are all currently the reality of crpg. One-Handers without shields are much faster than the vast majority of Two-Handers and polearms. Go to a duel server, fight an experienced One-Hander, he probably won't be using his shield. This is because without his shield, he gains a huge speed advantage.

The reason you don't see One-Handers without shields in battle/siege servers, is because of the extra protection from ranged the shield gives and the ability to pull off 1v2s/1v3s much smoother than without a shield(for all classes). If you're going to use a One-Hander in battle/siege without a shield, it's much more reasonable to just use a Two-Hander/Polearm.

[Vibe]

You have yet to explain why you think this is balance-breaking other than implying that you use 2-handers and you don't want to get nerfed.

1-handers should have superior attack speed.
2-handers should not attack as fast.
1-handers with shield should not attack faster than 2-handers depending on shield weight/material/size.

Oh no this would completely destroy the game!! What a crazy and outlandish concept!

Yes, yes it would destroy the game. 1 handers have faster attack speed than 2h. You would decrease 2h speed even more. Decrease it more and 1h will be able to spam attacks without 2h having a chance to strike back in close quarters.
This would result in 1h hugging and spamming and 2h backpeddaling and outrange attacking - both are ofcourse the lamest possible ways to win.

Also:

I can tell you're new to crpg. These three things that you stated, are all currently the reality of crpg. One-Handers without shields are much faster than the vast majority of Two-Handers and polearms. Go to a duel server, fight an experienced One-Hander, he probably won't be using his shield. This is because without his shield, he gains a huge speed advantage.

The reason you don't see One-Handers without shields in battle/siege servers, is because of the extra protection from ranged the shield gives and the ability to pull off 1v2s/1v3s much smoother than without a shield(for all classes). If you're going to use a One-Hander in battle/siege without a shield, it's much more reasonable to just use a Two-Hander/Polearm.

[bilwit]

Yes, yes it would destroy the game. 1 handers have faster attack speed than 2h. You would decrease 2h speed even more. Decrease it more and 1h will be able to spam attacks without 2h having a chance to strike back in close quarters.
This would result in 1h hugging and spamming and 2h backpeddaling and outrange attacking - both are ofcourse the lamest possible ways to win.

Also:

So you would rather have 2H with the ability to spam attacks at range without 1H having the ability to spam attacks at close range. Got it. You also say that it "would destroy the game" and then agree with the post saying that it's already in game? You continue to make perfect and logical sense.

I can tell you're new to crpg. These three things that you stated, are all currently the reality of crpg. One-Handers without shields are much faster than the vast majority of Two-Handers and polearms. Go to a duel server, fight an experienced One-Hander, he probably won't be using his shield. This is because without his shield, he gains a huge speed advantage.

The reason you don't see One-Handers without shields in battle/siege servers, is because of the extra protection from ranged the shield gives and the ability to pull off 1v2s/1v3s much smoother than without a shield(for all classes). If you're going to use a One-Hander in battle/siege without a shield, it's much more reasonable to just use a Two-Hander/Polearm.

There's a ~5-6ish average of speed difference. 2H already have range and damage superiority hands down next to comparable attack speed. So this is balanced? If the speed/damage tradeoff was balanced then, by your same logic, 1H by itself would be as viable of an option in battle/siege as 2H since both are just as vulnerable.

[Tydeus]

This would result in 1h hugging and spamming and 2h backpeddaling and outrange attacking - both are ofcourse the lamest possible ways to win.

Actually, in duels a skilled One-Hander will be face hugging you, this is with the current system of balance. I can't recall any skilled Two-Handers back pedaling, my guess is that we get good enough that we're able to counter face hugging by footwork and blocking horizontal swings coming in at extreme angles, with what would normally be the incorrect block(Blocking a right swing with a right block, something that can only be done when the attacker is on the blocker's far right, this is generally something that happens when one person is face hugging).

So you would rather have 2H with the ability to spam attacks at range without 1H having the ability to spam attacks at close range. Got it. You also say that it "would destroy the game" and then agree with the post saying that it's already in game? You continue to make perfect and logical sense.

There's a ~5-6ish average of speed difference. 2H already have range and damage superiority hands down next to comparable attack speed. So this is balanced?

What you're asking here is very general, you must accept that fact, you're comparing all One-Handers to all Two-Handers. I would still say "Most certainly, yes". It's worth noting though, that there may be one or two Two-Handers that are too fast as well as one or two One-Handers being too fast.

[Vibe]

Actually, in duels a skilled One-Hander will be face hugging you

I know that. The emphasis was on the "spamming" part. Pretty much any decent 1h will hug you, but they won't try to spam.


As for you, dimwit:

So you would rather have 2H with the ability to spam attacks at range without 1H having the ability to spam attacks at close range. Got it. - where did I say I wanted 2h to have the ability to spam? Please, point it out. Neither do I want 1H to have the ability to spam. Just like it is now.
You also say that it "would destroy the game" and then agree with the post saying that it's already in game? You continue to make perfect and logical sense - I agreed with the above post because it is true. You, on the other hand, say it is not true and want to boost the speed of 1h EVEN MORE to compensate for your apparent lack of skill and knowledge of this mod. I'm not saying faster 1h than 2h would destroy the game, because that is how it is at the moment, I'm saying further increasing (like you are suggesting) 1h speed would destroy it. Not my fault it doesn't make sense to you.

There's a ~5-6ish average of speed difference. 2H already have range and damage superiority hands down next to comparable attack speed. So this is balanced? If the speed/damage tradeoff was balanced then, by your same logic, 1H by itself would be as viable of an option in battle/siege as 2H since both are just as vulnerable. - With 1H comes shield. If you don't use shield it's your own damn fault. Either learn to use the circling-leftHeadshotSpeedSlash and hugging and other advantages of shieldless 1h or pick up a shield.

[okiN]

I don't like being shot at, and a shield also makes controlling groups of enemies much easier.

[Immolarian]

Ain't 2hs way faster in real then 1hs? Since you use them with 2 hands? Its hard to imagine you can fight faster with 1hand.

[La Makina]

Ain't 2hs way faster in real then 1hs? Since you use them with 2 hands? Its hard to imagine you can fight faster with 1hand.

Depends of the length of the weapon and its balance. Wielding a 1h sword with two hands would be faster than wielding it with one.
However 2H swords are much longer and heavier, so overall it comes to the same.

To be more realistic, stabbing with one hand should be faster.

[Kafein]

We have crossed the line of balance between 2h and slashing polearms. Now GLA/LHB twister spam works better. In the following text, 2h means all weapons with side swings, without shield.


I think the very early learning curve is way steeper for 2h than 1h. When you don't know how to block, 1h will clearly work better.

But after a while, as everyone improves, it becomes harder and harder to play with 1h + shield. Your main advantage of not caring about blocking becomes less and less important since many 2h learn to block very well (it's easier with the autoblock hack btw  ). It goes down to a point where improving as a 1h takes tons of hours playing and being very skilled, compared to 2h that just have to take the full advantage of speed, damage and reach. A 2h will likely start to defeat an equally skilled 1h very soon after having mastered blocking. The all rounder 1h is inferior to the all rounder 2h in all ways. While this was perfectly logical during the first months of Warband MP, now it's a problem because the shield doesn't help so much in melee as before.

But this is only about duels. 1h got an advantage with defending against range (not attacking since attacking range usually means being ranged yourself) and can fight multiple opponents with more ease than 2h. They are disadvantaged against cav though.