Increase Great axe difficulty

[Finse]

its just to fast for an axe when people go 15 - 24 and do more dmg than a persian war axe which is 0.3 more in weight and has 16 diffficulty compared to its 3.2 in weight of the great axe, i just dont see how a Maul that weighs 5 and have 14 in difficulty, where is the logics ?


Please explain this broken thing... its not a thing i dont like its just the build that is made with the great axe is just bad it is faster than everything and it has more dmg than a Persian battle axe which is 49 pierce, the reason why its more dmg cuz its faster in overall that makes more dmg and since its to fast its too Overpowered than other axes



Balance it make all axes heavier thats the point of them! heavy and much dmg, 15 difficulty is not strong its weak...

[San]

You have a point. The most powerful/long/heavy weapons need to have a higher difficulty. Most of the difficulties were left the same since the devs changed them. It would be easiest to just gather a group of weapons and balance their difficulties with each other.

[MURDERTRON]

War Cleaver would also have to be adjusted.  I personally think the Bec needs to have its difficulty raised as well.

[Finse]

i really want this fixed cuz its no logic of heavier weapons having less difficulty, and all 2h can make their build around the Great axe, cuz you all agree that great axe is to op for its money worth, difficulty, weight and dmg

[San]

So many weapons hover around the 11-15 area and the heaviest/longest/most damaging weapons are only at 16-18 outside of the Great Maul. Ranged weapons also scale up to 18 exactly. I have an extreme opinion, but I would have everything scale up to 21-24, even one handers (and shields with buffs if we get some new ones). To me, doing things like raising the difficulty of Great Axe, Bar Mace, War Cleaver, etc. by 1 or 2 isn't really going to accomplish much. People will just use the next available weapon with low difficulty, and they're all low.

Most builds are close to balanced and can use everything anyways. From my perspective, it would be best to have a clear idea of how difficulties behave and sweep through everything. These require large changes and therefore would not be as popular as small changes to the status quo.

[MURDERTRON]

San, I like your suggestion.  It would help eliminate the plague of agi-builds who have such high hitting power.

[San]

More freedom and relying on the implicit disadvantages of your build vs. more unique roles and stricter difficulties. It's risky to tell whether the loss of freedom benefits the game and actually increase build variety or not. It's certain that freedom is reduced, but it's uncertain if the benefits outweigh the cost. I can't say builds that only meet the minimum requirement are overpowered vs those that aren't, but it just makes sense that something like difficulty is actually important, otherwise there's not much point in having it at all.

[Kafein]

Difficulty is a flawed system anyway. It doesn't make sense not to be able to use items at all. The game would be richer if we could use anything regardless of build, but with effectiveness strongly dependent on build.

[Elerion]

Difficulty is a clumsy system that only makes sense if everyone is at the same level. If you make the best weapons high difficulty, you make agi builds weaker at "low" levels by raising the minimum strength threshhold. The focus should instead be on fixing the STR vs AGI scaling issues to make the stats equally attractive at all levels.

[MURDERTRON]

Difficulty is a clumsy system that only makes sense if everyone is at the same level. If you make the best weapons high difficulty, you make agi builds weaker at "low" levels by raising the minimum strength threshhold. The focus should instead be on fixing the STR vs AGI scaling issues to make the stats equally attractive at all levels.

Well, this is kind of a bad argument, because melee is then only thing that you can expect to do at a low level.  Archery is damn useless until you're level 25 or so and that's if you forego your ability to do anything else.  Once someone else approaches you, you won't have enough power strike, melee wpf and athletics to be effective.  Cavalry requirements just got boosted, and you won't be able to use a worthwhile horse and decent power strike until roughly that same level and then once dehorsed, you're a sitting duck for the same reasons.  An even more specialized class like horse archer?  Forget doing anything until 30.

Also the climb to 25 has recently been expedited.  So, in reality, I don't think the balance team has any ambitions to balance the grind at this point and are focusing more on the reality that is 30 and up.

[Rebelyell]

well all chrs should start at lvl 20
you could sperad that exp on other lvls so we will still have the same exp grind for lvl 31

[Elerion]

Well, this is kind of a bad argument, because melee is then only thing that you can expect to do at a low level.  Archery is damn useless until you're level 25 or so and that's if you forego your ability to do anything else.  Once someone else approaches you, you won't have enough power strike, melee wpf and athletics to be effective.  Cavalry requirements just got boosted, and you won't be able to use a worthwhile horse and decent power strike until roughly that same level and then once dehorsed, you're a sitting duck for the same reasons.  An even more specialized class like horse archer?  Forget doing anything until 30.

Also the climb to 25 has recently been expedited.  So, in reality, I don't think the balance team has any ambitions to balance the grind at this point and are focusing more on the reality that is 30 and up.

By "low" levels I was thinking of 30-31. Hence the quotation marks. The sub-30 grind is another discussion entirely.

Say you want a 7 riding Lancer/1H build. Currently, at level 30-31 you can go 15/21 and use every lance and 1H in the game with that. If the difficulty of the best 1Hs or lances was increased to 16+, that build would have to sacrifice key skills or the 7 riding to use the best weapons. That's not a problem in an isolated case, it's fine that someone has to sacrifice something to wield the best weapons. You could balance the game around that, no problem.

The problem is this: A level 35-36 Lancer/1H could have 7 riding and up to 21 strength without sacrificing key skills. That character could have the best horse and the best weapon, while the 30-31 character could not.

If the game was balanced around 7 riding characters not being able to wield the best weapons, the high level build would be overpowered.
If the game was balanced around 7 riding characters being able to wield the best weapons, the low level build would be underpowered.

In other words, increasing the difficulty of the best weapons would reduce AGI stacking, but it would also make "low" level (~30) agi builds strictly worse relative to high level agi builds (on top of the inherent stat advantage).

TLDR; Balancing the game by increasing difficulty on items only makes sense if everyone is the same level.

[MURDERTRON]

TLDR; Balancing the game by increasing difficulty on items only makes sense if everyone is the same level.

What

[San]

I just don't like how 12 strength you barely have much choice while most equipment is available to you for only 3 more stat points. On the other hand, you can barely use anything at 9 strength. It's not that 9-12 strength is bad, but 15-18 is too good since 90%+ equipment becomes open after that. The design of the game skews towards 15-18+ strength, then anything goes.

I would prefer a smooth curve all the way up to 24 where you can slowly use heavier equipment. This includes 6-12 strength where item choices can be quite erratic. Choice is reduced, but gameplay-wise it'll be easier to tell the opponent's builds just from equipment and stats can be catered to those builds instead of having to take into account every possible build. Those high difficulty equipment might have better damage or armor:weight ratios for instance instead of the current linear progression, since the build assumptions shrink when thinking about how the item will be used.

[MURDERTRON]

I just don't like how 12 strength you barely have much choice while most equipment is available to you for only 3 more stat points. On the other hand, you can barely use anything at 9 strength. It's not that 9-12 strength is bad, but 15-18 is too good since 90%+ equipment becomes open after that. The design of the game skews towards 15-18+ strength, then anything goes.

I would prefer a smooth curve all the way up to 24 where you can slowly use heavier equipment. This includes 6-12 strength where item choices can be quite erratic. Choice is reduced, but gameplay-wise it'll be easier to tell the opponent's builds just from equipment and stats can be catered to those builds instead of having to take into account every possible build. Those high difficulty equipment might have better damage or armor:weight ratios for instance instead of the current linear progression, since the build assumptions shrink when thinking about how the item will be used.

Well, considering you have Katana at 9 str and Longsword/HBS at 11, none of these lack of choices is really an issue.