Yeah, I kinda feel like Tydeus was just grasping at straws coming up with the whole "2h stab must be longer than horse lance or hoplite stab!" thing. Regardless, the fact that this could even be considered a valid argument just shows how spoiled the 2h class has been this whole time. I can't think of any 4D polearms that would even be able to somewhat reliably outstab (or even stand a chance with any swing againt) a lancer's stab, other than the long voulge, which can't even rear the horse, or the fauchard, which no one uses since its simply garbage, or the military scythe, which frankly isn't too common either. The glaive might be able to stand a chance, but I don't think anyone with a glaive would ever try to outstab a lancer when they could hop safely to the side and rightswing. The only people who should ever even think of stabbing against lancers head-on would be long 2-directional poles or the 1-directionals.
There is no reason losing reach on the 2h stab would be so insanely detrimental when the animation may end up acting more like the 1h stab and give absurd speed (in return for the lost reach). The 1h stab accelerates through the animation so fast that it can pretty much hit without glancing at full extension. If the new 2h stab acts like that, while the old 2h stab (supposedly) could only hit at 70% extension, then the reach lost isn't that major anyways.
Also, on the whole argument for why so many people choose polearms over 2h nowadays... don't people ever consider that it might not be a contest over which class is more OP than the other, but simply a contest of which class players find more fun? I was a long time 2h player before I finally switched to polearm. I did so because at the time polearm had yet to be buffed and I had finally gotten to a point where I could be considered a decent player, and realized how OP 2h was. Of course only a short while after switching over the pole animations were buffed, which then led to a whole lot more people switching over. But did they all switch over because polearm was OP, or because it could finally stand on its own against 2h? Same goes for 1h after the 1h swing buffs... you see a lot more swashbucklers nowadays. Is it because it has become OP, or because it finally doesn't suck to play? Tryhard/KD-whore players have been stuck playing 2h for so long so they could perform well. Would it be so unreasonable to assume that they switched over to poles/1h because they were sick and tired of being limited to one class for what... 2, 3 years?
After the pole animations got buffed I considered going back to 2h since I hadn't been playing a polearm all that long (by comparison to my 2h time, anyways). But the reason I stayed as a polearm was because I realized it was simply more fun to play. I didn't do the same thing over and over and over again to beat people like I would find myself doing as a 2hander (grab a sword, feint overhead/stab, spam leftswings). Instead polearms offered a lot more variety and I would be able to choose a completely different playstyle when I got bored of the last. Polearms just have a lot more variety than 2h weapons do... your choices are more than just "sword, fast sword, long sword, longer sword, longest sword, 3-directional sword, longer 3-directional sword, good stabbing sword, good slashing sword...etc." and more variety often allows for more fun. With this upcoming patch it seems that 2h will be getting a good amount of new stuff added, new stuff that isn't just new swords, mind you, so that should definitely help more people stay as 2h because they will have more variety than ever before.
That's either one hell of a strawman, or you completely misunderstood most of what I was saying.
To a degree, effectiveness or stats alone, can be irrelevant. Probably the best case one can bring up, is the Highland Claymore. Realistically, it has the most favorable trade-offs with all other greatswords, and yet it's just about the least used.
It's not even about whether or not you're able to make the thrust effectively the same, quantitatively. There are, as you said–yet failed to fully grasp–several reasons aside from an item's effectiveness, to choose one item or playstyle over another. This is about current functionality, identity, and psychology(players being fickle and resisting perceived changes). If history has taught us anything on this topic, it's that people are
really sensitive to animation changes, and unlike any we've done before, this looks nothing like what it's replacing.
Balance is certainly a concern, but not only is that easy to achieve, equal effectiveness doesn't necessarily equate to equal enjoyment, and certainly not equal functionality.
Both are important, tydeus. We know you don't need 100% to destroy a horse, because they are providing a tremendous speed bonus. On the flip side, it's usually better to to whiff than to over reach and glance because of the timing penalty.
I find your hoplite vs 2h sword reach argument a bit strange though. Most 2hers would seldomly stab a hoplite since they will suffer a great weapon stun for hitting the shield. Meanwhile a 2her suffers the least movement penalty, only second to a swashbuckler, so it should be easy to overrun a hoplite.
You don't need 100%, but you definitely cannot have less than 0%, and realistically, aside from a 0 armor target, you'd going to have to have more than 10 or 15% raw, even for the best case, highest speed bonus situations (when a horse is riding at you). So fine, not 73% of the animation's total length, but 75%(17.5% of your initial raw damage).
You're not really listening to the point that's trying to be made. Life isn't black and white, there are degrees of variance. I'm saying that in the 2h thrust's length has so much utility that it can allow greatswords to even be competitive against hoplites. Ceartainly War Spear hoplites. Also, the 2h thrust has had the same stun duration from blocked thrusts as any other thrust. I equalized them after the results of the EU cRPG Official Duel Tournament, where it was clear that at high level play, the greatsword thrust was nothing but a detriment.
All that being said, Logen pointed out that there's a bit of a misconception about thrust length capabilities. It's not necessarily the case that effective length even has to be reduced, just because you now have a waist-high thrust. Then again, it will still both
look and feel different, which is cause for concern. Ultimately, we'll probably just have to try it, urging 2hers to give it legitimate consideration, and see how things go, from there.
visitors can't see pics , please
register or
login
Poll