Cavalry stuff

[polkafranzi]

Stop hating, especially you kesh, assuming uve been lanced in the ass while ur tunneling inn on some poor peasent one too many times and you would rather be the immortal god of everything owning all other classes and if anything kills you its OP and needs to be removed from the game.

And bane, grab a lance yourself and put up a fight instead of using that morningstar all over the place and QQ when you cant jumpslash all the lancer cav after uve been dehorsed by foolishly trying to outrange a lance.

Sorry, im just sick of all the fucking whine.

that

[BD_Guard_Bane]

I agree with giving a small hitpoint/armor buff to the horses.  The thing is the tier 2 and 3 horses have a rather high level of both maneuverability and speed (especially courser and arabian warhorse).  Part of the original problem was lowering agility requirement to 3 per riding skill, so raising the riding requirement is not going to fix the problem as most cav have over the requirement already because you can still do a balanced build and get 6-7 riding and each point in riding skill significantly increases the horse's speed and maneuverability. 

Prior to January patch throwers were not OP because most archers countered them because the archers were OP.  After the archer nerfs in January, it finally became apparent over the next few months that throwers were OP (by the way the thrower nerf was a trifle too harsh, coming from a guy who hates throwing).  So too OP throwers and everybody being able to be a pocket pikemen kept cavalry's basic OPness in check.  But now with most pikes gone except for a few dedicated pikemen with no other weapon and throwers nerfed badly and hybrid xbowmen/archers significantly reduced in amount of ammo, cavalry are having a field day of OPness.  I am hoping it doesn't take another 3 months, like they took with throwing, before balancing cavalry, Ia lso hope they don't go too overboard like they did with throwers.

My suggestion:  Make riding a 6 agility skill requirement again and reduce the riding requirement of all horses by 1  (I would love to see mounted infantry again with sumpter horse riders).  The few people who still want to ride the plated charger can, just as almost pure agility, but most people will have to do balanced builds and have 3-4 riding skill.  This can be accompanied by +20 hitpoints, +5 armor on all the unarmored horses and +2 speed, +2 maneuverability on all the armored horses.  We would see cav diversity on the battlefield again and there would be real tradeoffs for choosing riding skill as it would require a stronger commitment to agilty, so less hitting power and hitpoints.

Well, courser and arabian warhorse are tier 4 currently. I'd like to see them raised to tier 5 - 15 agility would then give cav players access to the three best light horses and two armoured horses. That way it doesn't limit builds too much - someone can still go for a strength focused build as a dedicated cav player. Of course, stopping at 15 agi/5 riding would still make their horses slower and less manoeuvrable than someone with 6 riding.
Also, I only suggested a hitpoint/armour buff for armoured horses, to make them more durable. Also the rouncey, but only to bring it up to courser level so it makes a basic all rounder (+5hp, +2 armour, +4 charge).
The other horses don't need any hp/armour buffs. They die fast to ranged, but they should (the lighter ones anyway). Well, they die fast to longbows, xbows, and throwing weapons at least, and the weaker ones like the Arabian die fast to anything.

The lower level horses don't have particularly high speed or manoeuvre. Of course, most players using them have high riding skill (5-7) and are trying to save money, so the horses perform better than their actual stats.

The reason why you rarely see mounted infantry with sumpters now is the cost. It used to be quite common (to get to the ruins on field by river before the enemy etc), but now no-one wants to risk a 4,700 gold piece of equipment breaking just to get somewhere and dismount. And of course with the level cap, people are planning their builds more specifically and carefully, and won't waste 2 points in riding just for transport. Actually, I wouldn't mind seeing the sumpter reduced by 1 difficulty - its a terrible horse anyway, only useful for transport.

Returning riding skill to 1/6 agi isn't a good idea. As Bulzur says, you'd see a lot more lower level cav - everyone will have a horse. The idea of anyone who wants to ride a plated charger having to be an agi stacker is lame. I want to see effective heavy cavalry, plated knights on plated horses. Obviously though this would be ridiculous if people could do it all the time, which is why I suggested a huge cost increase.
There's no reason why people should have to choose between an armoured horse and armour. Increasing the stats of the armoured horses wouldn't make up for it being useless to ride one wearing a linen shirt and using a sickle.

And bane, grab a lance yourself and put up a fight instead of using that morningstar all over the place and QQ when you cant jumpslash all the lancer cav after uve been dehorsed by foolishly trying to outrange a lance.

Sorry, im just sick of all the fucking whine.

Yeah, so you didn't read it either? Its ok, there were a lot of words. I'm not complaining about lances being the most effective weapon to use on a horse. That has always been the case, and I doubt it'll change. I choose to use 2handers from horseback because I enjoy it, not because its innately effective.
I don't try to jumpslash lance cav.

Well, either read it properly, or don't comment.

[Overdriven]

This is a general all answer post:

The reason a lance does so much damage is because of the speed bonus. Ever tried using one on the ground with limited strength? It doesn't do a lot of damage. So nerfing a lance either by cost of strength, or lowering damage is not the answer. And making the heavy lance cost the most strength makes no sense, it's longer, but has less damage than a light lance. A lot of lancers use the light lance, not the heavy lance. The only reason a heavy lance is  used is because of it's length makes sense against other cavalry. For killing infantry a light lance is better. So if you're going to suggest nerfs on that, at least get facts straight.

As for the suggestions on nerfing manoeuvrability, that's another suggestion that makes no sense. The OP writer said it well in that dedicated horsemen know how to manage their speed. A full speed courser cannot turn, simple. I use one as a HA and I can assure you, at full speed, if a lancer cuts across me, or a pikeman appears, I cannot turn out the way fast enough. The only reason I can usually is because I very rarely ride at full speed unless to get away from enemy horsemen whilst shooting them. When it comes to killing infantry, most cavalrymen will rarely use full speed and so it appears that their manoeuvring ability is far greater than it actually is.


Anyway, to the OP:

I can agree that cav does rampage a lot at the moment, but the changes need to be fine tuned to avoid major nerfing and I like the fact you have tried to consider this, unlike most threads of this type.

Increasing the riding requirement is a nice suggestion, but honestly I'm not sure it will help that much. Most dedicated cav players I know actually play with 6 riding anyway. Not 5 or even 4. So I don't think the changing of the tiers would make all that much of a difference to anyone. Increasing the stats won't make much difference either, dedicated cav players will always use the arabian/courser because of the untold advantages they always have. Also I think by doing all of this you'd actually be increasing the amount of cavalry out there, and buffing the horses in the process.

Increasing price is a no no. I'm a horse archer, that's the least costly form of cavalry there is. Yet on anything under a x3, often a x4, I can expect to be bleeding money with my courser as it is. The only way I make money even now is either getting on a damn good team or playing DTV where I can't use my horse. If you increase the cost by 25% it will be unmanageable to all those who have not got endless funds saved up.

It's an interesting post for a change. But I just don't think they are the right suggestions. Something else needs to be thought of and honestly, I think it lies in making infantry/throwing more able to combat cav, rather than nerfing cavalry.

However, one thing that I do suggest (not necessarily related to cav). Remove the slots/unsheathable stat from the Pike, but make it less wieldable except for a planned attack. Right now the pike is just to easy to use both in close combat and against infantry. I've seen people using it very effectively in close combat and it is still a very present threat on the battlefield. The only thing that stops it annoying me to much is that I'm a HA and can pump arrows into the guy using it. But I think by making it sheathable, but less effective as a close quarters weapon, you'd be balancing it's use far more and adding more of a threat to cavalry.

[tankmen]

if you nerf cav remove the ability to jump and swing as well thats what often kills me as cav is the completely plated 2h jumping over my horse and killing me

[EponiCo]

Love jumpslashers. Horses can't block, I do.

[Digglez]

if you nerf cav remove the ability to jump and swing as well thats what often kills me as cav is the completely plated 2h jumping over my horse and killing me

who says white men cant jump...jump 3ft vertical in 30lbs of gear with less than 3 athletics!

[Huey Newton]

if you nerf cav remove the ability to jump and swing as well thats what often kills me as cav is the completely plated 2h jumping over my horse and killing me

agreed

[Diavolo]

Stop hating, especially you kesh, assuming uve been lanced in the ass while ur tunneling inn on some poor peasent one too many times and you would rather be the immortal god of everything owning all other classes and if anything kills you its OP and needs to be removed from the game.

And bane, grab a lance yourself and put up a fight instead of using that morningstar all over the place and QQ when you cant jumpslash all the lancer cav after uve been dehorsed by foolishly trying to outrange a lance.

Sorry, im just sick of all the fucking whine.

Agree. However, I think the problem with cavalry now are all the cheap tricks. Bumpslashing shouldnt be possible at all. Jump slashing too. Dont know if this is possible to do though, but I have noticed that bumpslashing has been buffed (you can now do it faster at higher speeds, which means less chance of getting hit and more damage in your strike) since last time I played. (I was away for about half a year or so)

An other note about horses, they cost a LOT of money already. A courser costs the same as a transitional armor, thats a lot. This is in addition to armor and weapons who cost the same as infantry, but one also need a weapon for when on foot. This makes melee cav already the most expensive class to play in cRPG as it is. To make it easier to stop cavalry again I suggest buffing throwing back to some of its original power. This will make it a lot easier to take down melee cavalry.

[Torben]

Bane!  I love the Idea of youre post and hate all the trolling of idiots who seemingly dont like to read or are not up to the challange of understanding shit.

I´m putting up a similar post and id like you to contribute

[Riddaren]

1. I agree.
2. Not sure what you mean by that exactly but I guess I agree.
3. Agreed.
4. Sounds fair.
5. I don't really care but it's a nice idea.
6. Sounds a bit expensive... specially for armoured horses (which I already find overpriced compared to their usefulness as a lancer).

"So, yes, cavalry is OP."
In what way is it OP? You could say that about anything. Seriously.
Being a cavalry lancer myself I can't even touch a good HA, pikeman or foot archer. Are they OP? Of course not. That is the way it should be. Some classes owns others.
Is cav OP because it is so easy to kill bad players? What kind of reasoning is that?

"Anyway, cRPG shouldn't be balanced only for dedicated, organised clans or teams."
Ironically melee cav is pretty much useless in organized battles in the presence of HA's or archers.
cRPG should be balanced by letting good players fight each other imo, not bad players.

"Prior to the last big patch, the amount of ranged spam kept them in check to a degree."
That is a big understatement. Cavalry players are kept in check all the time on all maps. As I said earlier, a good HA can humiliate a melee cav. 2 good foot archers will have no trouble defending vs 1 melee cav on open terrain even if the horse is armoured.

"The argument that cav only do well on certain maps is also invalid, since any cav player can dismount and play as effective infantry with no penalties at all."
Again, there is a big difference between HA and melee cav. Don't put them together. It's like comparing 2h with foot archery.
Anyway, your statement is obviously false as cavalry players most often are underdogs when fighting unmounted.

"Currently its very easy to get a lot of kills as cavalry, with not much effort. Of course, its easier for some types of cavalry than others."
You can say that for any class (except throwing) if you are good enough.

[BD_Guard_Bane]

(click to show/hide)

I agree with the +1 riding skill requirement for courser and sarranid as well as a few other things. However I mostly disagree.

"So, yes, cavalry is OP."
In what way is it OP? You could say that about anything. Seriously.
Being a cavalry lancer myself I can't even touch a good HA, pikeman or foot archer. Are they OP? Of course not. That is the way it should be. Some classes owns others.
Is cav OP because it is so easy to kill bad players? What kind of reasoning is that?

"Anyway, cRPG shouldn't be balanced only for dedicated, organised clans or teams."
Ironically melee cav is pretty much useless in organized battles in the presence of HA's or archers.
cRPG should be balanced by letting good players fight each other, not bad players. That is the way all things in life are balanced.

"Prior to the last big patch, the amount of ranged spam kept them in check to a degree."
That is a big understatement. Cavalry players are kept in check all the time on all maps. As I said earlier, a good HA can humiliate a melee cav. 2 good foot archers will have no trouble defending vs 1 melee cav on open terrain even if the horse is armoured or not.

"The argument that cav only do well on certain maps is also invalid, since any cav player can dismount and play as effective infantry with no penalties at all."
Again, there is a big difference between HA and melee cav. Don't put them together. It's like comparing 2h with foot archery.
Anyway, your statement is obviously false as cavalry players most often are underdogs when fighting unmounted.

"Currently its very easy to get a lot of kills as cavalry, with not much effort. Of course, its easier for some types of cavalry than others."
You can say that for any class (except throwing) if you are good enough.

I'll do this point by point.

1) Yeah, that was an opening statement. The rest of the post attempts to explain why. Also, class comparison isn't a particularly valid way to argue this, since cav aren't retarded enough to try to fight pikemen or foot archers alone. They just run away and go kill other people (I know I do). Horse archers are a slightly different situation - yeah, as long as they have arrows and aren't retarded, they'll beat other cav.

2) cRPG isn't an organised battle. Most players on any given map are not in clans. cRPG should definitely not be balanced by letting good players fight each other. 'Bad' players (new players or players who cba to dedicate the time to getting more skilled) should be able to have fun too.
Also I don't understand what you mean about life being balanced like that, so I'll ignore it.

3) Yes, true. The ability to have a pike as part of your standard loadout (for everyone) also kept cav in check. Also, I never mentioned anything about HA being able/not able to counter other cav. And as I said before, ranged do fine against cav, I agree.

4) Yeah, true, I didn't distinguish between types of cav. As I said at the end of the OP, none of it addresses the issues of weapon type on horseback (lance cav/1hand&shield cav/HA/2hand cav/xbow cav/jav cav). HA and melee cav are different, but they all share something in common - they use a horse. And my suggestions were all horse related.
As for cavalry being underdogs on foot, I don't see how its obviously true. I do fine as infantry. I put 7 points into riding - what else would I have put them in? Ironflesh? Or converted a few for an extra point somewhere? Sure, I'm very slightly at a disadvantage vs someone with more ironflesh, but all that means is I have to block better.
Most (if not all) of the top cavalry players do very well as infantry too.

5) Well, no. You can't say that for any class. The problem is that you don't have to be good at cav to get very high scores (until a good cav comes along and out-lances you). The only other classes I've seen able to sometimes match cavalry kills are 2handers or polearms (mainly using long polearms or one of those silly greatswords). And that doesn't happen often, and usually only for good players.
And once again, cRPG shouldn't be only balanced around the best players. It should aim for a situation where every class is fairly difficult and requires a level of skill to do well. Cavalry doesn't do that at the moment.

Edit: sorry, you edited The numbers refer to your points, not your numbered replies.

[Bulzur]

"Prior to the last big patch, the amount of ranged spam kept them in check to a degree."
That is a big understatement. Cavalry players are kept in check all the time on all maps. As I said earlier, a good HA can humiliate a melee cav. 2 good foot archers will have no trouble defending vs 1 melee cav on open terrain even if the horse is armoured.

An HA is  using an horse you know. (facepalm) Reducing horse's effectiveness will help deal with thoses. And anyway, one cav alone shouldn't chase an ha, that's just suicide. Do you see archers keeping their bows and running toward shielders ?
If you need 2 archers to defend vs 1 cav, then there's something wrong.
Also, an armored cav can EASILY kill 2 archers, if it's a 1h with shield. Bump if they aim well for you, bump slash if they aimed too late, just slash if they jump away.
And if they block, then just ride in small circle around one, permanently bumping slashing him. Really easy.

"The argument that cav only do well on certain maps is also invalid, since any cav player can dismount and play as effective infantry with no penalties at all."
Again, there is a big difference between HA and melee cav. Don't put them together. It's like comparing 2h with foot archery.
Anyway, your statement is obviously false as cavalry players most often are underdogs when fighting unmounted.

Where is the difference between thoses 2 ? HA become archers with 4-5 PD and at least 6 WM on foot, so decent archers.
Cav become 1h/shielder OR poelarm user on foot, with 5 PS and 6 WM. Decent infantry.

Put a decent infantry or decent archer on a cav map. Do you think they can be decent there ? Nop.

"Currently its very easy to get a lot of kills as cavalry, with not much effort. Of course, its easier for some types of cavalry than others."
You can say that for any class (except throwing) if you are good enough.

Again, this is definitely trolling.
Just take an excellent infantry whatever it is. The time he takes to travel by foot to the ennemy, always checking sideways and behind him, a cavalry will have already raided the spawn and attacking others late infantry. Then, our excellent infantry faces too good infantry, he has to engage, and can maybe win, if he doesn't get bumped over by a cav. A good cavalry sees two good archers. Rha, let's just do as if i back away, kill some others, and i'll come back  to deal with them.

And what does an archer do ? Kill peasants (only 2-3 arrows, kill other archers (2-5 arrows), kill horses (3-7 arrows for unarmored one's, 7 for destrier), and wounds some people. During that time, a cav can effectively do much more effective damage to the ennemy team, and way more easily.
It IS comon knowledge, that at this moment, it's EASIER to get kills with cav, than with other gameplays, providing the same skill.

[Riddaren]

(click to show/hide)

I'll do this point by point.

1) Yeah, that was an opening statement. The rest of the post attempts to explain why. Also, class comparison isn't a particularly valid way to argue this, since cav aren't retarded enough to try to fight pikemen or foot archers alone. They just run away and go kill other people (I know I do). Horse archers are a slightly different situation - yeah, as long as they have arrows and aren't retarded, they'll beat other cav.

2) cRPG isn't an organised battle. Most players on any given map are not in clans. cRPG should definitely not be balanced by letting good players fight each other. 'Bad' players (new players or players who cba to dedicate the time to getting more skilled) should be able to have fun too.
Also I don't understand what you mean about life being balanced like that, so I'll ignore it.

3) Yes, true. The ability to have a pike as part of your standard loadout (for everyone) also kept cav in check. Also, I never mentioned anything about HA being able/not able to counter other cav. And as I said before, ranged do fine against cav, I agree.

4) Yeah, true, I didn't distinguish between types of cav. As I said at the end of the OP, none of it addresses the issues of weapon type on horseback (lance cav/1hand&shield cav/HA/2hand cav/xbow cav/jav cav). HA and melee cav are different, but they all share something in common - they use a horse. And my suggestions were all horse related.
As for cavalry being underdogs on foot, I don't see how its obviously true. I do fine as infantry. I put 7 points into riding - what else would I have put them in? Ironflesh? Or converted a few for an extra point somewhere? Sure, I'm very slightly at a disadvantage vs someone with more ironflesh, but all that means is I have to block better.
Most (if not all) of the top cavalry players do very well as infantry too.

5) Well, no. You can't say that for any class. The problem is that you don't have to be good at cav to get very high scores (until a good cav comes along and out-lances you). The only other classes I've seen able to sometimes match cavalry kills are 2handers or polearms (mainly using long polearms or one of those silly greatswords). And that doesn't happen often, and usually only for good players.
And once again, cRPG shouldn't be only balanced around the best players. It should aim for a situation where every class is fairly difficult and requires a level of skill to do well. Cavalry doesn't do that at the moment.

Edit: sorry, you edited The numbers refer to your points, not your numbered replies.

Thanks for the reply. I understand you better now and I believe we agree on most parts.
I had a feeling it was just another "I hate all other classes" kinda post. My mistake

"Most (if not all) of the top cavalry players do very well as infantry too."
Funny. Either I'm not a top cavalry player or I'm the only one who sucks on foot

But to be honest, a dismounted polearm cavalry player will fight as an underdog vs a 2 hander.
2H is simply the best in 1vs1 melee situations but I don't mind that. It's the way it should be.

[BD_Guard_Bane]

But to be honest, a dismounted polearm cavalry player will fight as an underdog vs a 2 hander.
2H is simply the best in 1vs1 melee situations but I don't mind that. It's the way it should be.

Dunno, depends what the lance cav does. They have to make a sacrifice because of the slot system, so to use a high tier polearm and their lance they have to ditch the shield. I don't really see that as much of an cav-to-inf sacrifice, but then I'm 2hand cav so I don't use a shield anyway.

As for 2hand vs polearms, its another discussion (though I think both polearms and 2hand categories have silly weapons).

[Riddaren]

(click to show/hide)

An HA is  using an horse you know. (facepalm) Reducing horse's effectiveness will help deal with thoses. And anyway, one cav alone shouldn't chase an ha, that's just suicide. Do you see archers keeping their bows and running toward shielders ?
If you need 2 archers to defend vs 1 cav, then there's something wrong.
Also, an armored cav can EASILY kill 2 archers, if it's a 1h with shield. Bump if they aim well for you, bump slash if they aimed too late, just slash if they jump away.
And if they block, then just ride in small circle around one, permanently bumping slashing him. Really easy.


Where is the difference between thoses 2 ? HA become archers with 4-5 PD and at least 6 WM on foot, so decent archers.
Cav become 1h/shielder OR poelarm user on foot, with 5 PS and 6 WM. Decent infantry.

Put a decent infantry or decent archer on a cav map. Do you think they can be decent there ? Nop.


Again, this is definitely trolling.
Just take an excellent infantry whatever it is. The time he takes to travel by foot to the ennemy, always checking sideways and behind him, a cavalry will have already raided the spawn and attacking others late infantry. Then, our excellent infantry faces too good infantry, he has to engage, and can maybe win, if he doesn't get bumped over by a cav. A good cavalry sees two good archers. Rha, let's just do as if i back away, kill some others, and i'll come back  to deal with them.

And what does an archer do ? Kill peasants (only 2-3 arrows, kill other archers (2-5 arrows), kill horses (3-7 arrows for unarmored one's, 7 for destrier), and wounds some people. During that time, a cav can effectively do much more effective damage to the ennemy team, and way more easily.
It IS comon knowledge, that at this moment, it's EASIER to get kills with cav, than with other gameplays, providing the same skill.

"If you need 2 archers to defend vs 1 cav, then there's something wrong."
Is it? I find it kinda realistic.

"Also, an armored cav can EASILY kill 2 archers, if it's a 1h with shield. Bump if they aim well for you, bump slash if they aimed too late, just slash if they jump away.
And if they block, then just ride in small circle around one, permanently bumping slashing him. Really easy."

Those 2 archers must be really stupid then because one archer alone is enough to headshot the horse. Even an armoured one. Really easy.

(click to show/hide)

I will kill you for the facepalming and trolling accusations ;)