A new approach to lancing

[22nd_King_Plazek]

Oh so lances are better because they are meant to be?

Such an impressive argument right thar!

Well now I am going to make a counter argument of equal awesomeosity.

"No they're not."

---

2h sword are more powerful than 1h weapons when infantry because of the trade off in defence for attack. This goes for 2h polearms too.
Not "because they are meant to be".

Lances should be the best aggressive weapon in a head on strike. They should be un-paralleled in this regard. But they should not be better in almost every way. With their massive attack angles, massive armour piercing damage and super easyness, they currently are. There are plenty of situations where a lancer should get fucked, but he doesn't.

I do not give a crap if you are tired if you are then go get some sleep. Maybe then you lot can make a better argument than "yea lances are more powerful, they are meant to be trololol".

[Ujin]

Oh so lances are better because they are meant to be?

Such an impressive argument right thar!

Well now I am going to make a counter argument of equal awesomeosity.

"No they're not."

---

2h sword are more powerful than 1h weapons when infantry because of the trade off in defence for attack. This goes for 2h polearms too.
Not "because they are meant to be".

Lances should be the best aggressive weapon in a head on strike. They should be un-paralleled in this regard. But they should not be better in almost every way. With their massive attack angles, massive armour piercing damage and super easyness, they currently are. There are plenty of situations where a lancer should get fucked, but he doesn't.

I do not give a crap if you are tired if you are then go get some sleep. Maybe then you lot can make a better argument than "yea lances are more powerful, they are meant to be trololol".

You look a bit angry , Plazek. Here, have a fishstick and calm down.

For everyone else - my points above remain. And yeah, i believe that "lancers are supposed to be the best cav" argument is still valid, even though i've brought up some other arguments along with it.

P.S. best armor piercing weapon from a horseback is a morningstar , as far as  i remember.

[Danath]

I couche with great lance as I have 0 polearm skill so I don't know for sure if lancing is now over powered (regular poke lancing) but I gotta say its hard to use great lance when you don't have a shield and cant block with it lol.

[Seawied]

I couche with great lance as I have 0 polearm skill so I don't know for sure if lancing is now over powered (regular poke lancing) but I gotta say its hard to use great lance when you don't have a shield and cant block with it lol.

you bring up a good issue which I didn't calculate and that is 0 wpf couching. If couch cool-down was tied to polearm wpf, this would be a good way of balancing it.


@Ujin. I tend to agree with Plazek's rebuttal to your previous post. I would like to write a more detailed counter argument, but I haven't had the time/motivation just yet.

@ the argument that morningstar is the best pierce weapon: I respectfully disagree. The morningstar is a great weapon to use on horseback, but it carries a lot of danger along with it. It suffers the 33% horseback penalty or a 35% 1h penalty. Additionally, it doesn't have a reach which allows the rider to be constantly safe. The Morningstar in my opinion, represents a good trade-off between killing-power and risk. Lances don't have that same risk.

[Jarlek]

you bring up a good issue which I didn't calculate and that is 0 wpf couching. If couch cool-down was tied to polearm wpf, this would be a good way of balancing it.


@Ujin. I tend to agree with Plazek's rebuttal to your previous post. I would like to write a more detailed counter argument, but I haven't had the time/motivation just yet.

@ the argument that morningstar is the best pierce weapon: I respectfully disagree. The morningstar is a great weapon to use on horseback, but it carries a lot of danger along with it. It suffers the 33% horseback penalty or a 35% 1h penalty. Additionally, it doesn't have a reach which allows the rider to be constantly safe. The Morningstar in my opinion, represents a good trade-off between killing-power and risk. Lances don't have that same risk.

I lol'ed

[Seawied]

I lol'ed

and I just rolled my eyes at this response. You really think that attacking someone with a 190 length lance carries the same risk as an 82 length weapon? You're living in a dream world then, my friend.

[22nd_King_Plazek]

Ahh, an ad hominem with regards to percieved anger perhaps implying me and my arguments are unreasonable?

Good try Ujin, good try.
Get some sleep eh ;)

Maybe next time you can tell us why Lancers should be the unparalleled cavalry fighting force of the battlefield. As for suggesting that the morningstar is the ultimate piercing weapon on horseback. Unless you are such a Neanderthal that you believe highest damage = best weapon by default (and I thought you were smarter than that) then what else other than that single stat makes it the best horseback piercing weapon?

[Jarlek]

and I just rolled my eyes at this response. You really think that attacking someone with a 190 length lance carries the same risk as an 82 length weapon? You're living in a dream world then, my friend.

herpa derpa, speed rating 65 against speed rating 92? If the lancer fucks up and misses/stops he can't block and is dead (or should die, luck still exists), and if a morningstar user fucks up and goes duel mode then he is dead. Meleecav is high risk, high gain no matter what you use, it's just different ways those risks are. See my point?

[22nd_King_Plazek]

If the lancer misses or fucks up and is not a total gommo then he is still going to be about 2 metres away, as opposed to the morningstar user who will be right up in the guys face.
You really need some one to point this out to you? Really?

Not to mention the 33% damage and speed reduction that using a 2h weapon in 1h mode causes. Do some maths and find out what 92speed minus 33% is. Pro tip: They are pretty close, and the damage is less.

[Glyph]

acctually the morningstar does only 25 pierce damage from horseback(38x2/3), so not really a good weapon

[Jarlek]

You do know polearms also gets the reduced damage when on horse? Not sure with the speed tough.

And I see that you didn't understand my post properly (my fault really, bad description), a lancer and a morningstar user should attack from horse in different ways. Both can sneak attack from the back on unaware, but lancers should have more distance so they don't get hit/stuck/stopped (by polearm stab) while a morningstar should ambush, horsebump, slice, and even if he gets stuck (wall etc.) he can attack back.  The morningstar is not in as big danger when he is stopped as a lancer, while a lancer can have more distance (which also makes it easier to dodge). Also a morningstar user should never go for aware players, while lancers can (unless the footman has flamberge/glaive/greatsword/any-pikelike weapons/LHB and doesn't suck, like jumpers, free kills ).

Ok this becomes sort of a mess. Hope you understand it. Will try to give a better description if this is not good enough.

Basically: Lancer and morningstar on horse is two different styles with different tactics. BOTH are a high risk, high reward.

EDIT: Also only gets the 33% speed reduction if you use it with a shield, even tough the animation on horse is with 1 hand. The 33% damage and speed reduction (or was it 30%?) is from being on horse is for both polearm and 2h. Only 1h gets away (and ranged, but that's a different story)

[22nd_King_Plazek]

I know they definitely used to, in native. Some of these things could have been changed. I thought I remembered hearing something like that but cannot really remember.

You say:

both can sneak attack from the back on unaware, but lancers should have more distance so they don't get hit/stuck/stopped (by polearm stab) while a morningstar should ambush, horsebump, slice, and even if he gets stuck (wall etc.) he can attack back.

As if ambushing/horsebumping/attacking after you have gotten stuck, is something only 1h/2h users can do.

This is not true.
Lancers can do all of these things just fine.

Why is a lancer in more danger than a 1h/2h user after their horse has been stopped? Whether I am using a sword or a lance the #1 objective is getting the hell out of there. Using a sword makes it no easier to avoid dying. It just means you have a higher base damage weapon with C damage instead of a much longer ranged, equally attack angled slightly lower damage P damage weapon. A weapon that may well do more damage against an armoured opponent even at a standstill!

Then you also admit that only lancers can go for aware players and other weapon types users ought not even try.

---

You own account is unbalanced!

Sneak - both
Ambush - both
Horsebump - both
Better range - lancer
Head on strike - lancer

---

Also about all you guys who are all "but omg you can use your sword on foot!" you can damn well use your lance on foot! If you have been dehorsed in the middle of some field and there is enemy cavalry all over, then I would much rather have a lance than some little 1h/2h sword.

[Ujin]

Unless you are such a Neanderthal that you believe highest damage = best weapon by default (and I thought you were smarter than that) then what else other than that single stat makes it the best horseback piercing weapon?

Nope, however i believe that while you keep shouting "Ner Balance !" on the forums and doing your best to look smarter than the others, your clanmates from the 22nd are playing the game and those who play as cav seem to do pretty fine , both lancers and 1handers.

Oh and if the player with a morningstar misses, he won't be right up in the guy's face, he will simply keep safely riding on , already 10-20 meters away from the enemy he just missed. Do i really have to explain this to you? Really ?

[22nd_King_Plazek]

Smart guy, I c wut you did there.

I know we in the 22nd do fine. In fact I am one of those cavalry, I am the 2h javcav and I do fine. The 22nd being able to win does not mean that things are balanced though does it. So whats your point?

---

If the player with the morningstar misses and the guy he is trying to kill has a pro-active aggressive defence. In other words the other guys method of defence is trying to kill the guy then yes, for the important moment the cavalryman will be very close to the defenders face. Within 82 length of it to be precise. That point there, before he rides away is when he will die, if he is going to.

You know as opposed to being 175-190 distance away, ie much less likely to be counter stabbed.

herpa derpa

---

I see you did not answer my question regarding what about the morning star other than the high damage stat makes it the ultimate piercing cavalry weapon... preferring instead to engage in some more fallacious anti logic.

Nope, however i believe that while you keep shouting "Ner Balance !" on the forums and doing your best to look smarter than the others,

Noes not another ad hominem!

/loses argument

...oh wait, were in the universe where logic matters!

[Ujin]

(click to show/hide)

Smart guy, I c wut you did there.

I know we in the 22nd do fine. In fact I am one of those cavalry, I am the 2h javcav and I do fine. The 22nd being able to win does not mean that things are balanced though does it. So whats your point?

---

If the player with the morningstar misses and the guy he is trying to kill has a pro-active aggressive defence. In other words the other guys method of defence is trying to kill the guy then yes, for the important moment the cavalryman will be very close to the defenders face. Within 82 length of it to be precise. That point there, before he rides away is when he will die, if he is going to.

You know as opposed to being 175-190 distance away, ie much less likely to be counter stabbed.


---

I see you did not answer my question regarding what about the morning star other than the high damage stat makes it the ultimate piercing cavalry weapon... preferring instead to engage in some more fallacious anti logic.

Noes not another ad hominem!

/loses argument

...oh wait, were in the universe where logic matters!

My point is the cav is balanced as it is right now, except for courser/sarranid which might need some slight stat reductions. What is your point, aside from the arguing exersises ?

A decent 1h cav would be doing absolutely fine in the game. A bad lancer/1h cav would be somewhere at the bottom of the scoreboard due to constant mistakes they make. I myself use a bardiche (2hander) from the horseback from time to time and find it very fun and in some situations even more useful than lancing. 1h cav should serve other purposes and i don't see why the heck do you want to put them on equal terms against lance cavalry.
You keep saying that lance cav can do everything that 1h cav does , but better, yet you and your clanmates and many other people have no troubles being 1h/2h cav, i don't see them complaining here. Probably has something to do with them actually liking the class they play and not being jealous sissies.

P.S. i know this will probably turn against me, but noone is stopping a 1h cav player from taking a lance for cav vs cav fights. Problem solved.