A new approach to lancing

[22nd_King_Plazek]

Another stellar performance there Ujin. I have to ask are you purposefully engaging in the same fallacious arguments again and again for your own entertainment or because you do not know any better?
I notice once again you did not care to back up your claim that the morningstar is the ultimate piercing cavalry weapon. Despite me suggesting, once more, that it would be a good idea. "Jealous sissy" though, that definitely explains the 20 minutes it took you to reply to my post 

I never said that lancers should be on equal terms with other cavalry types. Perhaps you would care to read my posts?

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.

I think they should be great, really great. In certain ways. I also happen to think this should be balanced with realistic negatives, which makes them a much worse choice depending on the situation.

---

I noticed again you keep on saying "but 22nd guys do ok!" and I ask once again. What about 22nd being able to do ok in any given class means the game is balanced?

PS

For the record I would never pick up some stinking lance. I do not use lances, they are boring and easy. Which is why I have never cared enough for them to use them with any regularity since beta. I use swords on horseback for the added fun and challenge and I love the class.

[rokema]

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.

A bad lancer will do fine because his weapon ranges longer than most spears, he can just turn away and survive mistakes he has made.

A bad 1h on horseback will get raped because he has to actually risk himself by getting within the enemies attack radius to be able to hit.

The problem I have is that there's hardly any risk but a lot of reward for lancing.

I propose that... the faster a lancer rides, the radius at which he can stab is lowered.
(Want me to explain why this is a good balance?)
EDIT: Explanation because Ujin doesn't seem like the thinking feller:
This balancing will make lances still a great offensive weapon, but a poor defensive weapon since you have to slow down to defend your rears / attack enemies which're to the sides.

And uhm. Just because any 1h on horseback can use an overpowered lance doesn't mean everything is alright.

One more thing, I feel the turn speed of horses(When very slow or stationary) should be higher so archers can't just run around shooting arrows into my horse just because it can't side-step.

[Paul]

WTF, Rokema? Who led you out of the jungle?

[Ujin]

Glad you've brough some backup. It's not like your pleasant company wasn't enough for me, if you know what i mean.

 By the way , i switch from the forum to the game and back, but i appreaciate the fact that you've mentioned the time it took me to answer you. Goes to show how dedicated you are to this "balancing issue". I also like the constant mentioning of my intellectual capabilities. Please stop being so passive-agressive and just call me stupid , don't restrain yourself. Not that i care anyway.

I've stated my opinion on the cav balance , you've stated yours. Just because i don't agree with you doesn't mean i have to waste the whole bloody day reading your neverending posts on this forum, really. If you've read MY messages , you'd notice that i said "as far as i remember" when mentioned the morningstar as the best piercing cav weapon. Can we go on now, please? But feel free to celebrate this glorious moment of your life, your really got me this time (blah !).

Rokema, when it comes to talking about cav and mistakes, i'd like to point out a couple of things :

1. I believe  (and i hope you agree with me) that a perfect target for any type of cavalry would be an enemy that is either not aware of the cav's presence (turned his back) or is engaged in a melee fight and can't really do anything. That kind of target is an easy prey for both lance and 1h cav.

2. If the enemy is aware of cavs presence : 

-if it's a shielder, they usually just hold their shields up. 1h cav usually deals better with these guys than lancer cav, bumpslash combo works wonders if you know how to use it. Same goes for people just holding their downblock, couching a lance against them is usually of equal risk compared to approaching them with 1h on horseback.

- 2handers with danish/german greatswords have decent chances against lance cav, it's usually a mix of luck + skill of both players that decides who comes out victorious. On my 2h alt i've killed more cav with a stab when i was aware of it than it killed me.  Either way, it's a risk to attack and aware 2hander.

- Polearm users can be dangerous to lance cav. Obviously the most dangerous ones are pikemen/bamboo spears/hoplites (decent ones) . They mostly die to lance cav cause of their own mistakes.

- Archers are easy prey for both classes of cavalry, however if the lancer wants to use a somewhat decent weapon when he gets dehorsed, he is forced to not use a shield. This gives 1h cav better chances to survive against archers/xbowmen, because getting shot by a longbow at full speed can be really painful. By " survive" i don't mean  keeping your horse alive , of course.

3. Lance cavalry is extremly vulnerable when it gets dehorsed. When 1h +shield cav gets dehorsed , all they need to do is hold their block until they get up and than either engage in a fight or start backpedalling if they got dehorsed in front of a group of enemies. I've seen dehorsed 1h+shield cav survive like this many times.

4. Lancing , especially angles , highly relies on the horse you use. That is why i believe that the core of all problems that people have with lance cav lies in arabian (sarranid) war horses' stats. Coursers, on the other hand , are perfect weapons against slow or unaware people.   Most other horses give infantry much better chances to fight off lance cav. And when  it comes to armoured horses, i believe 1h+shields suit them the most.

5. Last but not least, i don't remember a single Strategus battle where cavalry completely overwhelmed and dominated the other team. This is simply because the two best weapons against any type of cavalry are teamwork and well-defended groups of ranged . Make lancing radius smaller and you risk either making the class not interesting (don't forget that not everyone will ride champion arabian warhorses in Strat.) to play or simply underpowered. Because right now even on battle servers it is absolutely possible to do fine against the so -called "overpowered" cav.

Lances are definetly worse defending weapons than 1hs/2hs right now anyway. You can't succesfully poke a guy (if he has at least some armour) that stands right next to you if your horse gets stopped. Yes, there is a chance you will barely scratch him, but with a 1h + shield you have much better options at low speed and in tight areas. It works especially well with a heavy horse.

P.S. lance is not "overpowered". It is a weapon made SPECIFICALLY for cavalry , unlike 1handers/2handers that can be used effectively as infantry weapons. I think it's pretty simple to understand. And if you love the "challenge" , why do you keep trying to change the game to work in your favour ? So far your biggest argument is "lances are easy , boring and overpowred. I don't like them, i don't use them, i want them "changed" or "balanced" " .  Last time i've checked, that's called a biased opinion. But then again, we both might have biased opinions, who knows.

P.P.S. edited the message a bit to make it slightly easier to read. I've got flu atm so don't judge me too much.

[22nd_King_Plazek]

This is a thread about the balance of lance cavalry against other cavalry. All that stuff you just wrote with regards to infantry and archers is mostly irrelevant to this discussion. Glad that you decided to drop your ridiculous claim with regards to morningstars though.

One mans "passive agressive" is another mans "light ridicule". You know on account of your childish comments. I would rather be "passive aggressive" than flat out rude however, as you are. I say what I want to say, I have no desire to be like you though.
---

1) Platitude.

2) Cav vs Cav discussion in this topic plox. Not that I think your analysis with regards to the prevalance on shields amongst lancers is in any way accurate. They are common, there are plenty of reasonably useful 1 slot shields and 1h weapons.

3) Based upon fallacious point (2)

4) All cavalry types can use all types of horses, as far as this topic goes (that is balance amongst cavalry) horses are balanced as each cavalry type gets the same benefits. If you want to talk about horse imbalance then that is a different topic.

5) Again this is a topic about cav vs cav balance.

---

I am cavalry, you do not need to make the general cavalry nerf defence arguments. You need to answer why "lancers are better because they should be better."
 You know like you said earlier. Or would you like to rescind that comments like you did with the morningstar?


PS

Lol Paul

PS

QQ neg rep QQ

 

[Jarlek]

Before we continue, let's call people on horse who use slicing weapons (morningstar, LHB, longsword) for slicers, ok?

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:

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!

Yes, a lancer is in more danger because he has a very slow attack (which I tried to say earlier) and he has a higher chance of glancing (because of the long length) he can more easily be blocked (only thrust damage). Both of them will obviously manage to get out as fast as possible, but a lancer will only have one desperate attack while a slicer can do all from 2-4 if he is spamming fast enough.

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!

Yes, lancer are the melee cav that can most easily go against aware players. But that does not mean they are EFFECTIVE against aware players. If you see on the duel servers how a lancer duels footmen, you can see that it is a very, VERY slow process. Again this is agaisnt middle/good players as bad players will try to jump/outrange/rush the cav. So in a battle it's never a good idea to go for aware players since you will need time to take them down (unless they get distracted) and in that time you will most of the time be shot down. Both lancers and slicers can go against bad players btw.

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.

Sneak - both none, trying to sneak with a horse is not possible. Hiding and moving silently is not possible with a horse. The reason people are caught unaware by horsemen from behind is not because horses are stealthy but because they are fast. Which brings us too...
Ambush - both, correct! Both can ambush and both are just as good. Slicers will be even better in some circumstances because of their higher attack speed (people in a line, running slightly spread out) while lancers are better on others because of their higher length (people spread out).
Horsebump - both, correct again, but why should this be a difference since this is the horse and not the rider doing it?
Better range - lancer, correct. Lances have greater length.
Head on strike - lancer none. No horsemen are good in a head on strike. As I said earlier dueling with a horse should take time and the only time it will be fast (and a still living horse and rider) is if the one they are charging does a stupid mistake.

And about being on foot with a lance? No, it is NO WAY as good as any 2hander or polearm or 1hander. It's basically a very slow, very short "long spear" aka "ye olde pike". Yes it is good if your dehorsed next to a group of angry horsemen but then you want it because it's the longest stick (read: polearm) that you have.

snip
---

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.

snip

Actually I did, right beneath it. Or did you not read it? Such a nice thing that we can have a decent discussion here.


@Ujin. Your 1-4 was basically what I was trying to say in my earlier posts, and 5 is VERY true. Being a horseman in that 40v40 was a very stressing thing. Also we can't have a proper discussion with people like this who basically scream FALLACY whenever someone comes with an argument.

[Ujin]

The last thing on this forum i want ,Plazek, is you telling me where to post or not. You accuse me of being rude as opposed to your subtle sarcasm , but your recent messages show us that this is not the case.

Your have your own opinion, i have my own, and it clearly states that i don't believe that lancers need balancing, i believe that certain horses need balancing. If you fail to see the logic in my arguments , you have only yourself to blame. I am not really looking for your approval or permission to post in this topic so , to live up to your expectations and be the rude impolite brute that i am - you can shove those "switch to a different topic" suggestions up your cocky, arrogant ass.

I'll leave you at this point where you will probably write some mumbo-jumbo about me running away from the argument i'm losing, but  i think i've said all i wanted to say already. Other people can read all my points in the messages above. Whether they agree with me or you is up to them. I definetly didn't come to this topic to exchange words with you for the next 3 or so pages.

Cheers.

P.S. and lol no, trust me i didn't touch your awesomebar =)).

[22nd_King_Plazek]

Zapper

Nope. I calmly say fallacy when fools come along with ad hominems. Learn difference plox. I only called fallacy three times and only in direct response to actual ad hominems which bear no relation to the current topic 

If your going to accuse me of not reading things then you should be aware. I was addressing Ujin with regards to morningstars, not you. Anyway even Ujin has now rescinded that point, so I am not sure why you would bring it back up.

---

Lances do not particularly have a higher chance of glancing, long weapons have pretty much always been bugged with regards to this when used to thrust. Hence the "lolstab". They can be slower, I will give you that. However unless the 2h/1h weapon has comparable P/B damage then the chance of a glance is pretty equal.

---

So as you agreed, lancers have it easier.

---

I said sneak because you said it, if your gonna be all smart about it:

Both can sneak attack from the back on unaware

Sure though as you say head on strikes can be dangerous (if you make a mistake) but with a heavy lance against an opponent with a short weapon the lancer can safely perform such a feat so long as he does not do something stupid. To say otherwise when the guy has a 175-190 range lance and the standard 1h weapon is 100 or shorter length is just crazy.

No shit having a lance on foot sucks in most situations this was not my point. My point was in some situations it can be great, second only to a long pike, except you can carry a shield at the same time. So people ought not whine that they cannot use their lance on foot as if that makes the inequalities between lances and other weapons while on horseback all ok. If you have a lance and I have a 1h and were surrounded by cav, both dehorsed, where is the 1h advantage then?!

Point being that sorry excuse for an argument has no strength behind it.

(click to show/hide)

Ujin, like I care where and how you post. You were the one who started the petty name calling I can say your rude when you are.
Also the most likely response to you bailing on this thread is not really anything. I will still be here reading and posting and trying to argue for what I see as the good of the game. You know as you should also be doing.

[Kafein]

Lances were exactly how they had to be when you could only attack in a little zone in front of (between the first May patch and the second, one or two days later). It also worked like that at some stage of warband beta. A little speed and damage buff to them and you'll get a charge-dedicated lance cavary, with decent (forward) range, unlike couched lances. One of the things ruining the lance gameplay is how you can attack in nearly any direction with it.

(hopefully) end of my contribution.

[Keshian]

Lances were exactly how they had to be when you could only attack in a little zone in front of (between the first May patch and the second, one or two days later). It also worked like that at some stage of warband beta. A little speed and damage buff to them and you'll get a charge-dedicated lance cavary, with decent (forward) range, unlike couched lances. One of the things ruining the lance gameplay is how you can attack in nearly any direction with it.

(hopefully) end of my contribution.

Not a bad idea.  Would be nice for have a real challenge so lancers actually have to be good to do well and plan their attacks and approaches.  of course most likely we would see a bunch of lancers become 1 handed cav or throwers (they are getting somewhat buffed back in next patch) because its no longer easy mode, much like many archers became throwers after the january patch.

[Gurnisson]

Lances were exactly how they had to be when you could only attack in a little zone in front of (between the first May patch and the second, one or two days later). It also worked like that at some stage of warband beta. A little speed and damage buff to them and you'll get a charge-dedicated lance cavary, with decent (forward) range, unlike couched lances. One of the things ruining the lance gameplay is how you can attack in nearly any direction with it.

So that a good lancer won't manage too beat a guy with a spear or two-hander with good maneuver? No, that would make cav even more reliant on backraping, which is even more silly. Let there be some skill left in lancing, not just brainless backstabbing, or bumping of enemies. Good maneuver and knowing when to stab, go in and out of range and such is the skill part of cav. Don't remove it.

[rokema]

So that a good lancer won't manage too beat a guy with a spear or two-hander with good maneuver? No, that would make cav even more reliant on backraping, which is even more silly. Let there be some skill left in lancing, not just brainless backstabbing, or bumping of enemies. Good maneuver and knowing when to stab, go in and out of range and such is the skill part of cav. Don't remove it.

Ever heard of maneuvering, baiting and knocking down?

Honestly, when you're playing a lancer, the only problem you'll ever find is Pikemen and archers. Rest you can just outrange easily. They have no chance of fighting back if they don't have any form of ranged weapon or pike, forcing them to be on the defensive constantly.

As a 1h on horseback everything can kill you. Even a peasant with a stick if he manages to dodge your blow and smack your toe.(Hey it rhymed)

So my problem with lances is Risk - Reward, no risk for the reward lancers are getting.



EDIT: If the thing gets done where the faster you go, the less of a radius you can stab, all new cavalry tactics come up where you slow down at the last moment to stab a guy or something.

The main thing that I want is that people get a chance to fight back, honestly, if you have a shorter weapon you have NO chance to fight back against a lancer who keeps stabbing you with the very tip of his weapon to veer off before you can reach him.

That "good maneuver" you are talking about is just veering off as you stab to stay out of range, nothing good about it it's just stupid since a lancer can do it over and over and over and over without you being able to do anything back. + you can still kill a 2h head-on with a lance if you have timing. (your weapon is longer you know?)

EDIT EDIT EDIT: What's so brainless about bumping? Bumping is opening yourself for an attack in an attempt to open up the enemy by knocking him down.

[Gurnisson]

Ever heard of maneuvering, baiting and knocking down?

Yes, I mentioned two of them

Honestly, when you're playing a lancer, the only problem you'll ever find is Pikemen and archers. Rest you can just outrange easily. They have no chance of fighting back if they don't have any form of ranged weapon or pike, forcing them to be on the defensive constantly.

Depends on the player. Good two-handers can take you down, depending on your, and his, maneuverability. I know I've taken down a lot of cav by being unpredictable, using footwork and the long stab on my two-hander. Also, every class has their counter, why should all classes be able to take down lancers easily?

As a 1h on horseback everything can kill you. Even a peasant with a stick if he manages to dodge your blow and smack your toe.(Hey it rhymed)

Yes, 1H horseman have a harder time, but with some tricks you can take down lancers (Ride in front, make him stop, spin + slash till his horse is dead), and the infantry with maneuvering + bumpslashing. Still, I see your point. Lancers are at a clear advantage as a class.

So my problem with lances is Risk - Reward, no risk for the reward lancers are getting.

Agree.

If the thing gets done where the faster you go, the less of a radius you can stab, all new cavalry tactics come up where you slow down at the last moment to stab a guy or something.

I never talked about that one. I talked about the silly lock that was in the beta that Kafein mentioned. I would rather see the one you've mentioned here, because a lancer teasing infantry like that are easy prey for half-decent archers, I.E. risk.

The main thing that I want is that people get a chance to fight back, honestly, if you have a shorter weapon you have NO chance to fight back against a lancer who keeps stabbing you with the very tip of his weapon to veer off before you can reach him.

I see your point there. Then again, classes have their counters, as I mentioned earlier. One-handers, to make one example, is not a counter for cav and shouldn't be able to take them down easily. They can still do it though, with good movement and unpredictability.

That "good maneuver" you are talking about is just veering off as you stab to stay out of range, nothing good about it it's just stupid since a lancer can do it over and over and over and over without you being able to do anything back. + you can still kill a 2h head-on with a lance if you have timing. (your weapon is longer you know?)

If you release your weapon without knowing if you're gonna hit him, you're doing it wrong. Either leave him, or try to feint him to use speed bonus, making him ride into your reach, and then unleash your strike.

[Paul]

Mostly very one-sided opinions here, as usual. Apart from Gurni.

Playing both lancer and 1h cav I think the balance between lancer and sword&board cav against footmen is fine as it is. Both have advantages and disadvantages. However the balance in a direct duel is not ok in my opinion. Sword&board should get some more opportunites to counter lancers in certain situations.

However while with WSE the lancing angle will probably get smaller, I'm strongly against the front stab only solution we had in Native beta as well as briefly in cRPG. It takes the last bit of skill out of lancing. It already has a lower skill ceiling than sword&board but with that it becomes very, very dull.

[Overdriven]

I think this thread should be closed. When it turns into people insulting each other, you know you've reached a dead end thread and another pointless discussion.

Plus these arguments are getting very samey from the exact same few people arguing backwards and forwards. I've given up on this cavalry argument until I see some fresh faces come in and start moaning about cavalry. Not the same old same old.