A new approach to lancing

[Seawied]

PS

QQ neg rep QQ

 

pretty much. The pro-easy-mode cav lobbyist seem to get incredibly scared at debate and feel the need to throw hurtful -1 karma points at anyone and everyone disagree with them. 

[Chagan_Arslan]

pretty much. The pro-easy-mode cav lobbyist seem to get incredibly scared at debate and feel the need to throw hurtful -1 karma points at anyone and everyone disagree with them. 

here have a + see if i care (i wont mention i got a lot of - karma also from whatever-lobby-you-are guys, oh shit i just did)

22_King_Plazek im not sure if its only about cav vs cav as many people talk about fighting infantry also but lets start with cav vs cav

this discussion looks like steel pick user complaining about glaive user range of weapon... yes lance is suppose to have advantage (while on full speeds and in some distance to each other) on the 1h cav in cav vs cav duel, because of range (it matters), but 1h cav can deal with that by blocking with shield, stopping other guy, and slashing him which results in either death or being dehorsed

in these situations lancer is defenseless, as we need speed to kill, 1h not, they also got 3/4 directions to attack you with while lancer only 1

the other thing that is better in 1h cav is that with shield the damage transfer when blocking doesnt happen as often, as with downblock i could say its even quite rare to have it, but since i didnt played with a shield for a bit now i wont be doing such bold statement

and lets not forget the "phantom" range of 1h on horse, as we all know sometimes the results are pretty weird, not once have i been killed with a swing in front of a 1h cav (very long arms you say?)

i also remember there was some argument about 0wpf in polearms, well tbh during that short time when lancing had 10 degree attack range? i dumped by lance and took an unloomed elite scimitar and did fairly well to my surprise ;] but sure lances could get tied wpf to the PS just like the thrown weapons or bows, it would for sure eliminate bunch of cav wannabes and make at least some people happy (if of course there are people riding with 0 in polearms)

ok now to the cav vs inf

killing unaware inf is the same for all cav so ill leave it, when it comes to killing aware players you need to to choose proper target.
Rokema said that lancers got only problem with pikemen and bows (i assume xbows also?), i would also add 2h (skilled players) and most noticeable the Flamberg users. Something in this weapon makes it impossible for me to attack user wielding it, i just always end up dead or dehorsed.

Sure lancers might have a slight advantage over 1h cav when it comes to aware inf, but i think that is only in the field of 2h.
On the other hand 1h cav can deal better with players that got very good footwork, thanks to their swings rather than thrusts, for lancers such players would take whole round to deal with with unsure result in the end.

Also 1h cav is better at dealing with archers, when they want to approach archer they can move their horse sideways (to lesses to chance of their horse getting headshot), and take the arrow on the shield and than take archer out before he got his second arrow ready. Lancers on the other hand need to make some evasive maneuvers and hope archer will miss his shot.

When stopped on some rock, wall, peasant with a stick 1h cav got much better chance of surviving it, one because of shield, two because they can swing back at the attackers, lancers on the other hand can only hope that the attackers will fuck it up, as even being successful at stopping their attacks you will get your horse killed thanks to damage transfer

I consider lancers to be a suicidal maniacs that need extreme speed or maneuver with high risk and high reward, 1h cav to be more of a survivalist type playing it safe. Both of those classes got advantages and disadvantages, a bit different play styles you might say. But in the end both are effective, and if you need guidance as a 1h cav please watch RuConquista_DimaUrban

P.S. if you are about to called me biased, please quote me and prove me wrong
P.S.2 all this also looks like 1h cav players are looking for a scapegoat so the possible nerf on cav is directed into lancers instead of them, while staying silent on their advantages and just pointing the advantages of the other side...

[Bulzur]

I consider lancers to be a suicidal maniacs that need extreme speed or maneuver with high risk and high

High risk ? It's not risky to stab stab stab out of range and circling around the ennemy, i don't see the risk here.
I consider playing 1h cav is more risky than playing lance cav, since you do get outrange by some (if not all) polearm and 2h.

[Chagan_Arslan]

High risk ? It's not risky to stab stab stab out of range and circling around the ennemy, i don't see the risk here.
I consider playing 1h cav is more risky than playing lance cav, since you do get outrange by some (if not all) polearm and 2h.

if its the only point you disagree with me in my post ill gladly go into details, if you would like to highlight some other points please do it now

[Glyph]

here have a + see if i care (i wont mention i got a lot of - karma also from whatever-lobby-you-are guys, oh shit i just did)

22_King_Plazek im not sure if its only about cav vs cav as many people talk about fighting infantry also but lets start with cav vs cav

this discussion looks like steel pick user complaining about glaive user range of weapon... yes lance is suppose to have advantage (while on full speeds and in some distance to each other) on the 1h cav in cav vs cav duel, because of range (it matters), but 1h cav can deal with that by blocking with shield, stopping other guy, and slashing him which results in either death or being dehorsed

in these situations lancer is defenseless, as we need speed to kill, 1h not, they also got 3/4 directions to attack you with while lancer only 1

the other thing that is better in 1h cav is that with shield the damage transfer when blocking doesnt happen as often, as with downblock i could say its even quite rare to have it, but since i didnt played with a shield for a bit now i wont be doing such bold statement

and lets not forget the "phantom" range of 1h on horse, as we all know sometimes the results are pretty weird, not once have i been killed with a swing in front of a 1h cav (very long arms you say?)

i also remember there was some argument about 0wpf in polearms, well tbh during that short time when lancing had 10 degree attack range? i dumped by lance and took an unloomed elite scimitar and did fairly well to my surprise ;] but sure lances could get tied wpf to the PS just like the thrown weapons or bows, it would for sure eliminate bunch of cav wannabes and make at least some people happy (if of course there are people riding with 0 in polearms)

ok now to the cav vs inf

killing unaware inf is the same for all cav so ill leave it, when it comes to killing aware players you need to to choose proper target.
Rokema said that lancers got only problem with pikemen and bows (i assume xbows also?), i would also add 2h (skilled players) and most noticeable the Flamberg users. Something in this weapon makes it impossible for me to attack user wielding it, i just always end up dead or dehorsed.

Sure lancers might have a slight advantage over 1h cav when it comes to aware inf, but i think that is only in the field of 2h.
On the other hand 1h cav can deal better with players that got very good footwork, thanks to their swings rather than thrusts, for lancers such players would take whole round to deal with with unsure result in the end.

Also 1h cav is better at dealing with archers, when they want to approach archer they can move their horse sideways (to lesses to chance of their horse getting headshot), and take the arrow on the shield and than take archer out before he got his second arrow ready. Lancers on the other hand need to make some evasive maneuvers and hope archer will miss his shot.

When stopped on some rock, wall, peasant with a stick 1h cav got much better chance of surviving it, one because of shield, two because they can swing back at the attackers, lancers on the other hand can only hope that the attackers will fuck it up, as even being successful at stopping their attacks you will get your horse killed thanks to damage transfer

I consider lancers to be a suicidal maniacs that need extreme speed or maneuver with high risk and high reward, 1h cav to be more of a survivalist type playing it safe. Both of those classes got advantages and disadvantages, a bit different play styles you might say. But in the end both are effective, and if you need guidance as a 1h cav please watch RuConquista_DimaUrban

P.S. if you are about to called me biased, please quote me and prove me wrong
P.S.2 all this also looks like 1h cav players are looking for a scapegoat so the possible nerf on cav is directed into lancers instead of them, while staying silent on their advantages and just pointing the advantages of the other side...

lancers can also carry a shield, so there goes almost all of your points. and if you can deal with footwork inf, is more about your horse than about your weapon. lancers don't have higher risk! they can stab from further away! there goes the 10 mins of your life waisted on a post that isn't true...

[Chagan_Arslan]

ok lets get to it

High risk ? It's not risky to stab stab stab out of range and circling around the ennemy, i don't see the risk here.
I consider playing 1h cav is more risky than playing lance cav, since you do get outrange by some (if not all) polearm and 2h.

high risk, in terms of dealing with different classes, going at full speed to its targets where speed bonus works both ways, ofc this principal is also true to 1h cav but i think they are not that much into high speed runs
and if your a 1h cav and your attacking aware polearm users i think your doing it wrong

and out of curiosity do you consider hitting targets easier with lance or 1h ?

lancers can also carry a shield, so there goes almost all of your points. and if you can deal with footwork inf, is more about your horse than about your weapon. lancers don't have higher risk! they can stab from further away! there goes the 10 mins of your life waisted on a post that isn't true...

im talking about realistic build, that includes scenario where you get dehorsed, can you fight anyone with heavy lance on foot? its 3 slots with shield, not much more that you can add
and im not talking about light lance and lance, as choosing those you render yourself to killing infantry and non heavy lance cav
i think that only Oberyn stayed true to his build, heavy lance and shield, cant think of any other lancer using shield and heavy lance right now

also i didnt say lancer got higher risk than 1h when dealing with aware inf as you imply, i said i consider it "high risk high reward" you dig?
and lets keep with realistic builds, ones that you actually see on servers

as for wasting my time, thank you for your concern but i find it quite entertaining to read what you guys write here

[Glyph]

still 1/3 to 1/2 of all lancers use a lance, shield and a onehander.

[Wookimonsta]

still 1/3 to 1/2 of all lancers use a lance, shield and a onehander.

in the interest of discussion, please remember 95% of statistics are made up on the spot. can we get actual stats on that?

[Glyph]

in the interest of discussion, please remember 95% of statistics are made up on the spot. can we get actual stats on that?

how would you want to masiour that?

[FRANK_THE_TANK]

+1, boost couching make it worthwhile. Nerf poking its far too powerful.

I think they should also add different stirrups and saddles so that some horses are real cav horses and others are for mobility and archery. I mean with out the right saddle you can't lance squat. You would just fly off your horse once you made contact. That would proved a little more definition to the horses and a bit more variety.

[Seawied]

this discussion looks like steel pick user complaining about glaive user range of weapon... yes lance is suppose to have advantage (while on full speeds and in some distance to each other) on the 1h cav in cav vs cav duel, because of range (it matters), but 1h cav can deal with that by blocking with shield, stopping other guy, and slashing him which results in either death or being dehorsed

I'd like to point out I wrote this post and my highest level character is a lancer. These points I'm writing are coming from someone who wants their own class to be nerfed. I very rarely ever ask for a class to be nerfed that I have not tried myself, or am not currently playing. Its not the same as a "glaive nerf" post from a biased steel pick user.

While some of the other people who have posted in support of my ideas are not lancers, that does not make their opinion on the matter invalid at all. Many of them have been lancers in the past.

We don't want lancers nerfed into oblivion; we just want lancers to have solid internal balance among other cavalry. This means that they should have a risk-reward trade-off to other builds. With a lance dealing 28-26p, it makes them one of the highest damaging weapons on horseback, and on top of that, they are also the longest, with excellent poking animation.

I've fiddled with cavalry for about 3 generations and am about to retire. My conclusion was that lance cavalry is the strongest, safest, and easiest to use build out of all of the cavalry types. They should have some drawbacks.

[22nd_King_Plazek]

Trust me Chagan with the high prevalence of C damage amongst 1h and 2h weapons a sword and horseman will definitely be making (risky) high speed passes so he has a chance of breaking through the opponents armour.

Suggesting otherwise and that lancing is therefore more risky than 1h/2h is ridiculous, to be frank.

[Riddaren]

Seawid: Your "new approach to lancing" would only mean the end of lancing as we know it today.
Right now the statistics are probably: 50% lancers, 40% HA and 10% other melee cavalry.
With your suggestion it would be soemthing like: 10% lancers, 60% HA and 30% other melee cav.
Is that your intention?

Do you want less lancers and more horse archers?
Do you find it easier to dodge an arrow from a horse than a thrusing lance (that can be down blocked)?

---

The game is balanced as it is. Those who think poke lancing is OP should take a look at good infantry players and learn from them.
The reason cavalry players can get a k:d of 10:1 is because of unskilled or unaware infantry players.

On top of that:

In 1 vs 1 situations vs any kind of class a lancer is very predictable and easily dodged or stopped.
In 1 vs 1 situations vs all but other archers the HA is almost invincible.

Not saying HA is OP at the moment. But it will surely become even more powerful with the suggestions of Seawied implemented.

---

"Add a chance to drop a thrusted lance on a high damage hit"
You could add all kinds of random events. But why would you want to do that?
Random events decreases the gap between good and bad players, thus making the game more luck based and less competetive.

"Remove the ability to manual block with lances"
Is this a serious suggestion?

Anyway:

The ability to be able to block (with or without a shield) is crucial for a cavalry player (not against infantry but against other melee cavalry).

This means that all lancers would be forced to use a shield.
As a result they would also be limited to a 1 slot weapon on back instead of 2.

TBH I don't see what that would accomplish other than nerfing good players like Leed and Torben (who use lance on horse and a 2 slot polearm when dismounted).
But maybe you can come up with a nerf that will only affect good 2H players like Chase and Phyrex as well?

[Casimir]

TomMyyY uses a shield with his lance, he seems to do fine on foot...

[Riddaren]

TomMyyY uses a shield with his lance, he seems to do fine on foot...

Everyone could be playing with the exact same build and equipment. But how fun is that?
What is good about cRPG is the level of customization and diversity.
Or would you rather see everyone fight on foot with 1H + shield?