my thoughts on burff

[Torben]

we have all we need:  the agil/fast horses of low hp and armor,  the mid and heavy horses with higher hp ando/or armor and less man.  why change all that?

our real problem is the cost/effectivness thingy.  everyone uses the horse that will work best for him without beeing broke instantly.

thats why i´d suggest (it has been done before) not to change the horses atm,  but the upkeep for them,  or price.  whatever.

NO plated charger dude will be more effective than a courser or arrabian rider. And especially no warhorse dude.

So, although im pissed by only thinking about it:  redo the prices according to effectiveness.

sth like courser=mamluk,  arrabian=charger,  charger=destrier. while decreasing the prices for heavy horses and increasing those of "mediums"



ahrg,  only thinking about it is killing me : D
but seriously,  why kill deversity in this game,  this  way we would see more of every kind of horse,  and thats what makes things interresting.  not burfing everything to be way similar at the end.

[Bulzur]

Why not.

Though i'll put the courser on par with the arabian/charger price.
The ability to couch a lance JUST AFTER turning is really a bother.

[Vibe]

Agree.

[Tavuk_Bey]

no

[Torben]

no

than lets just decrease upkeep on armored horses : D

[Ujin]

that + improving the sounds of horses would slightly decrease the whining, i suppose.

[Lorenzo_of_Iberia]

The upkeep on heavy horses seems fair to me atm :/ One of the main issues cav has is the horse being taken down by archers, taking even a cataphract horse practically nullifys damage from arrows (they maybe do 5-10% of health to the horse from what would be 30-50% on an arabian). Making Heavy horses as cheap as coursers or even just cheaper will lead to archers giving up bothering shooting horses (which very few do anyways for some selfish reasons...).

Additionally heavy horses wont go down to stab animations from other weapons which i can imagine is going to make many players rage (and rightly so) if we see a lot more heavy horses.

[Glyph]

The upkeep on heavy horses seems fair to me atm :/ One of the main issues cav has is the horse being taken down by archers, taking even a cataphract horse practically nullifys damage from arrows (they maybe do 5-10% of health to the horse from what would be 30-50% on an arabian). Making Heavy horses as cheap as coursers or even just cheaper will lead to archers giving up bothering shooting horses (which very few do anyways for some selfish reasons...).

Additionally heavy horses wont go down to stab animations from other weapons which i can imagine is going to make many players rage (and rightly so) if we see a lot more heavy horses.

untrue, i have a longbowman and when i see a heavy horse, i immidiately start shooting it. so no.

[Lorenzo_of_Iberia]

untrue, i have a longbowman and when i see a heavy horse, i immidiately start shooting it. so no.

Well you are one of the few players who do but feel free to cope with mamlukes trampling you again and again and you not being able to bring them down with less than 5 longbow shots (5 very lengthy animations, having to be performed between being bumped, slashed and attacked) tbh cheaper heavy horses would only benefit me... I do love my Cataphract horse 

[Glyph]

Well you are one of the few players who do but feel free to cope with mamlukes trampling you again and again and you not being able to bring them down with less than 5 longbow shots (5 very lengthy animations, having to be performed between being bumped, slashed and attacked) tbh cheaper heavy horses would only benefit me... I do love my Cataphract horse 

to not let that happen you should just stick with your friends and if you don't your own fould

[Lorenzo_of_Iberia]

to not let that happen you should just stick with your friends and if you don't your own fould

I'm all for strength in numbers but my point is still valid : If we see cheaper heavy horses we are gonna see more of them on the field and all those archers who don't have friends are gonna whine about it. The simple fact is the increased armour / hp will mean more shots to take a horse down and one of the main weaknesses of horses is how fragile they are. I know I find I have so much leeway on what I can get away with on a heavy horse, whereas on a lighter horse a single mistake/ badly timed charge leads to me losing my horse.

[Glyph]

I'm all for strength in numbers but my point is still valid : If we see cheaper heavy horses we are gonna see more of them on the field and all those archers who don't have friends are gonna whine about it. The simple fact is the increased armour / hp will mean more shots to take a horse down and one of the main weaknesses of horses is how fragile they are. I know I find I have so much leeway on what I can get away with on a heavy horse, whereas on a lighter horse a single mistake/ badly timed charge leads to me losing my horse.

but due to the maneuver nerf, archers will hit cav a lot easier. and xbows are still deadly to cav, any sort

[Torp]

people whine about the fast and manouvreable horses now, but i can promise you one thing; if you make armored horses cost the same, you will hear even more whine.
After getting killed by bumps and not being able to shoot the horses, everyone will rage and say 'Armored horses should cost way more, they have armor afterall!"

i'm just sayin'...

[Overdriven]

You really think a Longbow damages a Mamluk horse? I've taken at least 5 arrows in my Mamluk from a mixture of crossbows and archers and it does bugger all damage, a max of 50% if it's crossbows. Those things are expensive because they are near impossible to take down without someone with a pike with high PS. You're better off taking down the rider than trying to kill some of the heavier horses.

So no. That is a daft suggestion unless you want Mamluks crushing through infantry lines and slaughtering everyone. We will get back to the way it used to be before upkeep with constant horse bump kills.

As for making the medium quality horses (courser/arabian/destrier) more expensive, as equal as a mamluk, or even near to it, well you'd see no cavalry ever again. A mamluk costs 3000 in upkeep. I can use it maybe 2 rounds every 20 or so. You'd effectively destroy the prospect of cavalry.

So once again, if you want to nerf cav, think of something practical. Not something that would see them vanish entirely (aka throwing nerf).

[Glyph]

You really think a Longbow damages a Mamluk horse? I've taken at least 5 arrows in my Mamluk from a mixture of crossbows and archers and it does bugger all damage, a max of 50% if it's crossbows. Those things are expensive because they are near impossible to take down without someone with a pike with high PS. You're better off taking down the rider than trying to kill some of the heavier horses.

So no. That is a daft suggestion unless you want Mamluks crushing through infantry lines and slaughtering everyone. We will get back to the way it used to be before upkeep with constant horse bump kills.

As for making the medium quality horses (courser/arabian/destrier) more expensive, as equal as a mamluk, or even near to it, well you'd see no cavalry ever again. A mamluk costs 3000 in upkeep. I can use it maybe 2 rounds every 20 or so. You'd effectively destroy the prospect of cavalry.

So once again, if you want to nerf cav, think of something practical. Not something that would see them vanish entirely (aka throwing nerf).

the idea isn't to be able to choose the mamluk horse as a standerd one, but more the warhorse, large one and cataphract mostly, and yes, that does make a difference qua armor. and if heavy horses would be OP because of the low prices, i'd choose to make them slower. and i also think there should be a bigger difference between the warhorse and large warhorse.