The fact you call it a non problem goes to show. Saying that I "feel entitled" to a free hit is just being obtuse and refusing to see the reasoning behind the change. You're right though, if you want to see Skirmish games where spears are dominant and any 1vsX potential is non-existent, we will not come to an agreement.
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Spears are too overpowered
- Thread starter Morow
- Start date
-
- Tags
- @nerfspear
Users who are viewing this thread
The fact you call it a non problem goes to show. Saying that I "feel entitled" to a free hit is just being obtuse and refusing to see the reasoning behind the change. You're right though, if you want to see Skirmish games where spears are dominant and any 1vsX potential is non-existent, we will not come to an agreement.
There definitely is a problem with spears at the moment, one that needs fixing. The stun we are asking for isn't like the one you'd get after being kicked in Warband, it's one that you'll only be able to seize if you are prepared and react fast enough, and that wouldn't prevent the player from moving. Spears shouldn't be nearly as effective in close combat as swords, axes or maces, because they provide a lot more utility due to their anti-cavalry and support capabilities. There simply shouldn't be a weapon that performs well in every situation.
Yes. Yes, Matrix man. Let's do that. You have my vote.
I'm calling the fact there is no character paralysis when your spear is blocked a non problem. So you do not want the free hit? It's what you have said in every one of your explanations. I see your reasoning fine, but you conflate the lack of spear stun with being the only reason spears are superior. I never mentioned spear dominance in Skirmish because frankly I don't care, I only wish to have a fun time being a spear main without having to ditch it every time a semi decent player confronts me. Ideally the game gets balanced to the point where Skirmish players enjoy Skirmish, but I hope that can be done to not hurt spear maining gameplay, since from my point of view, the Jedi are evil.
You have a habit of calling everyone who disagrees with you obtuse and ignorant, just because someone has different views than you it doesnt mean they are an idiot who can't read.
I am aware of how the spear stun works in Warband, which is why I am against it for Bannerlord, especially now that we cant swing our spears.
It makes sense to have other weapons better at dueling and close quarters, I just don't want my character to have a mental breakdown and become defenceless because someone had their shield up. I always liked the control over my character I had in MnB, but whenever someone blocked my spear I had about as much control as someone with cerebral palsy. You're punished for using the most fundamental parts of the combat system. And now with Bannerlord, spears are pretty much completely useless the second someone gets within hugging distance.
Would you say that a well timed shield bash to counter a spear thrust could perhaps deal a stun to the attacker? I generally agree with you that simply holding up your shield to get a free hit seems less than ideal.
While I see that spears are still a problem.I also think like John_M. I simply like spears, their are unique compared to all the other Swing weapons and less over glorified than Swords and Axes.
If there are spears in a game, I always want to play them.
And I also disagree with gab when it comes to shields. I think shields are a main reason why spearmen are so strong, especially in multiplayer. If the two-handed mode is better, why does nobody put away their shield for the sake of better offence as a supporting spearman?
I think, in teamfights, spearmen are so strong because you have to ignore them. If you focus a spearman, he can just wait defensivly while you are threatened by other players, who might have a bigger damage potential (swing-weapons).
But the moment you have to ignore a spearman you get chipped away by their attacks.
In comparison, two handed weapons also have a very high reach and can deal even more damage, but they are not considered op or a problem in groupfights because they really lack defence.
Groupfights will always be unfair for the team with fewer units. It's going to be really tough to make it not feel unfair.
If there are spears in a game, I always want to play them.
And I also disagree with gab when it comes to shields. I think shields are a main reason why spearmen are so strong, especially in multiplayer. If the two-handed mode is better, why does nobody put away their shield for the sake of better offence as a supporting spearman?
I think, in teamfights, spearmen are so strong because you have to ignore them. If you focus a spearman, he can just wait defensivly while you are threatened by other players, who might have a bigger damage potential (swing-weapons).
But the moment you have to ignore a spearman you get chipped away by their attacks.
In comparison, two handed weapons also have a very high reach and can deal even more damage, but they are not considered op or a problem in groupfights because they really lack defence.
Groupfights will always be unfair for the team with fewer units. It's going to be really tough to make it not feel unfair.
The phalanx failed exactly because of the weapons employed. You see, the phalanx relied on their pikes(or sarissas?) and it only worked in a tight and even formation, as soon as this formation was disrupted, be it due to uneven terrain or something else, it allowed for the attackers to close in and utilize their advantage in close combat and there was no way to turn the situation back. No amount of flexibility of the command structure could save the phalanx, because of the nature of it's core strength, and it all originated from their preferred weapon - the pike. Maybe if they were more prepared for the close combat with a sword, they could be saved, but we'll never know.
The romans' didn't "get away" with using the gladius, because their equipment wasn't chosen at random, it was picked precisely because it allowed for the flexible formations that their military machine was relying on. And the scutum was a part of it.
But it's not to say that the roman war machine didn't use spears at all. They did have triarii and almost every legionaire had a pilum or several, that, when pressed, could also be used as spears. Roman war machine was effective precisely because they tried to utilize every advantage they had.
Depends on the time period. Romans relied heavily on their armour, as often did the pike&shot formations of the Early Modern Period that are often depicted in 3/4 armour. But yeah, in Early Middle Ages and for the most part of the High Middle Ages the infantry wasn't exactly very armoured if at all. But then again, they didn't play as a big a role as before or later.
I did say that lack of both a spear or a sword would put a warrior at a disadvantage. I'm not saying here that the sword is OP, I'm just arguing that spear was not. It was a great weapon and had it's purpose, but that's it, no more, no less.
What is a primary weapon anyways? The one that you use first? And why does it even matter which one is primary if you're going to need both(or more) anyways? And most of all, how does this relate to being OP? Because OP usually means you don't need anything else, and it wasn't the case for spears.
Which causes another, more serious problem, which is the subject of the debate and what you seem to be ignoring.
It's not that I "feel entitled to a free hit" as you've put it, the free hit isn't the point here (and you know it), it's that I want a solution to the problem, it could be this or anything else that works, however so far this proved to be a good solution and you've still offered no alternative. There's no conflating, the lack of a stun is a big culprit in making spears ubiquitous in Skirmish and eliminating any 1vsX potential, since they offer little counterplay to their range and speed, leaving the non-spear user little to no window to engage without being stabbed. This stun would force the spear user to play more carefully, and create an opportunity to punish poor positioning and poorly timed hits, as well as granting more time to react, creating counterplay.
No such habit. I proposed a solution to an issue, and rather than looking at the intent behind it, you twisted my words and made it seem like I just "felt entitled to a free hit". You were being obtuse.
You're making it seem bigger than it really is. It's a very short stun which can only be taken advantage of when immediately close to the opponent and quick enough. Spears in Bannerlord are also absolutely not useless at close distance either, as has been mentioned time and time again through this and other threads. Just because you can't use it, doesn't make it useless.
I never said that it's always better, but that spears will present the same issues whether used with a shield or two-handed. They will simply manifest them in different contexts.
Last edited:
Okay I didn't understand it was a comment in jest.
My point that I tried to convey was that spears fulfilled a role, I didn't say anything about whether that role was small or big. But you also have to take a few more things into account; the weapons wielded was selected depending on the chosen tactics of the unit/army in question. The Romans are perhaps the best example of this, their primary weapons were not spears, it was a very big shield and a very short (relatively) sword.
Spears were also primarily used in formation, and not as a personal defense weapon. They were also primarily used in field battles, not (primarily) in urban areas or during sieges. The biggest battles were obviously field battles, but 'most' battles were not field battles.
As I wrote earlier, spears had their spot in the arsenal of armies, and they had their role. But the current notion that seems to be held by many that "spears are the mother of all weapons" is just untrue. As soon as organized warfare (as opposed to small skirmishes and raids) became a thing, the spear became one of many weapons in the arsenal.
Sounds interesting, if it was hard enough to execute it might make sense to even disarm the attacker. Bashes right now feel very spammable so it depends on execution.
The lack of something doesn't cause anything, it only fails to solve it. Spears reach and spam causes the problem in Skirmish. Im not ignoring anything, I just don't care about the meta of a gamemode I don't play, just as you don't care about my gameplay. Maybe you would know that if you weren't so ignorant and obtuse.
The free hit is the point. Which you do feel entitled to, if you don't want it then I suppose the argument is over. I didn't offer an alternative because Skirmish is not relevant to me, a debilitating stun is. And since the stun has been conflated with spear superiority, no solution will be favoured without the free hit. Though I have already spent so much time in this thread, so it won't hurt to spend some time brainstorming: https://forums.taleworlds.com/index...-to-spear-superiority-in-group-fights.395962/
Perhaps it isn't as big in the context of skirmish and group play, but the game does exist outside of that gamemode. Its very easy to get close and hug a spearman and act quickly as a decent player.
Useless was hyperbole, though I played for an hour or so testing turn stabs last night and found it very weak. But I played again just now and found some of my conclusion was wrong because the down thrust is much easier to land while I mainly used upper thrusts and long spears are much more unwieldy, which I mostly used. Facehugging and spam is pretty much uncounterable with a long spear as much as I can tell, unless you have evidence to the contrary.
Semantics, the lack of stun enables that to happen.
The point is solving the problem, as I already said, I don't care how it happens, however this type of stun has proven to be an effective solution and it is what seems to me the most reasonable, as again, the lack of it makes the current absence of counterplay possible. If you can think of an alternative that works just as well I will be more than glad to discuss it, I'll take a look at your thread.
The game exists outside Skirmish, yes, and similarly I don't want to find myself doomed in a 2vs1 situation regardless of gamemode simply because one of my opponents has a spear. Great, you concluded that spears are not useless at close distance, we're making progress.
Not semantics, that stages the problem as a lack of stun when that is not the problem, as you say yourself.
Your point not mine, the whole discussion is because I don't share your goals.
Doomed is over dramatic, as your video shows you can still make it out of 1vX even in a competitive gamemode. I'm sure you will be find outside of Skirmish plenty of opportunities to win in 1vX.
"unless you have evidence to the contrary" So I assume you don't.
Semantics, the lack of stun enables that problem to take place.
Yes, my point, which you kept misinterpreting.
Sure, doomed is hyperbolic, but unless you're up against beginners the chances are slim (especially if the players involved don't make simple mistakes, as in the video). What evidence are you looking for exactly? I told you that spears at close range are not useless, and you agreed. Obviously if you go out of your way to pick the odd 200+ length spear you will have a harder time than using a regular one.
Anyway I feel like there isn't much left to say. I'll take a look at your thread.
Last edited:
