Dr-Shinobi
Yes and you missed mine, move on
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
正在查看此主题的用户
Apparently logic is an "agenda" and so is your opinion lol. You have met the defender of nonsense.
Dr-Shinobi
Nah hes just trying to move around the point that Glaive does so much damage so armor value dont help which it does against ex Axes and such...
Being rude and abusive dont help either
最后编辑:
CrazyElf
Sergeant
On the contrary, what I'm advocating for is effectively a glaive nerf. If a weapon is only effective against certain types of units, that weapon (the glaive) has been nerfed. My proposals would transform the glaive into a weapon that is only situationally useful, as opposed to a weapon that is always dangerous to fight against.
If the enemy uses a higher percentage of units that the glaive is not effective against (ex: more higher tier armored units as a percentage of total units), that means the glaive in turn has been nerfed. It means that the percentage of situations where the weapon is not effective goes up. It forces the player to consider their loadout very carefully, along with their troop composition. It means the weapon becomes a very specialized tool, and that sometimes, against some enemies, other weapons are a better choice than the glaive.
Dr-Shinobi
And this isnt what is in the game already ? Cut, Blunt, Thrust ? I mean if you want to complicate things even more go ahead but you gonna get alot of people getting tired to micromanage every troops in to small bits of preformations every time just to face some soldiers on the battlefield that ended up on your left flank if thats what youre saying. Also they are going to have to program every AI for your needs to. I mean i loved the combat in Kingdom come. Did i got annoyed that it wasnt realistic even with mods...no not really
最后编辑:
CrazyElf
Sergeant
The damage types are actually cut, pierce (used by thrusting swords/spears and arrows), and blunt.
This is not what is in the game right now. Cut damage is too powerful against armor right now.
If we made cut armor less powerful against armor and buffed armor, it would solve your complaint (the glaive is OP) and my problem (armor being too weak).
I don't see why this would be micro-intensive. The AI right now when they do have higher tier units (which as you know I think are too few a percentage of the enemy army), does mix up their composition (ex: they don't build 1 type of tier 4-5 unit over the other types).
Dr-Shinobi
Yes hens i told that Glaives is OP atm, now were just going around the subject again to fill your realism agendas of armor which i told you to stop
Not really
I mean i know you hate me and wants the worse and all.... but its good my man...I wish you the best anywaysAll i see right now is some one trying to push buttons which is pretty obvious
And ive seen this for a looong time
All i see right now is some one trying to push buttons which is pretty obvious
You claimed that he has an agenda, he was perfectly describing what armor values are in the game in a calm manner. You have the agenda, and you gaslight like a pro. This crap is ridiculous. Good God....
Dr-Shinobi
Show us a post you made when you actually discuss this game
Seriously, get help man.
Dr-Shinobi
just what i thought.... but being abusive against TW and others enjoying their games is a thing you take lightly
CrazyElf
Sergeant
Realism in this case can solve your complaint.
Glaives and other polearm weapons are a situational weapon, trading off lethality in open field battles, especially on horseback where the glaive is doing extra damage due to the velocity of the horses, for a less effective weapon at sieges. Enemies have to be a certain distance away for the weapon to work very well and it is less dangerous on foot for that reason (not to mention the slower velocity because of not having a horse). Lances should also be a counter (glaives have shorter range than a very long lance).
If they are nerfed, they still need to do quite a bit more damage than a 2 handed axe or sword. Otherwise there is no reason to use them.
You can use a 2 handed sword or axe reasonably well in a castle siege indoors, but a glaive requires room to swing (or else it will at most hit the enemy with the pole part of the weapon, which does less damage, or worse for the wielder, not do any damage, due to the enemy easily blocking with a shield a low velocity swing as it is gaining speed). This is not an issue with swords, where the enemy will almost always, if the sword hits the enemy, be touched by the blade (the damaging part) of the weapon. With axes, it is a bit trickier because they need to hit the enemy with their blade, but in turn, axes get one advantage - the "crush through" mechanic and it is far easier to hit the enemy in a siege with the blade of an axe because it is much shorter a weapon, like swords, they don't need that much room to swing.
If you keep your distance, it is possible to swing the glaive on foot in a siege, although moving around can be difficult in close quarters, especially when you are being swarmed by enemy units and you have allied units all around you (ex: think about when a player is on the walls or knocking the inner gate or fighting in one of the castle towers in close quarters).
To give an example:
Notice around 10:10 the player is swarmed - in order to swing a glaive, one needs a lot of room to do damage. In sieges that is difficult. That leaves the player vulnerable to getting swarmed, which is what happened. A 2 handed sword like the Falx or Thamaskene 2 handed sword would be a better choice during a siege. Although glaive kills are possible in sieges (the player did get a kill around 10:02 by swinging at the right distance), it is much harder than on horse in a field battle. In turn, 2 handed swords don't work nearly as well on horses (they don't have the extra reach and it is harder to hit multiple targets on horse with a 2 handed sword), although axes can still hit multiple targets.
My proposal satisfies both - it gives glaives a situational use (in open field battles, but even more situational now, as they are less useful against higher tier enemies), but it also makes it so that they have a higher percentage of situations where they are ineffective (not just sieges in close quarters now, but also on horse against higher tier enemies).
最后编辑:
Dr-Shinobi
What is all this nonsense. So youre saying just because sometimes you have trouble inside an fort with an Glaive it justifies the insane damage ? Why arent the one handed spear the same then ?
I got a lot of kills insides castles easy with an Glaive as i did outside. Sure it can be trickier and demands more thinking at times but does that justify the damage along with the length in whole ? And you still can get a lot of damage out even if you dont hit with the blade.
Youre just talking strategy thinking here not the actual subject and still trying to push your armor agenda to xD
CrazyElf
Sergeant
It's not nonsense at all. Glavies have their trade-offs like all weapons. They are potent in some situations and weak at others. A case could be made for modest nerfs (and my proposal is what I would consider a modest nerf), but not for a huge nerf.
Dr-Shinobi
Dont you think i know that...so what do that have to do with the insane damage output ? Does that justify you can one shot everyone in the game with an basic Glaive that cost 190 denars and 0 skills ? No matter if youre inside an castle or not xD jesus
CrazyElf
Sergeant
You can't one shot everyone all the time. I don't think you know that judging by your reply.
You can only one shot frequently in the open field on horseback. On foot, even in the open field, it becomes a bit more tricky to maintain distance. In sieges, it is much harder to one shot anyone with a polearm due to the close quarters. As a weapon, a 2 handed sword or axe is a far more reliable weapon in sieges.
Oh and if my armor buff is implemented, you can't even one shot high tier units in the field battles.
Dr-Shinobi
I respect that you are new to this game and we leave it like that. Next time actually try something out before you read out theories as facts
However its good as you do to think about the whole picture...This i had to do when i was advocated and evaluated the one handed spear an valuable weapon
CrazyElf
Sergeant
I'm not new this game at all. But more importantly, that's not a good counterargument to my points that the polearm isn't as effective at sieges.
Dr-Shinobi
最后编辑:
Chonokhan
Recruit
No, I don't think it's OP, especially when used in mounted combat. There is a reason why people who primarily used Glaive/Halberd weapons are famous in history... particularly the Chinese (like Guan Yu, Lu Bu) and even Mongols used Glaives (most likely looted from the Chinese of course). It is a very good weapon on horseback and should be as powerful as it is.
I feel that other weapons on foot should be equally as powerful though, the Great Axe, maces and 2 handed swords... You certainly shouldn't be able to survive being smashed on the head with a 2 handed mace, axe or even a 2h sword... not unless your wearing a thick steel helmet and have a rock as a head.
I feel that other weapons on foot should be equally as powerful though, the Great Axe, maces and 2 handed swords... You certainly shouldn't be able to survive being smashed on the head with a 2 handed mace, axe or even a 2h sword... not unless your wearing a thick steel helmet and have a rock as a head.
