Lets have an actual, civil, class balance discussion.

[Charlini]

Because heavy cav doesnt rly have counters and its designed like that.

Heavy Cav has counters, the mechanics are broken.

Knockdowns, couches(and all the mechanics inside a couch that are currently broken), damage against static cavalry/horses. All of this affects massively heavy cav and shouldn't be like it is on current state. (Those 3 are just the main 3 that came to mind, there's more elemental issues).

Saying 'make cav 200g' instead of 'Fix all of this bs' are 2 total different things.

 

[Caps]

Heavy Cav has counters, the mechanics are broken.

Knockdowns, couches(and all the mechanics inside a couch that are currently broken), damage against static cavalry/horses. All of this affects massively heavy cav and shouldn't be like it is on current state. (Those 3 are just the main 3 that came to mind, there's more elemental issues).

Saying 'make cav 200g' instead of 'Fix all of this bs' are 2 total different things.

Doesnt change the fact that they still got no counters the counter options to heavy cav are way too weak, Thats why heavy cav was so expensive in warband. It never even got to play.

Cav doesnt even get countered by maps anymore.

 

[๖Kern]

I honestly think that even after the cav nerf, the heavy cav should cost 200g solely because of the tankyness it offers.

 

[Caps]

I honestly think that even after the cav nerf, the heavy cav should cost 200g solely because of the tankyness it offers.

the tankiness mitigates its only counter that can actually force something: archers. In addition cav can stay on the move nowadays because of rearing change making it harder to line up headshots against the rider.
1h is completly useless against them even 2h is kinda meh
The counter weapon the spear barely helps you enough to not be a free kill

 

[Charlini]

Doesnt change the fact that they still got no counters the counter options to heavy cav are way too weak, Thats why heavy cav was so expensive in warband. It never even got to play.

Cav doesnt even get countered by maps anymore.

Heavy Cav wasn't played in Warband due high cost and the fact that they weren't way better than normal cavalries, in fact, hunters were Overpowered for its price and thats why everyone played them on competitive.

If spears and cav stopped were easier to punish and all those mechanics were fixed, gold would be fine.

This is why i say everywhere that before touching damages, golds, armor values and that kind of balance we need to work on elemental/basic mechanics and class balance first.

 

[Caps]

Heavy Cav wasn't played in Warband due high cost and the fact that they weren't way better than normal cavalries, in fact, hunters were Overpowered for its price and thats why everyone played them on competitive.

If spears and cav stopped were easier to punish and all those mechanics were fixed, gold would be fine.

This is why i say everywhere that before touching damages, golds, armor values and that kind of balance we need to work on elemental/basic mechanics and class balance first.

the problem is aswell that light cav barely gets played alone because of that heavy cav should be more expensive (well i posted a thread about prices) Even if there are no pokes on heavy armor it will be still very hard to punish cav, except you remove all of the new mechanics. That will never happen anyways.

but ye the basics should already be done with the alpha/beta

 

[OurGloriousLeader]

Heavy Cav wasn't played in Warband due high cost and the fact that they weren't way better than normal cavalries, in fact, hunters were Overpowered for its price and thats why everyone played them on competitive.

Isn't that an argument for why the cost should be increased?

Armoured cav is good in both games, but in one it can be bought first round and you can still get a respawn (as cheaper unit in round 1, as 2 heavy cav afterwards).

If you nerf cav, armoured cav is still going to be the better choice for the same reasons especially now that cheap cav is also nerfed.

Armour needs a complete rework along with basic changes to cav mechanics, and anything mega armoured should be high cost.

 

[Charlini]

Isn't that an argument for why the cost should be increased?

Armoured cav is good in both games, but in one it can be bought first round and you can still get a respawn (as cheaper unit in round 1, as 2 heavy cav afterwards).

If you nerf cav, armoured cav is still going to be the better choice for the same reasons especially now that cheap cav is also nerfed.

Armour needs a complete rework along with basic changes to cav mechanics, and anything mega armoured should be high cost.

No its not, you propose a solution the short term, making them unbalanced(too expensive) in the long term whenever taleworlds fixes them or works out the mechanics and basics(if they ever do).

Come on dogl, how many big ass horses have you seen in competitive high level in Warband in so many years, probs can be counted in 1 hand and its just the 1200/1400 gold ones after a round or two stomping. That's not viable and the hunter was just slightly worse. Mercenaries module is the best example, best players kept using a hunter despite all the options and not because of the prices, but because of the stats and how good hunters are even when in comparison to war horses/heavy ones.

180g isn't cheap, its very expensive and will force you to go almost peasent except for some factions & classes, but this should be looked into and balanced AFTER mechanics and basics are worked out as said. (Right now it's OP but because of the mechanics being overpowered themselves, damages favouring cav, classes and perks being strong for them, and the mechanics to stop them malfunctioning specially when punishing a really hard to be stopped cav, you already know this ogl writing for others I guess)

I agree, it really does, same with some golds, but again, I think the order of the changes is important, it's the same with damage. What's the point in saying this unit needs 20 armor instead of 30 and 40 damage instead of 35 if damage inconsistencies and damage absorbtion is still a thing?

 

[Caps]

No its not, you propose a solution the short term, making them unbalanced(too expensive) in the long term whenever taleworlds fixes them or works out the mechanics and basics(if they ever do).

Come on dogl, how many big ass horses have you seen in competitive high level in Warband in so many years, probs can be counted in 1 hand and its just the 1200/1400 gold ones after a round or two stomping. That's not viable and the hunter was just slightly worse. Mercenaries module is the best example, best players kept using a hunter despite all the options and not because of the prices, but because of the stats and how good hunters are even when in comparison to war horses/heavy ones.

180g isn't cheap, its very expensive and will force you to go almost peasent except for some factions & classes, but this should be looked into and balanced AFTER mechanics and basics are worked out as said. (Right now it's OP but because of the mechanics being overpowered themselves, damages favouring cav, classes and perks being strong for them, and the mechanics to stop them malfunctioning specially when punishing a really hard to be stopped cav, you already know this ogl writing for others I guess)

I agree, it really does, same with some golds, but again, I think the order of the changes is important, it's the same with damage. What's the point in saying this unit needs 20 armor instead of 30 and 40 damage instead of 35 if damage inconsistencies and damage absorbtion is still a thing?

i would rather have them too expensive so they dont get played than having them played the meta will be way more fun

And there are alot of costs associated with respawning. Your team will be stuck outnumbered on the point. You need to run back into the fight as inf, which is way slower than cav.

180g is very cheap for that, on late game you can respawn as often as heavy inf.

 

[Charlini]

i would rather have them too expensive so they dont get played than having them played the meta will be way more fun

And there are alot of costs associated with respawning. Your team will be stuck outnumbered on the point. You need to run back into the fight as inf, which is way slower than cav.

180g is very cheap for that, on late game you can respawn as often as heavy inf.

Instead of balancing a unit that has its mechanics and basic balance broken you wanna take them out of the meta by increasing gold to a point where they would be unviable if those flaws are fixed? hm fair enough, i disagree though, reminds me of the Khergit's Taleworlds lack of "solution" or solution(2015).

If infantry's flaws against cav are worked on and fixed(already commented on them), there's no issue managing an incoming respawned cav, same way in Warband you could manage them if you organised properly in high competitive. Otherwise even in closed maps we would've seen 4-5 cavs as they had that capacity and ability to solo kill players aswell(lucky for ground troops, cav did have counterparts even if they were very strong).

Gold for skirmish should be reviewed, also some system to avoid snowballing, but I don't really think overpricing broken classes instead of fixing them is the way.

 

[Caps]

Instead of balancing a unit that has its mechanics and basic balance broken you wanna take them out of the meta by increasing gold to a point where they would be unviable if those flaws are fixed? hm fair enough, i disagree though, reminds me of the Khergit's Taleworlds lack of "solution" or solution(2015).

If infantry's flaws against cav are worked on and fixed(already commented on them), there's no issue managing an incoming respawned cav, same way in Warband you could manage them if you organised properly in high competitive. Otherwise even in closed maps we would've seen 4-5 cavs as they had that capacity and ability to solo kill players aswell(lucky for ground troops, cav did have counterparts even if they were very strong).

Gold for skirmish should be reviewed, also some system to avoid snowballing, but I don't really think overpricing broken classes instead of fixing them is the way.

we never had heavy cav in warband... Even if you dont poke on any heavy armor, they will be still very strong. The acceleration and bumping will never get fixed because of singleplayer.

 

[부부를 넘어서 가자]

If pokes and armour are fixed bannerlords heavy horses will die fast af. They're not as tanky as warbands heavy horses.

 

[Charlini]

we never had heavy cav in warband...

And you think that's good? Also we did have, 1200 and 1400g were rarely used but used, even for top tier players(Check last Native tour finals)

Even if you dont poke on any heavy armor, they will be still very strong. The acceleration and bumping will never get fixed because of singleplayer.

I dont agree, its really simple to fix if they touch certain stuff, majority of the issues relate to acceleration but also charge damage, recovery times(how quick the animation goes for going up after a knockdown), damage inconsistencies and bounces relate to the melee issue aswell and that really has to be fixed, I did dedicate a video about 90% of the flaws of cav.

 

[OurGloriousLeader]

Come on dogl, how many big ass horses have you seen in competitive high level in Warband in so many years, probs can be counted in 1 hand and its just the 1200/1400 gold ones after a round or two stomping. That's not viable and the hunter was just slightly worse.

Not many, because they're nearly twice as much as hunters?

180 isn't that expensive considering that is still 2 lives which is what most good classes get anyway.

 

[Charlini]

Not many, because they're nearly twice as much as hunters?

180 isn't that expensive considering that is still 2 lives which is what most good classes get anyway.

Exactly my point, do you want an unviable class here aswell because of the same reason?

It's quite expensive, you get 2 lifes if you're winning already, and I'm sure if we want skirmish to be anything competitive gold/snowball wont stand as it is, losing team needs to get some gold reward(i suggested +50 each if 2 rounds in a row lost) + manual saving could allow you to spawn twice, but nothing that you can achieve 'by default' or playing **** classes in exchange, not worth. If the mechanics and class was balanced it would be underplayed on its' current cost.

 

[OurGloriousLeader]

Honestly yes, considering I doubt they're ever going to fix armour to a satisfactory degree.

 

[Charlini]

Honestly yes, considering I doubt they're ever going to fix armour to a satisfactory degree.

If that's the case I would back this increase cost suggestion for sure, I'm just blind with hopes of never coming fixes still, hopefully someday...

 

[Caps]

tbh writing here is pretty pointless anyways

 

[Diavolo]

Imo it should not be possible to swing with pole arms when on horse (like in warband) they should just make all polearms be used one handed when on a horse like in warband (Since one is holding the reins to control the horse) that way people can stab with lances and such but not swing in long arcs.

I also think that speed bonus is too high, and general damage of spears is too low.

Also in multiplayer all classes should have equal athletics skill. (And maybe even weapon skill) This will make it easier for new players to not die again and again since they most likely will be forced to play the peasant class. Yea and all peasant classes should probably default to a shield equipped and cost zero gold.

 

[Caps]

we had 2h on horse in warband aswell, the problem is its high dmg if that is halfed no one will play them anymore.