It's a primary weapon, muh realism
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Spears are too overpowered
- 主题发起人 Morow
- 开始时间
-
- 标签
- @nerfspear
正在查看此主题的用户
It's a primary weapon, muh realism
Yeah, it is. Sword was always support weapon in this case.
I get what you say and I'd rather have the combat designed by Gab than by somebody I don't know and have never seen in the Beta before.
But there is atleast some value in every beginners opinion. We shouldn't turn the forums or the game in some elitist community. At some points the discussion on each side was a little heated. And I can understand especially Gab's frustration with this post.
With every new wave of keys, new players come and debate stuff that players have argued over for hours before.
So what is the value of a new players opinion?
It might simply be that certain weapons or mechanics are hard to learn or understand.
Most of us players already have hundreds of hours and we know the basics in-and-out.
The devs are the ones who can decide if they now want to work on spears and how. They can decide how accesable the game is.
If anything I like this thread because Pacemaker and Gab (both experienced players) have a different opinion on 1vs1 spears.
People shouldn't be shy to voice their opinion just because it is contrary to a an experienced player.
On the other hand new players also have damit when they are wrong.
Yes, I never meant to come off as an elitist bigot who thinks anyone's opinion with less than x amount of hours played is worthless. There are things a new player can see from a different perspective than an experienced player, and that's where good arguments can come from.
This, sadly, is a topic that has been discussed many times before and a new player is going to be mechanically worse at using spears than an experienced one, hence some might think they are not strong enough etc. and in this case their balance perception is most likely flawed due to lack of knowledge on how to use spears most effectively.
最后编辑:
What does this even mean? You can't be "op in x", it's not what op means. If a weapon has a specialization of course it's going to be better than others in the situation it was made for and there's nothing wrong with that.
I don't see you arguing that other weapons must be equally as good at stopping cav, or as good at shooting people from distance as bows.
So how do you know it is designed specially for team fights?
One could argue, that the purpose of spears is to only stop cav. Afterall it is the only weapon that can do that.
And what about two handed weapons? What are they designed for? They have long reach and very high damage. Sounds like a great weapons for teamfights.
Or what about one handed weapons that aren't spears. They are quick and nimble and you have great protection to all sides. Sounds like a great weapon for teamfights.
The flaw with your argument is that spears are simply melee weapons in the first place.
And ever single melee weapon is usable in group fights.
If you want to say the spears are specialised, then they really are only specialised for anti cav because that is really something other weapons can't do.
So yeah, spears are op in group fights because they are better than any other weapon there.
Yes they are specialised for that too, but a weapon doesn't have to have only one purpose, or even be perfect at one thing, the same as 1h sword is good at practically everything, and 2h sword is perfect for duelling, good for teamfights and absolutely bad for everything else..
What I'm saying is that a weapon that is long is always going to be great for teamfights and being able to stab instead of slashing is also great for teamfights, since it reduces the possibility of accidentally damaging your teammates and it so happens that spear has both of these traits.
You aren't going to change that with any kind of balancing, since it's the inherent design that makes it so good at that particular thing, the same as it's cav-stopping ability, therefore it can't be "op in x".
Wait Tork, that sounds like contradiction:
First you are saying that spears are specialised in groupfights and that's why are better.
Then you are saying that other weapons are also good for teamfights.
So if there are multiple weapons that are specialised for teamfights. One beeing way better than all the others is not over-powered?
So as you say two handed weapons are all so good for teamfights, right?
But I have not seen anybody complain, that they are OP even though they have a large reach and the highest damage.
So what's the difference?
Spears come with shields. And if you are looking on most threads about ypear they are almost all about spear and shield combat.
The reason why spears are strong in feamfights is because you have reach and you are safe.
With a two handed weapon blocking is way harder even with a two handed spear like a pike.
So if you ask me, what needs be changed with spears, when looking at teamfights is that you can be super defensive/ that you have a low risk.
I know you don't play much infantry but as someone who mainly plays infantry, I can tell you, that in a 1vs 2 situation you have to go for the guy without the spear first.
Other weapons can still put up more pressure so you can't ignore them. Because, if you were trying to focus on the spearman, he would just play defensive and you would be destroyed by his partner with the other weapon.
The problem then is, that the spearman can just chip you till you die.
In my opinion the strength of spears doesn't come from the range or the damage, but rather that you are just safe.
And that is one aspect that could be fixed.
The devs could put a bigger emphasize one two handed spears in teamfights or increase the wind-up animation or simply increase the attack stun.
I didn't say that, I said that one weapon doesn't have to be specialized in only one way, the same as any other weapon doesn't necessarily needs to be specialised in any way, there. Spear happens to be specialized, or just great at two things: teamfights and anti-cav and it's totally fine.
That too. And you're only safe as long as it's a teamfight and you're not the one who's being focused on, as soon as the enemy decides to clinch with you, you'll either have to switch to a shorter weapon or hope that your teammate will get his attention back.
Believe it or not, but in early days of Warband I used to be 100% inf and what I learned from literal years of 100% inf experience is that in a 1v2 situation you have to switch targets, because focusing only on one of them you give them the ability to cooperate. You have to disrupt their cooperation and disallow any attempts to get into an advantageous position where they both can attack you at the same time and that means clinching with the spearman from time to time as well. The situation with spear was quite similar in Warband and yet I don't remember people complaining about it. Warband also had a great feature that all polearms shard - overhead attacks could go through your teammates without harming them, making them even more "op" in teamfights as well and everyone was fine with that as well.
How do you change that? Disallow spearmen to use shields?
What I will agree with though is that the windup animation could be slower, especially when it comes to melee javs, which are 100% cancer.
This discussion in general is why I don't like multiplayer making its way into predominantly singleplayer games. It's fine if none of the MP balancing affects SP, but too many games allow it to bleed through, so I'm worried on that front.
This discussion seems to all expect balancing so that everyone isn't always picking the same thing in multiplayer and crushing with it. Personally, I approach it from a historical viewpoint: Spears were the superior weapon in every culture that used them, no question. The only time a spear wasn't preferable was when the enemy somehow, by immense athleticism and a stroke of mad luck, got inside your range. Then you might want to drop the spear and switch to something shorter. Otherwise, polearms dominated the battlefield for completely logical reasons: They're way longer than everything else and very easy to learn to use.
Spears should absolutely be "OP". The thing is, I understand how this creates issues in multiplayer. As someone who doesn't play multiplayer at all, I don't give a damn how they end up having to balance things for its sake, but I do want to weigh in and let Taleworlds know that I really hope that balance doesn't transfer into singleplayer. I don't want to have scant reason to fear that wall of spearmen I'm making a desperation charge into. I want them to hurt me. They should hurt me. Likewise, I should have every reason to carry a spear into battle like pretty much every single warrior did in the medieval period.
This discussion seems to all expect balancing so that everyone isn't always picking the same thing in multiplayer and crushing with it. Personally, I approach it from a historical viewpoint: Spears were the superior weapon in every culture that used them, no question. The only time a spear wasn't preferable was when the enemy somehow, by immense athleticism and a stroke of mad luck, got inside your range. Then you might want to drop the spear and switch to something shorter. Otherwise, polearms dominated the battlefield for completely logical reasons: They're way longer than everything else and very easy to learn to use.
Spears should absolutely be "OP". The thing is, I understand how this creates issues in multiplayer. As someone who doesn't play multiplayer at all, I don't give a damn how they end up having to balance things for its sake, but I do want to weigh in and let Taleworlds know that I really hope that balance doesn't transfer into singleplayer. I don't want to have scant reason to fear that wall of spearmen I'm making a desperation charge into. I want them to hurt me. They should hurt me. Likewise, I should have every reason to carry a spear into battle like pretty much every single warrior did in the medieval period.
Oh don't worry, regardless of what they do to spears they will still suck in the AI's hands, so you can quite happily charge into a spearwall of enemy infantry and feel perfectly safe!
Here's a good one:
Before public testing started, Taleworlds nerfed the AI's ability to use spears because they were too good at taking down cavalry.
Dev Blog 12/09/19
In this week’s blog, we will be showing you some raw gameplay footage from Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord’s vast sandbox campaign. This particular video was captured from the demo we took to this year’s Gamescom, which put a heavy emphasis on large battles and sieges, dropping the player in the...
forums.taleworlds.com
最后编辑:
Draco222 here (changed my name to better reflect my in game name)
Ok here are my thoughts after having ~10 fights with Krex, 5 on EU server and I think 3-4 on NA. I'm sure everyone's curious, so I'll put what happened here. Keep in mind, this was in TDM, so the tests were very unbalanced. Usually involving one of us with lower health than the other because of arrows, cav, or throwing weapons. Obviously I had a big advantage in the NA server and Krex had one in the EU server. (Also fair warning, if certain people respond without clearly having read the whole post and just reply with a hostile response, you're getting reported <3 ).
On the EU server, I played a sturgian recruit with a shield and a sword, and Krex played Aserai tribal warrior with spear and shield. On NA, I played Empire recruit with shield and sword and shield and axe, and Krex played Khuzait Spear infantry and Khuzait rabble with spear and shield on both classes.
The results? Well if this test is to prove anything, it's frankly that ping is the biggest deciding factor in these tests. In EU server I was completely deleted every time, getting hit 2-3 times and hitting 1 time on average. On NA it was the opposite.The difference in ping for both of us was around 100 if I remember correctly (Krex if you'd like you can correct me).
1) My thoughts are mostly unchanged, and more importantly, they already lined up with Krex's thoughts, so we were already in agreement. If anyone here knows the player "Incanuth", he was the player who showed me how strong Shield and Spear is around a week ago. Even back then, I knew how strong these two weapons were together. Anyways, Krex and I had a chat after the test. Yes, Spear and Shield is strong, and does a lot of damage for how fast it is, Krex and I think this is an issue. Before I say this, let me preface the following statement with this one: Krex and I agree on the next sentence: However, they are not OP. In my eyes, OP is something that can let a new player win against an expert or advanced player in most situations, and we both agree that's no longer the case. Something that we can all agree is actually OP would be cav's ability to couch as easily as it can (and the fact that it can do 20-30 damage just by running into you, but the list goes on).
2) The difference in game modes and the preferred weapon choices is a clear differing factor in how strong weapons are. Krex usually plays skirmish, I usually play TDM or captain's mode. In captain's mode, leaving enemy archers alive the whole game is usually a death sentence. In Skirmish, everyone seems to favor cav or heavy infantry (though I've seen some use archer). Cav is of course completely broken which means you need spears to deal with the very overpowered cavalry. For example, archers in captain's mode will usually destroy any cavalry unit that attempts to kill them even without outside help, though this is mostly due to the stupidity of cavalry AI. Of course, in TDM, cavalry has the advantage over archers. Krex came to the conclusion, and again, I agree, that before the recent patches, spear and shield gave the player that used them a serious advantage in skirmish, TDM, and dueling. Since I play more TDM than skirmish I can say that yes, people use spears to good effect in TDM as well. But, they usually use a shield if that's the case. After the recent patches, we think that spears and shields are approximately equivalent to swords and shields. Yes, you read that right, you can ask Krex yourself. I can even upload a screenshot of our conversation if you'd like!
3) We both agree, therefore, that spears and shields are very good because they function a lot like Warband's 2h weapons. They are as fast as other 1h weapons (actually, a lot of the time they're faster....) but deal more damage than some of them if you know what you're doing, and because you can use a shield with them, they can easily destroy a player using a 2h weapon with the shieldbash + thrust combo. It is the perfect, versatile option for every situation, and it's fast to boot.
4) Finally, the real problem with all this. I obviously haven't used this forum a lot, but there is an awful lot of lazy, or at least badly thought out, writing going on here. Many replies I got directly quoted Krex's opinion as if it was sent from heaven, but unfortunately, that opinion has changed. To address this, Krex may post his updated thoughts in a new thread in a day or two. Also, the classification of throwing weapons as spears is a serious issue. Javelins are not spears. Neither are jereeds, throwing axes, etc. It's important to use clear language because throwing spears are a totally different weapon than regular ones in this game. Not only can a throwing spear kill someone at range in 1 hit, but you can do that infinitely if you go pick it back up. They are also better in melee than most regular spears. This is an example as to why blanket, general statements don't work well. The same goes with the phrase "Spears are OP" when in reality, most of you mean "Spear and shield is OP". If you had started with that, I would have been far more willing to believe what you were saying is accurate. Because a single spear by itself is patently much harder to use than one with a shield. In fact without a shield spears are, as I have been trying to explain, not very good. That's partially caused by the overabundance of throwing weapons and almost every class having access to a ranged option, but also because it becomes difficult to use the spear effectively when you can't shield bash.
So, all in all, Krex and I were mostly already in agreement before the test. But, I did learn more about exactly why he thinks the spear and shield combo is an issue, and I can see more of your side of the argument now. More importantly we were able to actually brainstorm a solution to the problem instead of arguing about it (Krex thinks that maybe a small stun for spears that hit a shield would help, I personally think shields are already strong enough as it is and would rather see a different change. I would actually just lower one handed spear's damage, so that they can't take half of an opponent's health, and that way two handing a spear is slightly more useful in comparison. Another option is to change it so that 1 handing a spear has a small stun even if blocked by a 2h weapon, not just a shield).
Ok here are my thoughts after having ~10 fights with Krex, 5 on EU server and I think 3-4 on NA. I'm sure everyone's curious, so I'll put what happened here. Keep in mind, this was in TDM, so the tests were very unbalanced. Usually involving one of us with lower health than the other because of arrows, cav, or throwing weapons. Obviously I had a big advantage in the NA server and Krex had one in the EU server. (Also fair warning, if certain people respond without clearly having read the whole post and just reply with a hostile response, you're getting reported <3 ).
On the EU server, I played a sturgian recruit with a shield and a sword, and Krex played Aserai tribal warrior with spear and shield. On NA, I played Empire recruit with shield and sword and shield and axe, and Krex played Khuzait Spear infantry and Khuzait rabble with spear and shield on both classes.
The results? Well if this test is to prove anything, it's frankly that ping is the biggest deciding factor in these tests. In EU server I was completely deleted every time, getting hit 2-3 times and hitting 1 time on average. On NA it was the opposite.The difference in ping for both of us was around 100 if I remember correctly (Krex if you'd like you can correct me).
1) My thoughts are mostly unchanged, and more importantly, they already lined up with Krex's thoughts, so we were already in agreement. If anyone here knows the player "Incanuth", he was the player who showed me how strong Shield and Spear is around a week ago. Even back then, I knew how strong these two weapons were together. Anyways, Krex and I had a chat after the test. Yes, Spear and Shield is strong, and does a lot of damage for how fast it is, Krex and I think this is an issue. Before I say this, let me preface the following statement with this one: Krex and I agree on the next sentence: However, they are not OP. In my eyes, OP is something that can let a new player win against an expert or advanced player in most situations, and we both agree that's no longer the case. Something that we can all agree is actually OP would be cav's ability to couch as easily as it can (and the fact that it can do 20-30 damage just by running into you, but the list goes on).
2) The difference in game modes and the preferred weapon choices is a clear differing factor in how strong weapons are. Krex usually plays skirmish, I usually play TDM or captain's mode. In captain's mode, leaving enemy archers alive the whole game is usually a death sentence. In Skirmish, everyone seems to favor cav or heavy infantry (though I've seen some use archer). Cav is of course completely broken which means you need spears to deal with the very overpowered cavalry. For example, archers in captain's mode will usually destroy any cavalry unit that attempts to kill them even without outside help, though this is mostly due to the stupidity of cavalry AI. Of course, in TDM, cavalry has the advantage over archers. Krex came to the conclusion, and again, I agree, that before the recent patches, spear and shield gave the player that used them a serious advantage in skirmish, TDM, and dueling. Since I play more TDM than skirmish I can say that yes, people use spears to good effect in TDM as well. But, they usually use a shield if that's the case. After the recent patches, we think that spears and shields are approximately equivalent to swords and shields. Yes, you read that right, you can ask Krex yourself. I can even upload a screenshot of our conversation if you'd like!
3) We both agree, therefore, that spears and shields are very good because they function a lot like Warband's 2h weapons. They are as fast as other 1h weapons (actually, a lot of the time they're faster....) but deal more damage than some of them if you know what you're doing, and because you can use a shield with them, they can easily destroy a player using a 2h weapon with the shieldbash + thrust combo. It is the perfect, versatile option for every situation, and it's fast to boot.
4) Finally, the real problem with all this. I obviously haven't used this forum a lot, but there is an awful lot of lazy, or at least badly thought out, writing going on here. Many replies I got directly quoted Krex's opinion as if it was sent from heaven, but unfortunately, that opinion has changed. To address this, Krex may post his updated thoughts in a new thread in a day or two. Also, the classification of throwing weapons as spears is a serious issue. Javelins are not spears. Neither are jereeds, throwing axes, etc. It's important to use clear language because throwing spears are a totally different weapon than regular ones in this game. Not only can a throwing spear kill someone at range in 1 hit, but you can do that infinitely if you go pick it back up. They are also better in melee than most regular spears. This is an example as to why blanket, general statements don't work well. The same goes with the phrase "Spears are OP" when in reality, most of you mean "Spear and shield is OP". If you had started with that, I would have been far more willing to believe what you were saying is accurate. Because a single spear by itself is patently much harder to use than one with a shield. In fact without a shield spears are, as I have been trying to explain, not very good. That's partially caused by the overabundance of throwing weapons and almost every class having access to a ranged option, but also because it becomes difficult to use the spear effectively when you can't shield bash.
So, all in all, Krex and I were mostly already in agreement before the test. But, I did learn more about exactly why he thinks the spear and shield combo is an issue, and I can see more of your side of the argument now. More importantly we were able to actually brainstorm a solution to the problem instead of arguing about it (Krex thinks that maybe a small stun for spears that hit a shield would help, I personally think shields are already strong enough as it is and would rather see a different change. I would actually just lower one handed spear's damage, so that they can't take half of an opponent's health, and that way two handing a spear is slightly more useful in comparison. Another option is to change it so that 1 handing a spear has a small stun even if blocked by a 2h weapon, not just a shield).
最后编辑:
Thank you for the write-up. It's mostly correct but there some inaccuracies I'd like to clear up here:
I very much do believe that spears* are currently OP. What I said was that they were roughly equivalent if you were in a pure duel situation - that means no pressure by other players from either duelists team, the timer running out or things like having to fight around flags to keep up morale. Playing in Skirmish now, Spears* are too strong in groupfighting and 1v1 situation - that's not because they do too much damage but rather because they are far too spamable - see Kawaiis video here as an example. To make spears less OP I believe that their spamability needs to be reduced - and, as you said, I believe that using stuns like warband did would be better than flat our nerfing their speed.
There's also a bit of misscommunication here, still: Your definition of OP is that noobs can use it to easily kill pros, while mine is just that it's too strong; so by your definition, spears aren't OP (anymore), but by mine they are.
It's also really a shame that there still aren't any duel servers to do fights like the ones we did on. While ping difference was quite massive (~17/97 for me on EU/NA, ~90/~17 for you), going into fights with different HP pools makes things fairly hard to compare.
*talking about anything polearm that be used alongside a shield, so things like Menavlions are excluded, while Javelins and such in melee are included
tl;dr: We agree that spears* are too fast and that that makes them too strong.
It happened way more often than you might think. Romans did manage to defeat greek phalanx and it wasn't luck. Closing distance becomes significantly easier when shields and armour are involved. So no, spear wasn't OP, it was great when you wanted to keep someone at range, but none of the warriors of the day relied solely on that, in fact there were plenty of cases, when they willingly switched for shorter weapons, anticipating a very tight melee:
Alessandro Beneditti 说:
Jan Dlugosz 说:
Even in the pike&shot era, where pike was one of the most prevalent weapons, military theoreticians argued that swords played the major role when it came to melee, indicating once again that losing distance wasn't something extraordinary:
Swiss pikemen, as well as landsknechts are often depicted using swords in tight melee, as well as utilizing longsword and two handed swords, that can be seen in the hands of the doppelsoldners - those who got paid twice the wage for twice the risk, certainly those who hired them considered it a worthy investment over another two pikemen. Spanish tercio at some point was made up to 1/3 of rodeleros - swordsmen with shields, that were used exactly for the push of pike.
Famous master-swordsman Fiore dei Liberi can be seen praising sword over any other weapon, and I don't think it's for no reason:
Fiore Furlano de’i Liberi de Cividale d’Austria 说:
And that's exactly why virtually any spearman or a pikeman always had his sidearm and most of the time it was a sword, for it was very convenient to wear and it's also very versatile when it came to tight melee, unlike a spear that instantly lost it's main advantage when reach couldn't be utilized anymore. And the tight melee was pretty much inevitable, whether we're talking about the Roman Era or the Pike&Shot era when it comes to two blocks of infantry fighting each other. So for every spear there was a sword and the one couldn't go without the other without putting the warrior at a disadvantage.
I believe nothing was OP, every weapon had a purpose, coming with it's advantages and disadvantages and calling anything OP is a rather simplistic statement.
And the youtubers that push this narrative into masses should be ashamed that they are knowingly or unknowingly creating new myths in their crusade against the older myths, which I find ironic.
Spears were not "overpowered", they fulfilled a role; just like all other weapons. And their role in history has been extremely over exaggerated by 'Youtube historians'
