[Suggestion] "Fix" bastard swords

[ScientiaExcelsa]

I beg to differ.  Read the last couple pages.

 

[Berserker Pride]

From reading all of this I think everyone could agree on a couple things. 
#1 Fix the kickslash.  Of course this doesn't only affect bastard swords but those are some of the worst abusers of it with the combination of length and speed.
#2 Bastard swords are a highly effective weapon.  The regular bastard sword could stand to be more expensive.  As for the stats editting those might have the adverse affect of ruining the weapon and by default doing harm to the swadian faction as a whole.  Right now the factions seem fairly balanced to each other.

 

[Orion]

Bastard Swords are not the best swadian cavalry weapon by any stretch.  They do 24 damage used from horseback.  They also slow down to 63 speed.  You are much better finding a much longer and more damaging two-hander to use from horseback.  The speed of the regular sword will serve you way better from horseback.  Now personally I think the one-handed penalty for using a bastard sword from horseback should only be 15%.  This would put them at 81 speed 31 damage.  Which would be a decent horseback weapon but not unbalanced due to its slow speed.

This...

This is just ****ing stupid.

You do not do notdo notdo notDO NOT have to use a shield with it.The whole damn topic revolves around its effectiveness as a two handed weapon. How did you get through so many pages without picking that up? Why do you assume it must absolutely be used as a one handed weapon on horseback? It isn't necessary to use it one handed. Nothing forces you to. It's a stupid idea to try and use it one handed in the first place because of the damage and speed penalties. That's why we're talking about its effectiveness as a two hander. Two hands. Two hands.Two hands.Two hands.Two hands.Using it with two hands means you have the "real" damage and speed values, and you also have the longest swinging weapon available to Swadian men-at-arms. Coupled with the speed bonuses you get from moving on a horse, you have an instant-kill weapon against all but the heaviest of armor, and even then it can still be instant-kill because a lot of your swings from your elevated position will hit at head-level.****in' stupid.Jesus Christ.I'm scared to check more of the forum for fear of finding more stupid of this magnitude. I'll check back in a few hours once I feel my IQ return to its normal state.


This whole ****ing post of mine is stupid.

 

[Phallas]

Every 2h weapon has a distinct advantage over a 1h weapon, due to the animations and the instant reload, at soon ad you hear the "ting" sound (for blocking a wep)
the basterd sword is already into its next swing.

Make it so when you block a hit, that it actually feels like you just blocked an angry mans full force, in other words give a longer delay for a strike after a block, currently
all 2 handers have a light speed block-strike speed.

 

[JoG]

I'm scared to check more of the forum for fear of finding more stupid of this magnitude. I'll check back in a few hours once I feel my IQ return to its normal state.

OMG, how pathetic... Youthful ardour that is.

Just in case: Europeans never used two-handed swords on horseback. NEVER. The current situation that rhodok horsemen have access to shortened military scythe and 2-handed toothed falchion is definitely inspired by some pictures from MB on which horsemen are shown wielding those weapons using both hands, but they considered to be highly doubtful. Adding the ability to use bastard sword with 2 hands for Swadian horsemen is like adding magic, flying dragons, vampires and similar stuff.

 

[Berserker Pride]

How thick are you Orion?  Bastard swords are treated like two-handed weapons used on horseback.  If you don't believe me swing the damn thing on horseback with your shield put away.  They will use the one-handed swing animation but so will a ****ing greatsword.  Whether or not you put the shield away on horseback the speed remains the same.  And the penalty to damage and speed from using a weapon two-handed from horseback is 33%.  You can still do damage with it even at 24cut damage but you have to be going pretty fast.  Try to remember that I'm a ****ing modder.  I know a little bit about the complexities of Mount and Blade.  In trying to act like internet tough guy you've exposed your own ignorance.

EDIT:Just for jokes I tested it.  Same goddamn speed and one-handed animation shield or not.  The only weapons swung two-handed from horseback are the khergit polearms and the shortened military scythe.  Not sure if those incur a speed and damage penalty from horseback but perhaps not.  If you bothered to ****ing search(you know the button top right?)you would find countless threads explaining that yes you lose 33% damage and speed using a bastard sword two-handed or with a shield.  Or if that is too difficult for you you could, Oh I don't know, actually test it ingame. 

Peace!

P.S. What crawled up your ass today.  No real need to be such a douchbag.  Especially considering you are completely wrong.

 

[ares007]

OK guys, in the past, we've suggested a number of pro-gameplay mechanics that had some bearing in reality that would have fixed most of these problems. However, you guys buried all those ideas that would have not only fixed a lot of these problems but also made the game more fun with your threads about symptoms of the actual problem. If we had focused on the fundamental stuff first (as I have suggested in the past), we'd be having a lot less frustration with this stuff now.


Currently, the problem isn't necessarily the bastard sword; rather, it is the fundamentally flawed gameplay (that you forum tards should have had the common sense to test/suggest/fix first a long time ago). If there was a method of gaining/taking/controlling initiative that wasn't based on weapon speed or length, then these "lightning quick" weapons would not reign supreme as they apparently do. Night_Ninja suggested such a method not too long ago, but it quickly got buried and left to oblivion. Also, a number of tards polluted the thread with illogical reasoning and unfounded concerns.

BTW, sorry for the condescending/offensive tone, but I'm rather frustrated because I've been suggesting and supporting methods that solved the fundamental gameplay issues for a long time only to have most of them buried deep in the forums under threads like this. A few ideas have gotten through, but the most fundamental problem still exists (control of initiative) among other fundamental issues that give rise to symptoms that people seem to care about more.

note: I realize I'm not perfect and have probably worried too much about the symptoms myself, but it angers me when me and some other users as well have tried to get to the bottom of things and suggest fundamental fixes, but because most other people are whining about the symptoms, our voice is not heard. The result? A game that is still fundamentally flawed and will continually have to address symptoms of the flaws

 

[Berserker Pride]

Would you mind linking one of those ares?  I've always found that fast weapons always have far too much of an advantage due to the simplistic lack of penalty to being blocked.  Some of these weapons you simply block and they are already swinging again.

 

[Night Ninja]

Just in case: Europeans never used two-handed swords on horseback. NEVER. The current situation that rhodok horsemen have access to shortened military scythe and 2-handed toothed falchion is definitely inspired by some pictures from MB on which horsemen are shown wielding those weapons using both hands, but they considered to be highly doubtful. Adding the ability to use bastard sword with 2 hands for Swadian horsemen is like adding magic, flying dragons, vampires and similar stuff.

No 'true' two handed swords like the zweihander, that is. Very few European swords in the 13th century were really completely designed and optimized solely for two handed use. For example, XIIIa swords can be wielded quite easily in a single hand on horseback, even though they're more commonly used with both hands while on foot as they tend to be a bit of a beast to handle. Are they two handed weapons? It depends on your definition. In my opinion, none of the swords in-game represent a true two handed weapon (even the bloody Swadian great sword, which is nicked from a 15th century design).

The MB also depicts swords cleaving through helms, so its not entirely foolproof as a source.

 

[Apostata]

text

Signed.

 

[Karel]

Bastards swords are already awesome. You'll make it very, very OP.

 

[HTAPAWASO]

Bastards swords are already awesome. You'll make it very, very OP.

Response to the OP?

He's not saying they need all these things, he's saying they already have them and that this makes them overpowered.

 

[ScientiaExcelsa]

Bastards swords are already awesome. You'll make it very, very OP.

Response to the OP?

He's not saying they need all these things, he's saying they already have them and that this makes them overpowered.

Yes, that was a bit of a reading-comprehension failure.

I'm seeing a lot of posts saying that B swords are inferior used from horseback.  That is ridiculously false.  Used correctly from horseback, bastard swords can be more devastating than a lance.  They have great reach, and just enough speed to be able to time your hit on a sudden encounter.  They will one-shot anything in low-tier armor, and for some reason they seem to gain 6 inches of invisible reach when you get on a horse.  They're even better than the Sarranid cavalry sword, I dare say.

 

[Berserker Pride]

I'm seeing a lot of posts saying that B swords are inferior used from horseback.  That is ridiculously false.  Used correctly from horseback, bastard swords can be more devastating than a lance.  They have great reach, and just enough speed to be able to time your hit on a sudden encounter.  They will one-shot anything in low-tier armor, and for some reason they seem to gain 6 inches of invisible reach when you get on a horse.  They're even better than the Sarranid cavalry sword, I dare say.

I really can't agree with this.  The heavy bastard sword in particular has a bit of invisible reach all the time.  But it is also much slower than a proper one-handed weapon used on horseback.  While you can one-shot someone in light armor you have to be going full speed which usually means that your target is unaware.  Sarranid Cav swords have much more damage and speed on horseback and the same reach.  The reach they have can let you make use of them but all their other stats on horseback are subpar.  That -33% penalty is a killer.

 

[Orion]

P.S. What crawled up your ass today.

Too much of my own ego all at once. My mistake, sorry.

In any case, what the stats say doesn't make much of a difference once the swing is out there and you're at full gallop. I've one-hit killed players in medium armor with a bastard sword from horseback, so my point that it's a good cavalry weapon still stands from my experience.

 

[ScientiaExcelsa]

Echoing Marnid, you can't go by stats.  Cav-swording is about reach and damage.  Speed isn't an issue, as long as you have enough time to set up your swing.

 

[Sarejo]

Well, most of people that suggest some change with the Bastard Sword complain about kick slashing, that is not even a problem with this weapon. The other arguments have been, one by one, proven to be invalid, because each one of them is not a problem, the "problem" is that all together make a very good weapon. That's why either price or availability of the weapon be changed, but the weapons attributes are fine and shouldn't be changed.

That's what I said in the very first post.  All of the B sword's properties make perfect sense, but all combined they create a monster.

If they make sense, they shouldn't be changed! Either price of availability should be changed, you shouldn't insist on tweaking stats. Make the monster difficult to buy. What do you think about that?

 

[Qwertyman]

Echoing Marnid, you can't go by stats.  Cav-swording is about reach and damage.  Speed isn't an issue, as long as you have enough time to set up your swing.

Depends on your playstyle,  for ride-by swordsmanship yeah, reach and damage all the way.

For my playstyle speed is very important,  as i like to get in close, circle around chopping away.

 

[ScientiaExcelsa]

If they make sense, they shouldn't be changed! Either price of availability should be changed, you shouldn't insist on tweaking stats. Make the monster difficult to buy. What do you think about that?

Well, firstly, if something is hurting gameplay I say it SHOULD be changed, whether it makes sense or not.  However, as I've said, removing the kickslash and slowing down the stab should suffice.  I don't think changing the price would help.

 

[ares007]

Would you mind linking one of those ares?  I've always found that fast weapons always have far too much of an advantage due to the simplistic lack of penalty to being blocked.  Some of these weapons you simply block and they are already swinging again.

Honestly Berserker, though we not always agree on everything, you've generally been one to look at the fundamental gameplay.

The post that Night_Ninja made that I was referring to is this:
http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,95556.0.html

I think it could also be combined nicely with the "weapon sweetspots" idea.