[Suggestions] My Big Weapon Balance Post

[mouthnhoof]

The hammers need some help.

Not really. They do huge damage and reduce the targets armour, the price of that is their small range and slow speed. They're the sniper rifle equivalent for infantry - in a toe to toe fight it's useless, but if you pick the right moment it's an instant kill.

Don't forget that blunts have a chance of knockdown too.

 

[Archonsod]

Problem with this argument is the baseball doesn't have a continuous force being applied to it.  Once it's hit, its velocity reverses and the force is going in a new direction.  With a lance however, it has a continuous force applied to it (the rider holding it) and no change in velocity, so it would keep going once parried with a weapon.  What would be interesting is being able to attack the riders weapon and either break it or deflect it, but that'd probably be too hard to code.

Since you block and take no damage it's assumed you deflect/dodge/miss the blow. Coding isn't really the issue so much as the animations; you'd be talking about adding a significant number of alternative animations for each weapon, which entails either paying a mid to large sized team to come up with them or delaying the game for a long time so the two(?) animators they currently have can do it. For what amounts to a cosmetic change it's a pretty steep cost either way.

 

[Arch3r]

隐藏

As things currently stand in-game, when a horseman gets dismounted, he's still 90% as effective as a standard infantryman, diminishing the uniqueness of infantry. I'd like to see cavalry specialized a bit further into the role of lancing, and infantry into the role of two-handed weaponry, in addition to what infantry already have.

I'd partially agree. For most cases a dismounted cavalryman should be significantly worse than his own faction's infantry while dismounted. However, for one or two factions having a cavalry class which is equally capable whether mounted or on foot would be a nice distinguishing feature. The Nord Scout would be an ideal candidate, since the 'dual class' ability would compensate for being sub-par cavalry.

2. Horsemen of all factions should have poor two-hand skill and have no purchasable two-handers. The two-hander should be a footman only weapon for sake of balance.

Again, they could do with being less accessible but not a blanket ban.

- Seems illogical to me that someone will waltz into an attack with that much force hitting them. Helps group tactics for a pair of infantry men to surround an enemy more easily.

The idea of parrying or blocking a blow is you deflect the force. It's the force hitting you which actually causes the damage. Slowdown stinks a bit too much of 'magic' for my liking, if weapons start adding slowdown effects you're only a small step away from "Short sword +1" territory.
A more workable solution might be to have them physically move the target around.

4. Two-handers should have a guaranteed chance to do partial damage when parried by a one-hander on an overhead attack.

No, you're just making two handers an "I win" button. They're fine as is; you get the same speed (and in cases more speed) than a single handed weapon and considerably more damage at the price of not taking a shield. If you make two handers capable of dealing damage through a block you'd either need to slow them down so one handed weapons are faster (which will simply have people complaining they're useless) or prevent their ability to break shields. You should not at any point be capable of beating another player solely because you have better equipment, which is what this basically does.

7. Give spear/lance stabs guaranteed partial damage when parried (not blocks, just parries). Why? Someone parrying away a spear coming at them at 30-40mph with a dinky little sword is ridiculous.

If someone can hit a tiny baseball with a small rounded surface at speeds in excess of 100mph, I think a spear moving just over a third of that isn't so hard.

The hammers need some help.

Not really. They do huge damage and reduce the targets armour, the price of that is their small range and slow speed. They're the sniper rifle equivalent for infantry - in a toe to toe fight it's useless, but if you pick the right moment it's an instant kill.

I totally agree with Archonsod's post, altough I'll add something about dismounted cavalry. They're already at a disadvantage because they all have less melee skills, less athletics and often a smaller shield which is important against archers. However when they're dismounted they do have kind of a second live as weaker infantryman, I think there should be some fall damage, depending on the speed of the (ex)horse when it got killed. Together this will make a 1v1 infantry versus cavalry a lot more fair. Smart infantry in groups could often easily dispatch of a dismounted cavalryman with mobbing him, because he can't run away, but the fall damage isn't for large battles, more for small skirmishes.

 

[Harn]

隐藏

As things currently stand in-game, when a horseman gets dismounted, he's still 90% as effective as a standard infantryman, diminishing the uniqueness of infantry. I'd like to see cavalry specialized a bit further into the role of lancing, and infantry into the role of two-handed weaponry, in addition to what infantry already have.

I'd partially agree. For most cases a dismounted cavalryman should be significantly worse than his own faction's infantry while dismounted. However, for one or two factions having a cavalry class which is equally capable whether mounted or on foot would be a nice distinguishing feature. The Nord Scout would be an ideal candidate, since the 'dual class' ability would compensate for being sub-par cavalry.

2. Horsemen of all factions should have poor two-hand skill and have no purchasable two-handers. The two-hander should be a footman only weapon for sake of balance.

Again, they could do with being less accessible but not a blanket ban.

- Seems illogical to me that someone will waltz into an attack with that much force hitting them. Helps group tactics for a pair of infantry men to surround an enemy more easily.

The idea of parrying or blocking a blow is you deflect the force. It's the force hitting you which actually causes the damage. Slowdown stinks a bit too much of 'magic' for my liking, if weapons start adding slowdown effects you're only a small step away from "Short sword +1" territory.
A more workable solution might be to have them physically move the target around.

4. Two-handers should have a guaranteed chance to do partial damage when parried by a one-hander on an overhead attack.

No, you're just making two handers an "I win" button. They're fine as is; you get the same speed (and in cases more speed) than a single handed weapon and considerably more damage at the price of not taking a shield. If you make two handers capable of dealing damage through a block you'd either need to slow them down so one handed weapons are faster (which will simply have people complaining they're useless) or prevent their ability to break shields. You should not at any point be capable of beating another player solely because you have better equipment, which is what this basically does.

7. Give spear/lance stabs guaranteed partial damage when parried (not blocks, just parries). Why? Someone parrying away a spear coming at them at 30-40mph with a dinky little sword is ridiculous.

If someone can hit a tiny baseball with a small rounded surface at speeds in excess of 100mph, I think a spear moving just over a third of that isn't so hard.

The hammers need some help.

Not really. They do huge damage and reduce the targets armour, the price of that is their small range and slow speed. They're the sniper rifle equivalent for infantry - in a toe to toe fight it's useless, but if you pick the right moment it's an instant kill.

I totally agree with Archonsod's post, altough I'll add something about dismounted cavalry. They're already at a disadvantage because they all have less melee skills, less athletics and often a smaller shield which is important against archers. However when they're dismounted they do have kind of a second live as weaker infantryman, I think there should be some fall damage, depending on the speed of the (ex)horse when it got killed. Together this will make a 1v1 infantry versus cavalry a lot more fair. Smart infantry in groups could often easily dispatch of a dismounted cavalryman with mobbing him, because he can't run away, but the fall damage isn't for large battles, more for small skirmishes.

First post updated based on critiques and opinions.

At this point, it appears Swadian cavalry would be balanced out for when they are dismounted. Vaegir and Nord cavalry would be buffed a bit in regards to their two-hand axes.

Nord & Rhodok infantry would be moderately buffed and made more unique.

There have been good ideas in this thread, such as cavalry losing health if their horse dies under them, but this thread was made largely with the intent on making infantry weaponry more interesting and versatile to give them the upper hand in foot combat vs unmounted cavalry, so I'm going to kindly refrain from being sidetracked. I would gladly post in a new thread about these subjects though.

Please restrict commentary to what people have helped narrow down for a viable solution. The first post was edited to show current proposal. The problem of me being able to hide behind a shield and kill axe men & hammerers 90% of the time on manual block server needs to be fixed (two-hand swords too, but I agree the bastard sword speed and great sword range give these weapons a better chance).

The enhanced team play aspects of my proposal are also very intriguing compared to knocking players away, which could in fact help an enemy escape from you and your team mates and even make your team mates miss attacks.

 

[Arch3r]

Well if a guy can't get an enemy with sword+shield off him while he has a two-handed weapon with more reach than he's screwed. Both in real life and mount&blade (not entirely true, but in M&B a shield blocks EVERYTHING unlike in real life, so this does apply to M&B). To be effective with a two-handed weapon with long range, you need to light and faster than the shielded enemy, or you need to teamwork.

 

[Harn]

Well if a guy can't get an enemy with sword+shield off him while he has a two-handed weapon with more reach than he's screwed. Both in real life and mount&blade (not entirely true, but in M&B a shield blocks EVERYTHING unlike in real life, so this does apply to M&B). To be effective with a two-handed weapon with long range, you need to light and faster than the shielded enemy, or you need to teamwork.

That's the problem though, two-handerd axes and hammers don't have a range advantage with their swing animation. They have to get in distance of an enemy sword & board and can't evade back out in time after a swing. With a slight movement slowdown, a very good player that understands his weapon's range could duck in and out to hopefully take down their enemy piece by piece. It's adding variety to fights so that infantry specialists will be able to use their more powerful weapons as an advantage, not solely as a way to kill someone quickly from behind.

 

[Arch3r]

It does sound reasonable, but not for a whole second. Maybe just a small stunlike something, for less than a second would suffice.

 

[Harn]

It does sound reasonable, but not for a whole second. Maybe just a small stunlike something, for less than a second would suffice.

Yeah, I agree, it might need to be .750, .600, that's what testing would work out I guess. Would rather start with a number that could be a smidge too high than too low and have people say it's useless. 

 

[Caballero_blanco]

I agree with the idea of reduced speed when you block(whith a shield including with your weapon), but i also think would be good that charater express an effects on this attack.