It's actually getting to the point where it's reaching fair. I can usually kill anyone with a 2h though admittedly it requires a lot of using the environment, and a decent range-keeping ability. If you can wait for them to swing first and VERY quickly move in and get a hit, they can't retaliate as quick. Move out of range, rinse, and repeat.
If it's a 2v1 hope to god you have a ranged weapon.
I agree. I don't know if it's the right way at all but a try should be done in this direction, in my opinion!
Also, there's not enough difference between wearing an armor or not.
I agree. I don't know if it's the right way at all but a try should be done in this direction, in my opinion!
Also, there's not enough difference between wearing an armor or not.
If the glaive had speed ~82 it would have been practically useless. Anyone with a shield and 1h sword or a bastard could easily outspam it. Glaivesman could parry 3, 4, 5... blows but he/she couldn't counterattack. I would say that glaive can be outspammed even now (at 87 speed). It's my favorite weapon and I use it frequently so I know what I say. Of course, there are some simple tricks how to avoid it.
Updated
LOL, just fought as rhodok glaivesman. Glaive has a speed of 83.
Seeing as already very few people put up a decent fight right now, and even good players are sometimes beaten quickly, this is about the worst solution I've ever heard. Would make spamming more prevalent and a more valid tactic, would make axes more OP (as they destroy shields quickly) and would make turtling more prevalent. Generally, everyone will play either VERY offensively or VERY defensively methinks. And it would narrow down most fights to attack-block chains if people stop using 2handers.
Actually, it is a bit too easy to do well with a two-hander. I remember the good-old-days () when they were only effective in the hands of a good player; that was when recovery times weren't so awfully slow and shields were better. Personally, I think the more powerful weapons should have a harder learning curve. Greater difficulty, greater benefits. Weapon inertia has brought them down closer to the level of one-handers again by restricting feinting, but several of the swords and axes are still a bit too fast. I don't think an across-the-board speed nerf would be a good idea. Just slightly slow down the axes, B swords, and perhaps the great bardiche.
I don't understand why people think the glaive is so fast. It's actually quite slow and it's one of the easiest weapons to block.
But there are already few people who can put up a fight of longer than 5 strikes before missing a block. Harder manual blocking would lead to underusage. I agree with the idea that 2handers should be something of an elite weapon, but then again let's not exaggerate that. I think boosting shields in general would be a good idea, because right now the defensive advantage of a shield doesn't weigh up to the extreme offensive capability you get when using 2h, you'll always get a few easy hits in resulting in 1hit kills. The strong shields should really take a long time to break (at least 12-15 hits with an axe), though then you shouldn't be able more than one of them, or they should be rather expensive. Also the 2handers should be more expensive: A warhammer, now one of the most powerful twohanders because of it's chance to strike through any block, costs only 200! That should be 700 or something. Great axe should be near 1000 in stead of 400. Shields should be stronger but also cost more (huscarl shield about 800 or something). This way you will have to be good at blocking when using a twohander, shield users would not be underpowered when faced with mediocre two hander users.
I really don't think that you can balance the weapons out with the current system, it's simple.
2-handers is faster = spam.
1-hander + shield is faster = hugging.
The only option would be to make all weapons equally fast but that would of course suck.
What is needed is to make the different weapons more different with different bonuses. I.e. stun and block crush. Those 2 favors 2-handers but there could be effects for 1-handers too, i.e. attack while blocking...
I really don't think that you can balance the weapons out with the current system, it's simple.
2-handers is faster = spam.
1-hander + shield is faster = hugging.
The only option would be to make all weapons equally fast but that would of course suck.
What is needed is to make the different weapons more different with different bonuses. I.e. stun and block crush. Those 2 favors 2-handers but there could be effects for 1-handers too, i.e. attack while blocking...
One handers are not slower in stats, but it seems they get slower when you use a shield. That should be removed imo. That combined with my above post about stronger shields and more expensive 2handers. It would solve so many problems...
I really don't think that you can balance the weapons out with the current system, it's simple.
2-handers is faster = spam.
1-hander + shield is faster = hugging.
The only option would be to make all weapons equally fast but that would of course suck.
What is needed is to make the different weapons more different with different bonuses. I.e. stun and block crush. Those 2 favors 2-handers but there could be effects for 1-handers too, i.e. attack while blocking...
One handers are not slower in stats, but it seems they get slower when you use a shield. That should be removed imo. That combined with my above post about stronger shields and more expensive 2handers. It would solve so many problems...
More expensive 2-handers?
No, making stuff more expensive won't keep people away from them.
Besides, the best 2 handed weapons are the great sword and the two handed swords, the moset expensive and the 4th-5th most expensive weapons in the game, I still see plenty of people using them.
You can make them more expensive but you need to make them stupidily expensive to keep people from using them, as long as they give you an advantage people will use them.
Shields are already strong enough, unless they meet an axe but that's a feature, and it should stay.
As long as we have the same movement speed as we have now I don't see 1-handers getting any advantage unless they are considerably faster.
More expensive 2-handers?
No, making stuff more expensive won't keep people away from them.
Besides, the best 2 handed weapons are the great sword and the two handed swords, the moset expensive and the 4th-5th most expensive weapons in the game, I still see plenty of people using them.
You can make them more expensive but you need to make them stupidily expensive to keep people from using them, as long as they give you an advantage people will use them.
Shields are already strong enough, unless they meet an axe but that's a feature, and it should stay.
As long as we have the same movement speed as we have now I don't see 1-handers getting any advantage unless they are considerably faster.
I disagree; i find that the most effective 2 handed weapons are the Heavy Bastard sword; or the Greataxe. The Greatsword is much too expensive to be used much in battle game modes consistently anyway, unless your winning massively. Bastard swords are fairly cheap as well. But i agree, jacking up the price wont change a thing.
I really don't think that you can balance the weapons out with the current system, it's simple.
2-handers is faster = spam.
1-hander + shield is faster = hugging.
The only option would be to make all weapons equally fast but that would of course suck.
What is needed is to make the different weapons more different with different bonuses. I.e. stun and block crush. Those 2 favors 2-handers but there could be effects for 1-handers too, i.e. attack while blocking...
One handers are not slower in stats, but it seems they get slower when you use a shield. That should be removed imo. That combined with my above post about stronger shields and more expensive 2handers. It would solve so many problems...
More expensive 2-handers?
No, making stuff more expensive won't keep people away from them. It does, and it's just that good sword + good shield should not cost double of good 2h weapon.
Besides, the best 2 handed weapons are the great sword and the two handed swords, the moset expensive and the 4th-5th most expensive weapons in the game, I still see plenty of people using them. The swords are definately NOT the best 2h weapons, and only the better footmen can pay for greatsword all the time.
You can make them more expensive but you need to make them stupidily expensive to keep people from using them, as long as they give you an advantage people will use them. Making them more expensive was only one of my arguments, why are you pulling this out of context so badly? I said shields should be stronger, that was my main argument. To stop people then from getting 2-3 shields, shields should be more expensive. If shields are more expensive, 2handers should be more expensive too.
Shields are already strong enough, unless they meet an axe but that's a feature, and it should stay. No they aren't. I am a fervent 2h player and I say they aren't. People with a shield die very quickly, the small defensive advantage they get doesn't even come near the huge offensive capability you get when using a 2hander.
As long as we have the same movement speed as we have now I don't see 1-handers getting any advantage unless they are considerably faster. irl onehanders are not necessarily faster, and this would also be bad for gameplay. As I said, simply remove the speed penalty onehanders get for using them with shield (there is one, right? I'm rather sure of it...), so their speed would match their stats. Just making them faster would make them ridiculously fast without a shield. Ever fought an archer with a scimitar? I wouldn't say it has to be any faster
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
) when they were only effective in the hands of a good player; that was when recovery times weren't so awfully slow and shields were better. Personally, I think the more powerful weapons should have a harder learning curve. Greater difficulty, greater benefits. Weapon inertia has brought them down closer to the level of one-handers again by restricting feinting, but several of the swords and axes are still a bit too fast. I don't think an across-the-board speed nerf would be a good idea. Just slightly slow down the axes, B swords, and perhaps the great bardiche.
