Come on guys…



  • I know there’s another thread about the Grand Mace… But come on guys…

    LS(after proposed buffs) and SoW
    -Slightly faster combo times
    -Better stab in general
    -Better animations for drags(on Longsword)
    -SoW has very slightly faster OH and slash windups

    Grand Mace
    -Much better hits to kill, including the stab. The stab is longer than the Poleaxe’s due to higher release and it has exactly the same hits to kill as the Poleaxe’s stab when used in conjunction with an OH. The stab is not bad at all.
    -Handle hits a lot
    -Much higher stamina drain

    Not balanced at all, the Grand Mace has much, much more important benefits than the Longsword after proposed buffs i.e. it two shots Vanguards to the body with OHs and slashes, but it 4 shots Knights to the body and 3 Shia Knights with one head hit.

    Poleaxe
    -A stab that two shots Vanguards, MaA, and Archers to the body, however a stab-OH combo on the Grand Mace has exactly the same hits to kill.
    -A very slightly faster slash windup, but it can’t even two hit kill Vanguards
    -Much faster combo times, however it’s drags are very unreliable.

    Grand Mace
    -Faster OH windup and the OH has a better HTK against archers
    -OH to slash combo two hit kills Knights, unlike with the Poleaxe
    -Very reliable drags

    Not balanced, the Grand Mace has much more significant benefits.

    Messer
    -Better animations for drags
    -Slightly faster combo times
    -Can one shot MaA with a slash to the head, but this will likely be removed because it was an accident(unless TBS says otherwise) and that will not likely happen against decent MaA.

    Grand Mace
    -Better hits to kill
    -Faster windups
    -Longer
    -Handle hits a lot
    -Higher stamina drain

    Not balanced, the Grand Mace has much more benefits and more significant ones too.

    Maul
    -Much better overall hits to kill

    Grand Mace
    -Much faster
    -Longer

    Not balanced, the Grand Mace has more benefits. That’s comparing it to pretty much all of the current, most balanced Knight primaries. It’s not complicated. The Grand Mace has overall more be benefits than the other most balanced Knight weapons and less downsides, thus it makes other Knight weapons seem too niche to use in most situations and that is not balance. This is exactly what the pre-nerf LS and SoW did; it’s not necessarily OP, but it makes everything else have too little of a reason to use.

    And don’t use the “It’s a team game, nothing in OP or UP in team play” argument because that is just straight-up not true. The longer weapons will all ways be better in team fights and the faster weapons will all ways be better in duels. Are you really trying to tell me that a Zweihander is as good in duels as a Norse Sword and a Norse Sword is as good in team fights as the Zweihander? Let’s not be silly. The Zweihander has much better area denial in team situations, is much better at supporting team mates, and is much better at target switching than the Norse Sword. That is incredibly obvious and does not need to be argued. There are weapons that are balanced because they are stronger in duels, however they are weaker in team fights, but the Grand Mace is amazing in duels because it destroys Knights, is decent against Vanguards, and is as good against MaA as the Longsword, but it’s still good in team fights because it has decent reach and very high damage.

    Finally, the intended speciality of the Grand Mace is being a Knight counter, like the Maul. We can all agree on that, however the Maul suffers very bad against Vanguards and MaA and the Grand Mace is too, just not a bad. Unfortunately the Grand Mace’s fast windups, decent reach, and very high damage means that it’s about as good against Vanguards as the SoW, a Vanguard counter weapon and it’s as good against MaA as it and the LS too. This means that the Grand Mace is capable of taking on much more than its speciality is supposed to let it and that is not balanced. The Grand Mace should suffer dueling Vanguards and MaA, just not as bad as the Maul, but the current Grand Mace is strong enough such that it does not suffer against Vanguards and does not suffer against MaA enough. Any weapon that has enough benefits to even partially, but in this case it’s all most entirely, outweigh the weapon’s intended disadvantages is imbalanced.
    **
    To properly argue with me, make a counterargument for every single one of my points that you think are erroneous. If you just state your opinion and walk away without any justification or minimal justification, you are not going to help us make any progress, you are wasting our time, and your post will be ignored.
    **
    EDIT: Also, get over it. It’s a long post. If we want to properly discuss this then we must discuss everything possible.



  • @Nohbdy111:

    Poleaxe
    -A stab that two shots Vanguards, MaA, and Archers to the body, however a stab-OH combo on the Grand Mace has exactly the same hits to kill. Or you could say Grandmace won’t 2 shot vanguards with 2 stabs where poleaxe will.
    -A very slightly faster slash windup, but it can’t even two hit kill Vanguards. It will with Stab-stab or stab-OH though.
    -Much faster combo times, however it’s drags are very unreliable.

    Grand Mace
    -Faster OH windup and the OH has a better HTK against archers
    -OH to slash combo two hit kills Knights, unlike with the Poleaxe But stab-oh or oh-oh can 2 shot knights with poleaxe
    -Very reliable drags

    In my experience fighting vs Poleaxe is more difficult than vs grandmace. HTK don’t show the whole picture. I honestly can’t be bothered to read the rest of your post.



  • @gndo:

    In my experience fighting vs Poleaxe is more difficult than vs grandmace. HTK don’t show the whole picture. I honestly can’t be bothered to read the rest of your post.

    Do you remember my old sig?

    I’ll recite it. “Your personal experiences mean nothing if you cannot back them up with valid logic”.

    Your “argument” is mere anecdotal evidence and that is not going to accomplish anything.

    Also, your corrections to what I said are completely pointless. It covers nothing I didn’t cover and it actually leaves out some things. You have to examine every factor.

    Argue properly, or get the fuck out. I don’t need you wasting my time.

    EDIT: You even said stab-OH two shots Knights with the Poleaxe… I hope you realize that requires a head hit… Stab-OH or OH-OH are inferior on the Poleaxe compared to the Grand Mace. This only proves me that you don’t know what you’re talking about.



  • @Nohbdy111:

    Do you remember my old sig?

    I’ll recite it. “Your personal experiences mean nothing if you cannot back them up with valid logic”.

    Your “argument” is mere anecdotal evidence and that is not going to accomplish anything.

    Also, your corrections to what I said are completely pointless. It covers nothing I didn’t cover and it actually leaves out some things. You have to examine every factor.

    Argue properly, or get the fuck out. I don’t need to wasting my time.

    EDIT: You even said stab-OH two shots Knights with the Poleaxe… I hope you realize that requires a head hit… Stab-OH or OH-OH are inferior on the Poleaxe compared to the Grand Mace. This only proves me that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

    Nohbdy, I agree with you on several points, and I think your analysis is generally useful. However, I think your insistence on spreadsheet data as “logic” and disregarding the experiential evidence provided by many players on this board is a bit unfeasible. I agree that rational discussion should not privilege anecdotal evidence because of its malleable nature, but in many of these discussions, the thousands of hours placed by players into the game and the resultant experiential data gathered does constitute a valid potential source of rational argument. That does not invalidate the data you provide in raw numbers (windup times, release times, damage numbers, etc.) but it does provide a valuable corollary: theory does not always match practice, and while theory may more closely match reality in video games where certain parameters cannot by definition be exceeded (the windup times for weapons do not and cannot change, for example), certain theoretical principles may become invalidated in practice.

    For example, you assert grand mace is imbalanced in 1v1 situations, and other competitive players assert grand mace is balanced in teamplay. You assert, through citing raw numbers such as windup times and the like, as well as comparisons to other weapons in the same class, that the grand mace is in fact imbalanced in 1v1 situations. Other competitive players cite the weapon’s lack of representation in competitive scrims, its comparative lack of range, its anti-knight specialization which hinders it against vanguards and men-at-arms (I cite this not to disagree with your counter-argument to this point, but merely as an example of their counter-argument), and also the strengths of other knight weapons which make them more desirable compared to the grand mace. I am not agreeing with you, or with the other competitive players, but I am saying that their experiential evidence, due both the preponderance of such evidence and due to its nature as verifiable, observable experimentation, does constitute a valid form of rational evidence. So in that sense, I disagree with the “goalposts” so to speak, in that you clearly privilege a certain form of evidence and disregard many others, and in this case the sort of privilege you assign that evidence to the apparent exclusion of all others is not warranted in this sort of discussion.



  • To build off of what Brutus said, taking the results of the gmace in scrims shouldn’t be considered anecdotal evidence, but rather experimental evidence (also experiential like Brutus said). And in the realm of science, theories are constructed from experimental evidence.

    So a lot of your arguments would consist of a hypothesis, which we can use to conduct an experiment (a number of competitive matches for a good sample size), and then we can construct a theory to explain the results of the experiment.



  • @Karasu:

    To build off of what Brutus said, taking the results of the gmace in scrims shouldn’t be considered anecdotal evidence, but rather experimental evidence (also experiential like Brutus said). And in the realm of science, theories are constructed from experimental evidence.

    So a lot of your arguments would consist of a hypothesis, which we can use to conduct an experiment (a number of competitive matches for a good sample size), and then we can construct a theory to explain the results of the experiment.

    Precisely. That is a much more succinct version of my post. Thank you, Karasu.



  • @Brutus:

    Nohbdy, I agree with you on several points, and I think your analysis is generally useful. However, I think your insistence on spreadsheet data as “logic” and disregarding the experiential evidence provided by many players on this board is a bit unfeasible. I agree that rational discussion should not privilege anecdotal evidence because of its malleable nature, but in many of these discussions, the thousands of hours placed by players into the game and the resultant experiential data gathered does constitute a valid potential source of rational argument. That does not invalidate the data you provide in raw numbers (windup times, release times, damage numbers, etc.) but it does provide a valuable corollary: theory does not always match practice, and while theory may more closely match reality in video games where certain parameters cannot by definition be exceeded (the windup times for weapons do not and cannot change, for example), certain theoretical principles may become invalidated in practice.

    Only if said theories were made incorrectly, not taking a certain factor(s) into account.

    For example, you assert grand mace is imbalanced in 1v1 situations, and other competitive players assert grand mace is balanced in teamplay. You assert, through citing raw numbers such as windup times and the like, as well as comparisons to other weapons in the same class, that the grand mace is in fact imbalanced in 1v1 situations. Other competitive players cite the weapon’s lack of representation in competitive scrims, its comparative lack of range, its anti-knight specialization which hinders it against vanguards and men-at-arms (I cite this not to disagree with your counter-argument to this point, but merely as an example of their counter-argument), and also the strengths of other knight weapons which make them more desirable compared to the grand mace. I am not agreeing with you, or with the other competitive players, but I am saying that their experiential evidence, due both the preponderance of such evidence and due to its nature as verifiable, observable experimentation, does constitute a valid form of rational evidence. So in that sense, I disagree with the “goalposts” so to speak, in that you clearly privilege a certain form of evidence and disregard many others, and in this case the sort of privilege you assign that evidence to the apparent exclusion of all others is not warranted in this sort of discussion.

    It’s a valid form of rational evidence if the anecdote can be proven using valid logic. Logic can be used to describe and understand every thing in the universe. You can not just sit there and try and tell me than competitive chivalry is some sort of special exception.

    And if we want to ponder over our experiential evidence, in my competitive experience absolutely 100% of my theories correlate to the outcomes of competitive matches. If my theories failed me in actual practice, I would not be preaching them as if they were true, rather I would find their errors and refine the theories. I do not completely disregard experiential evidence of having any level of rationality, but the experiential evidence can’t hold any validity or rationality if it can’t be proven logically; otherwise, the observer was likely observing their personal experiences incorrectly or they were bending what really happens in their favor. The experiential also holds flaws such as biases for and against certain things and it disregards the fact that, say, the reason a player did bad with the Grand Mace is because the player is just bad. All in all, experiential evidence cannot be true as rational proof for anything if they make no legitimate rational sense. Does that not make sense? I basically just said, “something isn’t rational if it doesn’t make any rational sense”. And that is quite obviously true. Because of the aforementioned reasons, I think that it’s quite obvious that experiential evidence should be disregarded in favor of logic because said form of evidence can only be true with logic. Another issue that I had, not regarding the unreliability of experiential evidence, is that he just simply said his experience and then walked away. I am perfectly fine with one uses his or her experiences as evidence, but only if they back it up logically. Then I will determine the validity of his or her experience by examining the logic to support it.



  • @Karasu:

    To build off of what Brutus said, taking the results of the gmace in scrims shouldn’t be considered anecdotal evidence, but rather experimental evidence (also experiential like Brutus said). And in the realm of science, theories are constructed from experimental evidence.

    So a lot of your arguments would consist of a hypothesis, which we can use to conduct an experiment (a number of competitive matches for a good sample size), and then we can construct a theory to explain the results of the experiment.

    This would not be a good experiment at all. It would have to consist of constants such as equal skill and the variable being a Poleaxe and Grand Mace being used by the former and latter player, respectively; however, a constant of exactly equal skill is unrealistic and thus we can not test this in real life, only simulate it in theories which I do very well.



  • You’re creating a tautology: something is only rational if it can be proven through “logic”, which consists of only these forms of evidence, and those forms of evidence are themselves “logic.” I’d also like you to clarify what you mean by logic, because you are not using it in a form I recognize: logic is a nebulous term which can refer to reasoning through hard evidence, in which case experiential evidence constitutes a form of logic, or it can refer to certain branches of mathematics or rhetoric, which you are very clearly not referring to since those involve the use of logic proofs (if x, then y, etc.)

    Furthermore, no one is asserting competitive chivalry defies the laws of the universe, or what have you. What we contend is that your method of analysis is faulty because it depends too much on theory in a vacuum, which does not take into account all the variables introduced into practice. You privilege the two on a backward scale: theory cannot be considered rational if it does not bear out in reality. Clearly, you think your theory bears out in practice, but others with equally valid theory and equally valid practice, disagree. Your emphasis on theory in a vacuum to the exclusion of practice does not make rational sense because these theories do not occur in a vacuum but rather in physical space. That’s elementary empirical reasoning, which is one of the foundational elements of modern scientific and intellectual thought.



  • @Nohbdy111:

    EDIT: You even said stab-OH two shots Knights with the Poleaxe… I hope you realize that requires a head hit… Stab-OH or OH-OH are inferior on the Poleaxe compared to the Grand Mace. This only proves me that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

    I only said this because you said grandmace can 2 hit in a way that poleaxe can’t, so I showed ways poleaxe can 2hit in which grandmace can’t, just to show that HTK can be argued either way and isn’t definitive proof that either weapon is better.



  • @Brutus:

    You’re creating a tautology: something is only rational if it can be proven through “logic”, which consists of only these forms of evidence, and those forms of evidence are themselves “logic.” I’d also like you to clarify what you mean by logic, because you are not using it in a form I recognize: logic is a nebulous term which can refer to reasoning through hard evidence, in which case experiential evidence constitutes a form of logic, or it can refer to certain branches of mathematics or rhetoric, which you are very clearly not referring to since those involve the use of logic proofs (if x, then y, etc.)

    My reasoning is simply proving things through accurate theories that simulate realistic scenarios and not proving things that are erroneous in their solidity. For example, I disregard things like anecdotal evidence that can not be justified by theorizing the realistic and rational validity of the experience. I would only declare anecdotal evidence as valid if it could be proven by using rational and realistic theories that can be used to simulate the scenario in with the anecdote could occur or if I had some anecdotal evidence of my own and the result of it corresponded to my theories.

    Furthermore, no one is asserting competitive chivalry defies the laws of the universe, or what have you.

    You were trying to tell me that it doesn’t work when you try to theorize scenarios that can happen in chivalry, but at the same time you can do that with something like the universe. Why can’t I prove something theoretically in a video game, when theoretical physics relies on that. For example, Albert Einstein’s Theory of Relativity has real world applications and it’s but a theory. I made my theories to explain what happens to me in-game and why, and my theories have proven me to have in-game applications such as picking a weapon that has the best matchup against the majority of his team via counter picks and such things that I theorized.

    What we contend is that your method of analysis is faulty because it depends too much on theory in a vacuum, which does not take into account all the variables introduced into practice.

    Nothing is stopping me from adding those variables in there. The fact that there are other variables that could be introduced does not invalidate my theory. It simply changes the outcome a bit. Find me a variable that you could add to my theories that would completely reverse the conclusion of the Grand Mace is OP and then I will believe you.

    You privilege the two on a backward scale: theory cannot be considered rational if it does not bear out in reality.

    Obviously that’s true, and my theories do bear out in reality. Whoever disagrees that they bear out in reality are observing reality incorrectly because my theories have yet to be proven false.

    Clearly, you think your theory bears out in practice, but others with equally valid theory and equally valid practice, disagree. Your emphasis on theory in a vacuum to the exclusion of practice does not make rational sense because these theories do not occur in a vacuum but rather in physical space.

    You misunderstand. I only exclude practice if one’s conclusion from the practice can not be validly proven by a rational theory to simulate the practice. I wouldn’t ignore the practice conclusions if people would actually give me good conclusions based off of their practice and if they supported it rationally with a valid theory that can happen in reality. However they just give me an experience and walk away without any justification. Exclusion of the practice does make rational sense if their practice doesn’t make any rational sense in the first place.

    That’s elementary empirical reasoning, which is one of the foundational elements of modern scientific and intellectual thought.

    Yeah, but empirical reasoning can only be true if it is supported rationally. Here’s how it works. If we think of a theory that describes something that can happen in real life, then we can find a real world application for it. If we find a real world scenario that is not supported by our theories, then we shape our theories to support that scenario among all other things. That’s how it works in reality and that’s how it works with me.



  • My god you come across as arrogant Nohbdy, yes of course your theories are the chivalry equivalent of Einsteins Theory of Relativity.



  • @gndo:

    My god you come across as arrogant Nohbdy, yes of course your theories are the chivalry equivalent of Einsteins Theory of Relativity.

    Oh the humanity… (please tell me that’s a troll post)



  • Stop caring so much Nohb. Its only gaem.



  • So many walls good lord. Who cares about “logic” when the fact is, in scrims the Gmace doesn’t normally perform well. The only person I’ve ever seen seriously use it is Guts and he even prefers the SoW over the Gmace. Why are you so hell-bent on getting the thing nerfed when nobody ever even uses it outside of duels? The handle-hits on it are broken, we can all agree on that. That’s why it’s used so heavily in kendos and duels. But in teamfights against good players spamming handle-hits is gonna get you killed very quickly.

    Also please for the love of god quit making every single one of your posts a massive wall. It’s a headache to read and a headache to respond to.



  • @Nohbdy111:

    Obviously that’s true, and my theories do bear out in reality. Whoever disagrees that they bear out in reality are observing reality incorrectly because my theories have yet to be proven false.

    You don’t think this comes across as arrogant? Your Reality is really in this case just your opinion, same as other people have their opinion. You are basically saying if we don’t agree with you then we’re wrong.

    And don’t give me that bullshit about experience counting for nothing, you should know that you can’t base everything off numbers in this game. You begin to sound like wildwulfy.



  • @Sophax:

    Stop caring so much Nohb. Its only gaem.

    Sorry for being the only intelligent person on these forums that actually wants to start topics and discuss them properly. (I would qualify Brutus, but he doesn’t create threads)

    Why can’t I have a single, good debate with any of you that oppose me? Why do you all ways have to throw retarded ideologies and pathetic excuses of arguments at me and say that they debunk my theories? The only feasible explanation is that you’re all just not intelligent enough to argue with me and I have yet to be proven otherwise. Brutus is the only one that comes close, but he isn’t even discussing the Grand Mace…



  • @Nohbdy111:

    Sorry for being the only intelligent person on these forums that actually wants to start topics and discuss them properly. (I would qualify Brutus, but he doesn’t create threads)

    Why can’t I have a single, good debate with any of you that oppose me? Why do you all ways have to throw retarded ideologies and pathetic excuses of arguments at me and say that they debunk my theories? The only feasible explanation is that you’re all just not intelligent enough to argue with me and I have yet to be proven otherwise. Brutus is the only one that comes close, but he isn’t even discussing the Grand Mace…

    Maybe because you call everyone retards?



  • It’s fine if you want to debate with others, but please refrain from insulting others.

    Thank you. :)



  • @gndo:

    You don’t think this comes across as arrogant? Your Reality is really in this case just your opinion, same as other people have their opinion. You are basically saying if we don’t agree with you then we’re wrong.

    Guess what? My opinion is proven and all of yours’ aren’t. It’s only logical that I’m the only one right if none of you can disprove my opinion and none of you can prove your opinion. Arrogant? Maybe. Realistic? Yup.

    And don’t give me that bullshit about experience counting for nothing,

    **
    It only counts for nothing if you can’t even prove it. You’re just spitting out words as if they’re fact with absolutely no justification. What don’t you understand about that?**

    you should know that you can’t base everything off numbers in this game.

    Last time I checked every single fucking thing in the universe can be proven with numbers. If you can’t comprehend that, leave my thread now.

    You begin to sound like wildwulfy.

    wildwulfy is one of the very few people on these forums that all most match my intelligence… You are in no position to say that about him.


Log in to reply