1 hand WARHAMMER



  • Will you please nurf the 1 hand warhammer? Reason being it can 2 hit knights like a Maul… Not only that its very clunky and fast at times if you know how to use it. I think of all the weapons this should be considered its very evident.



  • The only change I see being fine with the Warhammer is reducing the horizontal swing damage just enough to make it require 3 hits on a Knight, rather than 2.

    A problem a lot of people find with it is that it can 2-hit any class, despite specifically being an anti-knight weapon. However, its awful speed and poor reach generally excuse that.

    Otherwise, the Warhammer is fine. The Maul is good because it has more reach and can one-hit lighter classes. If anything, this is a problem with the Maul, not the Warhammer. But I don’t see a terribly huge issue.



  • Yes the maul is good but how many people do you see use the maul in a duel? People as in good players you can easily destroy someone with a 1 hand warhammer thats using a maul… Unless they have no idea how to play. Even then I have seen people use the warhammer in a FFA and go 40-10 makes no sense for it to only take 2 hits to kill a knight. I’d much rather it take 3 like you say because of its whacky attacks and damage.



  • @NikolaiLev:

    The only change I see being fine with the Warhammer is reducing the horizontal swing damage just enough to make it require 3 hits on a Knight, rather than 2.

    A problem a lot of people find with it is that it can 2-hit any class, despite specifically being an anti-knight weapon. However, its awful speed and poor reach generally excuse that.

    Otherwise, the Warhammer is fine. The Maul is good because it has more reach and can one-hit lighter classes. If anything, this is a problem with the Maul, not the Warhammer. But I don’t see a terribly huge issue.

    shield vs shield is too hard vs warhammer



  • I think the warhammer is good as it is. Yes, it’s deadly, but what do you expect for a weapon designed to be basicly, anti-plate armour? It’s hefty damage is compensated by the severe lack of reach. Adjust your fighting accordingly, don’t let him get close.



  • @NikolaiLev:

    The only change I see being fine with the Warhammer is reducing the horizontal swing damage just enough to make it require 3 hits on a Knight, rather than 2.

    A problem a lot of people find with it is that it can 2-hit any class, despite specifically being an anti-knight weapon. However, its awful speed and poor reach generally excuse that.

    Otherwise, the Warhammer is fine. The Maul is good because it has more reach and can one-hit lighter classes. If anything, this is a problem with the Maul, not the Warhammer. But I don’t see a terribly huge issue.

    IIRC horizontal swings take two headshots to kill a knight, while vertical swings take two body hits. I personally never swing with the warhammer against knights or even vanguards.

    Only thing I dislike about the warhammer is its combo speed. Its other speed values are relatively low for a onehander, but its combos are quick, which doesn’t make sense for a weapon with such uneven weight distribution.



  • @SlyGoat:

    IIRC horizontal swings take two headshots to kill a knight, while vertical swings take two body hits. I personally never swing with the warhammer against knights or even vanguards.

    Only thing I dislike about the warhammer is its combo speed. Its other speed values are relatively low for a onehander, but its combos are quick, which doesn’t make sense for a weapon with such uneven weight distribution.

    That’s odd; from what I remember of using it, the Warhammer had expectedly tedious combos. But then, I’m reliant on the overhead; perhaps swings are faster.



  • @NikolaiLev:

    @SlyGoat:

    IIRC horizontal swings take two headshots to kill a knight, while vertical swings take two body hits. I personally never swing with the warhammer against knights or even vanguards.

    Only thing I dislike about the warhammer is its combo speed. Its other speed values are relatively low for a onehander, but its combos are quick, which doesn’t make sense for a weapon with such uneven weight distribution.

    That’s odd; from what I remember of using it, the Warhammer had expectedly tedious combos. But then, I’m reliant on the overhead; perhaps swings are faster.

    .6 combo windup on the slash, .65 on the overhead. That’s the same as a Broadsword. In fact out of all primary weapons, only the Flanged Mace, Dane Axe and War Axe have faster combo speeds, and the Flanged Mace and Dane Axe are only faster on the overhead.



  • @NikolaiLev:

    If anything, this is a problem with the Maul, not the Warhammer. But I don’t see a terribly huge issue.

    Yeah… it needs a damage buff.



  • @Beaver24/7:

    Yes the maul is good but how many people do you see use the maul in a duel? People as in good players you can easily destroy someone with a 1 hand warhammer thats using a maul… Unless they have no idea how to play. Even then I have seen people use the warhammer in a FFA and go 40-10 makes no sense for it to only take 2 hits to kill a knight. I’d much rather it take 3 like you say because of its whacky attacks and damage.

    You are speaking of that, absence experience with the Maul at all, please try using the maul more often or take back your statement.



  • In shield vs shield combat you need to be close and face-hugging.
    2 hits to take a knight down is likely too fast and easy.



  • @smokingbobs:

    In shield vs shield combat you need to be close and face-hugging.
    2 hits to take a knight down is likely too fast and easy.

    Again, the only way I’ll agree to a nerf of the Warhammer is making it harder to use. 2-shotting knights is the point. Combo speed nerfs seem appropriate given the information SlyGoat has just given us. Let’s see .05s or so added, and go from there. I really don’t feel the Warhammer is problematic at all.



  • I think a .7 second combo windup for both slash and overhead would be pretty appropriate. That puts it on par with the morning star, which can’t 2shot knights but has a reach advantage.



  • @wildwulfy:

    You are speaking of that, absence experience with the Maul at all, please try using the maul more often or take back your statement.

    Any more ignorant assumptions? Don’t make useless posts.



  • WildWulfy you dont even know who I am. 400 hours played.



  • perso , i find it a little cheap but once again as so many people stated , the range of the warhammer is so low that its easely countered … just keep your distance and strike when youre sure to hit



  • @SlyGoat:

    I think a .7 second combo windup for both slash and overhead would be pretty appropriate. That puts it on par with the morning star, which can’t 2shot knights but has a reach advantage.

    Sounds good to me, though I’d still like to see slash take 3 hits to kill a knight, just to make the weapon harder to use.



  • @NikolaiLev:

    The only change I see being fine with the Warhammer is reducing the horizontal swing damage just enough to make it require 3 hits on a Knight, rather than 2.

    A problem a lot of people find with it is that it can 2-hit any class, despite specifically being an anti-knight weapon. However, its awful speed and poor reach generally excuse that.
    I agree with the slash nerfs. I don’t agree that it has awful speed or poor reach. It feels like the second longest 1h weapon to me, only bested on Dane axe. I reach things way too easy with it, and it’s way too fast for such a strong weapon. I do think other classes should take some bonus reduced blunt damage.



  • After playing against and with warhammer after quite some time, I have completely changed my opinion towards to that it is being Overpowered. Despite of having the cabaplity to two-hit Any classes seems a bit extreme, but considering the lack of range and reach with the weapon, it makes the weapon very weak to agile fighters, not to mention Man-at arms! Due to its slow speed and reach, its a weapon more dedicated to take out enemies behind thick steel plates, such as knights, and that I what I believe those Knights do not like at all, since they expect to take tons of blows before eventually falling.

    Out of my own experience, I do not often manage to get in a rapid hit unless under occasion I either accelerate my attack, trying to trade hits or when I am feinting, so it does lack of fighting ability, and versus a polearm or a dodgy Man at arms, you may really discover the Warhammer’s true weakness ( Lack of range ) However with all this being said, I think that the warhammer could need a slightly change, there’s however one more thing I don’t get. The warhammer seems to look smaller and weight less than the maces, so why is it slower? they could’ve just made it a fast low-damage blunt weapon?



  • @Beaver24/7:

    WildWulfy you dont even know who I am. 400 hours played.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKKtnSVeY9o


Log in to reply