Vanguard rant



  • @Caustic:

    @natei:

    Implying that an archer can actually hit a vanguard that knows his left foot from his right, and can pull off the three shots required to kill a vanguard, and has the time to line up three shots with the vanguards movement speed, yes - archers WOULD counter vanguards. Unfortunately this is very rarely the case and vanguards are left with no weakness. So I suppose that if you’re a human aimbot vanguards wouldn’t be much of a problem.

    Also, what the fuck is up with the halberd? I don’t know much about polearms but I don’t think that you can carry it from the opposite end with one hand when performing a thrust.

    It takes two body shots from a warbow with bodkins to take down a vanguard. One body shot and an overhead from a cudgel will take down a vanguard. It takes one headshot with bodkins on a vanguard to kill him. Vanguard heads are also EASILY the most hittable head in the game. I’ve become very good at arching, and vanguards are by far the easiest class to kill being an archer. I’m not sure how you’re having trouble, I guess you just use the shortbow and refuse to switch to your melee. As it is, I dominate vanguards reguardless of the class I’m using. Perhaps it is just the playerbase that chooses vanguards that aren’t too good, but I find their slow attacks extremely easy to exploit.

    “I’ve become very good at arching”

    That’s exactly my point. You need to be very skilled to take out a very unskilled vanguard. Do you think the average archer has a war bow and goes off headshotting vanguards then whipping out his cudgel and dispatching them when they get close? As another poster said, the skill level required to take out a vanguard is highly disproportionate.



  • “Its more that you dont have to be good to be a good vanguard, A good MaA is tenfold better than a dumbass skilled vanguard so if they killed you it was statistically the outcome because to play a vanguard is easy as shit.”

    Good players are better than shit players, regardless of class. An MaA can run up and spam lmb and kill a lot of vanguards, and a bad vanguard can stab/slash spam. But a good player using either class can beat a bad player using the opposite class.

    “Now what your post is telling me is you learned naturally in-game “hey I’m a no-skill liker lemme pick the vanny because he gets the job done” the problem is I’m trying to fight like a warrior and dodge around like the matrix not a dumbass little kid poking 100s of times til I hit you because I have the longer weapon.”

    I typically play knight, not vanguard, because I enjoy the shield and health regen. No good player will just poke a hundred times, they’ll parry, feint, flinch, etc. If you can’t beat a shitty player who does nothing but stab, why is it that you blame the class and not your level of skill against said class?

    “Your mindset is the problem I’m debating your not trying to learn you just innately know the vanny is overpowered and pick him and think hes the great because your definition of greatness is advantage not true skill”

    I use everything but archer equally ~



  • @Wobbler:

    "An MaA can run up and spam lmb and kill a lot of vanguards

    Try it. There’s this misconception about MAA that they can just waltz up into facehug range whenever they please, but that just isn’t the case with vanguards. A vanguard with any experience will always get the first shot in, or at least trade hits (to his advantage) so long as he is aware of you. That is the advantage of reach, plain and simple.

    Dodge is not free, and it is not instantaneous. You can dodge and attack at the same time, but it severely cuts your dodge distance, to the point where you can’t safely pull it off from outside of a vanguard’s swing or poke range. You always have to deal with an initial attack before running up, and once you’re there you’re not particularly more difficult to parry than anyone else, can be kicked, etc.

    Your options are to flat-out attack and hope the vanguard screws up his parry, which is relying on the opponent to make a mistake rather than relying on your own skill, or you can feint, which runs the risk of trading hits, in which the vanguard comes out on top. It is not as simple as many people would like to believe - if it were, I think you’d see more than just a handful of MAA out there.



  • Why do most of you in this thread think that whatever class you main as should be capable of dueling and out playing every other class on the field? MaA players are especially guilty of this. The game is not always centered around the concept of “1v1”. If you are that kind of player, there are servers, and modes suited to that sort of play style.

    The Vanguard is definitely a class that is outmatched in team oriented game modes where he has to fend off multiple opponents. This is it’s biggest weakness. The other classes are all better at dealing with multiple hostile scenarios than the Vanguard. Even archers. I mean, all you have to do is get two people at a Vanguard, and one circle around him and he’s fucked. Even in 1v1 scenarios the vanguard does have weaknesses, I’m surprised I haven’t seen anyone mention feinting in this thread once? If a Vanguard misses the parry he’s pretty fucked.

    I see someone said that they feel like they have to wait for a Vanguard to make a mistake in order to win a duel, and they feel like they can’t be between on “skill” alone. Isn’t that the point though? A duel between two opponents with equal terms would always come down to who makes the mistake first. Skill comes from knowing when to take advantage of opportunities when they present themselves. If doing a feint and killing a Vanguard by making him drop his guard makes you feel manly, well that’s great. But you are still taking advantage of a mistake.

    Their slowness is a weakness, and their “reach” certainly doesn’t make up for the fact that despite what many people say here, in 1v1 situations they are almost always beaten and outclassed by knights, MAAs, and even archers of higher skill.



  • @Deviat:

    Why do most of you in this thread think that whatever class you main as should be capable of dueling and out playing every other class on the field? MaA players are especially guilty of this. The game is not always centered around the concept of “1v1”. If you are that kind of player, there are servers, and modes suited to that sort of play style.

    I think you’re misinterpreting things here. The game is not centered on 1v1 battles, but it’s one way to compare the classes. And I’ve never argued that MAA should be able to outplay every other class; in fact, I specifically said that I’m comfortable with the idea of the vanguard having an edge over the maa. You make reference to my post, so I think it’s safe to assume that you read it - yet you don’t seem to have understood it at all.

    @Deviat:

    The Vanguard is definitely a class that is outmatched in team oriented game modes where he has to fend off multiple opponents. This is it’s biggest weakness. The other classes are all better at dealing with multiple hostile scenarios than the Vanguard. Even archers. I mean, all you have to do is get two people at a Vanguard, and one circle around him and he’s fucked.

    How is the vanguard particularly weak in this regard? I was under the impression that vanguards generally do fairly well with crowds, given that they can fight with huge sweeping swings. And furthermore, “being outnumbered” is not a weakness when half the team is comprised of vanguards. How are you supposed to outnumber that many guys? Are you suggesting that the correct way to beat a vanguard is by simply having twice as many guys?

    Even in 1v1 scenarios the vanguard does have weaknesses, I’m surprised I haven’t seen anyone mention feinting in this thread once? If a Vanguard misses the parry he’s pretty fucked.

    I have mentioned feinting. I also mentioned that classes who can be 1-shotted are in even greater peril should they miss a parry. So I can’t say that I have a whole lot of sympathy for the vanguard on that one.

    I see someone said that they feel like they have to wait for a Vanguard to make a mistake in order to win a duel, and they feel like they can’t be between on “skill” alone. Isn’t that the point though? A duel between two opponents with equal terms would always come down to who makes the mistake first. Skill comes from knowing when to take advantage of opportunities when they present themselves. If doing a feint and killing a Vanguard by making him drop his guard makes you feel manly, well that’s great. But you are still taking advantage of a mistake.

    You’re taking the point I was making out of context.

    I was replying to someone who said that all a MAA has to do is “run up” to a vanguard and spam slash combos to beat them; my point was that it isn’t that simple, you can’t just run up and spaz out, you have to deal with an initial attack by backstepping or parrying, then make an approach and hope the vanguard screws up somehow in order to even land one hit. And even then, the stakes are generally higher for the maa than the vanguard.

    Again, so you don’t miss it: the point was not that it’s somehow wrong that you have to expect the vanguard to screw up to win - I agree with you that that’s sort of the point of the way the combat system has been designed: with enough energy the potential is always there to get out of anything, and the first person to slip up enough times will lose. The point was that killing a vanguard is not merely a matter of clicking LMB while holding down the w key.

    @Deviat:

    Their slowness is a weakness, and their “reach” certainly doesn’t make up for the fact that despite what many people say here, in 1v1 situations they are almost always beaten and outclassed by knights, MAAs, and even archers of higher skill.

    Almost always? We have been playing in different rooms, perhaps. I routinely see high-rank maas and archers being brought low by unpredictable helicopter vanguards. Heaven forbid you come across one who knows how to feint. Try standing your ground as an archer with your little dagger or whacky stick and dealing with a vanguard running at you at full speed multi-feinting overheads with a zweihander that can one-shot you. It takes only the most rudimentary skill to do play a vanguard like this, and all the skill in the world to deal with it.



  • Stickytape, regardless of how you misrepresent my post and address certain points that weren’t even intended for you, even if you think they were, I’m not sure why you are being so hostile. You can condescend and high horse all you want, but it won’t change the facts.

    What do you mean “hope a vanguard makes a mistake”? Anyone with a shield can walk right up to a vanguard and be within nose to nose range. I don’t think I ever implied anywhere that killing a vanguard could be done by mashing LMB. The Vanguards attacks are so slow, that if he misses, or overshoots, or gets parried that he can be punished easily by fast weapons. Even slow weapons of knight classes have great ability to destroy the vanguard in a few hits.

    I just seriously have to question how much experience you have with the game if you think Vanguards are actually this “overpowered”. Yes they are numerous, and many people seem to be getting kills with them easily, but I find it really strange how on one hand you say that any noob could do well with this class by wildly swinging around, and yet on the other hand you say its nearly impossible to kill one (in the hands of a skilled player)? Because I can for sure tell you wildly spamming LMB is going to get a Vanguard killed. Fast. And no, it does not take a person “with all the skill in the world” to parry one or two of the insanely slow Vanguard attacks, and punish him.

    Facts are what matter. And what matters is, in duel servers, “high-level” players tend to stay away from the Vanguard. Because in a situation when you’re dueling with two skilled people, the Vanguard is the weakest of all three classes. It’s a fact. MaA’s and Knights are leagues above them in their ability to dominate other classes on the field, especially in duels. They also take much finesse and skill to master which is why you don’t see many.

    You mention that you’ve been to “high level” dueling and seen archers get low by erratic Vanguards. But how often do these strategies last? Or do you base your opinion solely on momentary anecdotal evidence? People adapt, and I can bet you that the wildly swinging Vanguard is going to get his shit smashed in the next round.

    I’m not saying Vanguards aren’t powerful, or they aren’t a easy class to dominate with. But these qualities are not because of the class itself, but rather people in public games inability to cope with these tactics. You see people ranting about just about every class in this game because they don’t know how to deal with them. It doesn’t make them overpowered. I personally love to play all the classes, but when it comes to my 1v1ing, Vanguard is definitely not the one I choose. Shields are far too powerful to overlook. :D



  • @Deviat:

    Stickytape, regardless of how you misrepresent my post and address certain points that weren’t even intended for you, even if you think they were, I’m not sure why you are being so hostile. You can condescend and high horse all you want, but it won’t change the facts.

    For starters, I’m very sorry if I came across as condescending - I was actually trying to be very cautious and clear, but tone doesn’t come across well in text. My apologies if I’ve offended you.

    However, I can’t tell what was or wasn’t addressed to me since you didn’t address your post to anyone in particular. You did make reference to a few things that I said, though, so I replied with that in mind.

    What do you mean “hope a vanguard makes a mistake”? Anyone with a shield can walk right up to a vanguard and be within nose to nose range. I don’t think I ever implied anywhere that killing a vanguard could be done by mashing LMB. The Vanguards attacks are so slow, that if he misses, or overshoots, or gets parried that he can be punished easily by fast weapons. Even slow weapons of knight classes have great ability to destroy the vanguard in a few hits.

    Anyone with a shield cannot walk right up to a vanguard, at least not easily. Blocking with a shield incurs a pushback, and a vanguard who is constantly backpeddling and poking can keep an opponent at bay for quite a while - and then there are kicks, which are literally designed to counter shields. Walking at a vanguard with a shield up is a silly tactic and I don’t recommend it unless you want to be kicked and overheaded.

    Also, as a man at arms my preferred method of approaching a vanguard is to wait just outside the edge of his swing or poke range and hope he swings or pokes anyway - this saves me time and energy before I make my approach - but even then I can’t just run straight up and “punish” him. There is plenty of time for parrying and even against amateur vanguards I get a non-feinted attack in about once or twice a day at best. The vast majority of these attacks are parried. Perhaps this is a disagreement about the use of the word “punish” - I tend to think of it as implying a hit. For example, a whiffed charge attack is much easier to punish, as it has a long recovery.

    I just seriously have to question how much experience you have with the game if you think Vanguards are actually this “overpowered”. Yes they are numerous, and many people seem to be getting kills with them easily, but I find it really strange how on one hand you say that any noob could do well with this class by wildly swinging around, and yet on the other hand you say its nearly impossible to kill one (in the hands of a skilled player)? Because I can for sure tell you wildly spamming LMB is going to get a Vanguard killed. Fast. And no, it does not take a person “with all the skill in the world” to parry one or two of the insanely slow Vanguard attacks, and punish him.

    I’m at 128 hours, and you’re massively misrepresenting my post. I’m not actually arguing that vanguards are “that overpowered” - if you go back to my first post, I do think that the fact that there are so many vanguards in an average game is a symptom of imbalance, but I can’t really put my finger on the problem, nor do I have any real suggestions as to what to do about it. Lowering damage, reducing reach, and so on… these solutions don’t satisfy me, as I’d worry just as much about going too far, or nerfing them in the wrong areas. I don’t know if it’s a problem with the mechanic or the numbers or what, but I think there’s a problem in there somewhere.

    Again, and I hope you don’t find it condescending that I repeat myself, but I’m okay with vanguards having an edge over the light classes - and they do have an edge. That’s what I’ve been trying to explain by outlining the difficulties that the man at arms faces when confronting a vanguard - difficulties that people who haven’t played one extensively might not know about. Few people actually play the man at arms in depth, and so there are a lot of misconceptions about how they’re played. I don’t play the vanguard that much at all, either, so I can only speak from the man at arms’ point of view.

    Facts are what matter. And what matters is, in duel servers, “high-level” players tend to stay away from the Vanguard. Because in a situation when you’re dueling with two skilled people, the Vanguard is the weakest of all three classes. It’s a fact. MaA’s and Knights are leagues above them in their ability to dominate other classes on the field, especially in duels. They also take much finesse and skill to master which is why you don’t see many.

    I’ve heard this as well, which is another reason why I’m hesitant to make suggestions. I don’t spend really any time on duel servers, and certainly not high-level ones.

    And I agree about the finesse and skill - that’s why I like the MAA, it’s a challenge. Most of what I’m trying to get across is a response to that one post about how MAA just need to casually facehug and LMB spam to win against vanguards - that isn’t how it’s done. I think you’ve been confusing a lot of what I’ve been saying to that extent as some sort of anti-vanguard manifesto.

    You mention that you’ve been to “high level” dueling and seen archers get low by erratic Vanguards. But how often do these strategies last? Or do you base your opinion solely on momentary anecdotal evidence? People adapt, and I can bet you that the wildly swinging Vanguard is going to get his shit smashed in the next round.

    I said high rank, not level. Rank is a poor indicator of skill, but it’s better than nothing - at the very least it implies a lot of hours logged in the game, enough to have fought helicopter vanguards in the past. They’re very difficult to approach which is frustrating - similar to the frustration I feel when I try to feint someone who is so new to the game they don’t really now how to parry and were never going to parry in the first place, and promptly get my head chopped off. :D Know what I mean?

    I have no choice but to base my opinion on what I’ve seen in the game. I don’t know why you’re expecting me to have done peer-reviewed research or something (this is a joke, I’m trying to keep things light :P ). I’m just posting on the forums to share my opinion. I don’t get a vote or anything, I’m not making policy, just telling it like I see it. How DO you safely approach a guy who is running around looking at the ground, dragging lmb combo swings in every direction when all you have in hand is a thrusting dagger? I regularly see guys with vet helms missing a parry and paying for it with their necks while trying to put down a rabid vanguard. It happens with all classes, but vanguards with their reach, and being the most populous class, are the worst offenders.

    Shields are far too powerful to overlook. :D

    I only use my shield against archer fire; if there are no archers around, I put it away, because you can’t reliably block overheads with a shield, no matter where you aim your cursor. If I’m caught with it out, at least I can expect a pretty likely overhead, so I’ll raise the shield early to put that thought in mind and get ready to sidestep and hope they have low mouse sensitivity. ^__^ Sometimes it works, but I’d much rather just parry the thing and be done with it.

    To summarize, so we can hopefully be done talking past each other:

    • I think that there are too many vanguards on the battlefield in the pub games I play in, or at least that their overrepresentation is a sign of imbalance of some kind; not sure what, exactly, nor do I have suggestions to offer on what to do about it.
    • In 128 hours of playing mostly light classes, I have the most trouble with vanguards - and I’m okay with that; I have very little trouble with archers as an maa, and strangely I’m quite comfortable destroying knights in melee as an archer (even moreso than as an maa, as they tend to underestimate you when you’re a lowly archer) and I don’t see that as a problem. A rock-paper-scissors style balance is fine, as long as it is properly tuned; it’s the tuning that I’m concerned about.
    • beating a vanguard as a MAA is not as simple as running in spamming LMB, as someone here suggested

    I really really hope we’re done with this now.



  • @stickytape:

    To summarize, so we can hopefully be done talking past each other:

    • I think that there are too many vanguards on the battlefield in the pub games I play in, or at least that their overrepresentation is a sign of imbalance of some kind; not sure what, exactly, nor do I have suggestions to offer on what to do about it.
    • In 128 hours of playing mostly light classes, I have the most trouble with vanguards - and I’m okay with that; I have very little trouble with archers as an maa, and strangely I’m quite comfortable destroying knights in melee as an archer (even moreso than as an maa, as they tend to underestimate you when you’re a lowly archer) and I don’t see that as a problem. A rock-paper-scissors style balance is fine, as long as it is properly tuned; it’s the tuning that I’m concerned about.
    • beating a vanguard as a MAA is not as simple as running in spamming LMB, as someone here suggested

    I really really hope we’re done with this now.

    -The correlation between population and unfair strength is completely unfounded. I don’t notice any more vanguards in the servers I play in than knights or archers, and even if there were, overpopulation is typically a sign of ease of use and not overpowered. And vanguards are very easy to use. Given their sheer damage and range, it’s no surprise why you see them more than Man at Arms. Vanguards also excel in team fights, where being able to poke in and out/cleave everyone’s heads off within a 10 foot radius is a desireable ability. Should it come to 1v1, vanguards should lose to everybody that has the sense to switch to a weapon faster than what the vanguard is swinging. Vanguards have an edge against other beginners unwilling to parry or block, and that’s it.
    -I believe this is just you. I also play MaA, and I lick my lips when I encounter a vanguard. If the vanguard ~ever~ attacks first, it should be game over for him. His range doesn’t mean much when you have a dodge that can hop in and out of it. If he misses a single hit, which you should be actively baiting, he’s finished. Also, I feel I need to add that I refuse to ever use feint till it’s a bit more balanced. If you’re someone who feints a ton, then you should REALLY be tearing vanguard ass.
    -Beating a vanguard by lmb spamming isn’t quite as simple, but beating a vanguard by stab spamming his kidneys around his parry is beyond easy.



  • @stickytape:

    Also, as a man at arms my preferred method of approaching a vanguard is to wait just outside the edge of his swing or poke range and hope he swings or pokes anyway - this saves me time and energy before I make my approach - but even then I can’t just run straight up and “punish” him. There is plenty of time for parrying and even against amateur vanguards I get a non-feinted attack in about once or twice a day at best. The vast majority of these attacks are parried. Perhaps this is a disagreement about the use of the word “punish” - I tend to think of it as implying a hit. For example, a whiffed charge attack is much easier to punish, as it has a long recovery.

    Against an amateur Vanguard you most certainly can “just run straight up and punish him” and against decent Vanguards you can dodgesprint in to punish him. I don’t see what the problem is, if he attacked with you just out of range the recovery is long enough for something like a Dane overhead or a Broad/Norse poke to get in and smack him, at which point you’re now in your preferred range. If you really don’t think you can make it to him in time, go at him, start your attack, then feint it to extend the reach and hopefully draw out a missed parry as well. I don’t like opening with a feint like that because if he just attacks again it ends up with me getting hit or best case a hit trade.
    @stickytape:

    To summarize, so we can hopefully be done talking past each other:

    • I think that there are too many vanguards on the battlefield in the pub games I play in, or at least that their overrepresentation is a sign of imbalance of some kind; not sure what, exactly, nor do I have suggestions to offer on what to do about it.
    • In 128 hours of playing mostly light classes, I have the most trouble with vanguards - and I’m okay with that; I have very little trouble with archers as an maa, and strangely I’m quite comfortable destroying knights in melee as an archer (even moreso than as an maa, as they tend to underestimate you when you’re a lowly archer) and I don’t see that as a problem. A rock-paper-scissors style balance is fine, as long as it is properly tuned; it’s the tuning that I’m concerned about.
    • beating a vanguard as a MAA is not as simple as running in spamming LMB, as someone here suggested

    I really really hope we’re done with this now.

    1. I disagree, I picked Vanguard at first too just because it was the coolest to me. He tends to look the most badass I find and the guy with the biggest baddest weapons is going to draw in new players imo.
    2. It’s the opposite to me, Vanguards are fairly straightforward, my only issue is close-range Halberd pokes being hard to deal with while staying in close, though a sideways dodge is pretty much foolproof and doesn’t put you too far away, depending how he moved as well.
    3. True, but I believe that guy was making the point that “If there’s a bunch of shitty Vanguards an MAA can run in and LMB them all to death just as easily as a Vanguard can run in and LMB a bunch of shitty MAAs to death.” He was saying it doesn’t really matter what class you are, it’s the difference in skill that makes the difference in pretty much all cases of public play.



  • @Kimiko:

    No.

    They already got nerfed as it is.

    let me guess. you play vanguard, no ?

    biased opinion is biased.

    maybe you could elaborate on why another nerf is not justified ?

    i agree with the OP and think vanguard is overpowered. too little drawbacks for too much power (read: raw damage.)



  • @Teefy:

    @Kimiko:

    No.

    They already got nerfed as it is.

    let me guess. you play vanguard, no ?

    biased opinion is biased.

    maybe you could elaborate on why another nerf is not justified ?

    i agree with the OP and think vanguard is overpowered. too little drawbacks for too much power (read: raw damage.)

    It’s not biased, people are just tired of responding to rookies complaining about unbalance because of just their first expression from playing either with extremely new or extremely good players.
    Just look at any competitive play. Teams are always like 2K,1V,1A and 1MaA. If Vanguard are so overpowered why then they won’t pick 2 Vanguards? Because they can’t wield shields, because their special ability and “extreme range” is just not not worth it against experienced players. Well, imagine competitive play without class restrictions! Knights are superior and you can see it on every duel server with people above +30, mostly filled with Knights and MaA. I’d suggest you try to improve and after few more dozens hours of gameplay maybe you’ll understand what I’m talking about.



  • @Daiyuki:

    Against an amateur Vanguard you most certainly can “just run straight up and punish him” and against decent Vanguards you can dodgesprint in to punish him. I don’t see what the problem is, if he attacked with you just out of range the recovery is long enough for something like a Dane overhead or a Broad/Norse poke to get in and smack him, at which point you’re now in your preferred range.

    Against a very amateur vanguard, I suppose, but against anyone worth their salt they’ll be able to parry in time.

    I don’t know, I lag quite a bit, and maybe that’s colouring things for me; I expected everyone to have a similar experience, but obviously not. I know that I can’t respond as quickly as other people can, and I swear my swing animations aren’t as fast as those I see in videos (or of enemy man at arms attacking me). I’ve done combos beside other MAA and noticed that I lag a little behind them, but I never thought it would amount to the difference between being able to hit a vanguard always and never. -___-’ It would be really annoying to know that there’s more than just my ability holding me back, that I have an upper limit that other people don’t. (I never intended to play this game on this laptop, but it was a gift… and now I am hooked. The thrill of battle is in my veins… _FOR AGATHAAAAA oh wait still on the forums, sorry.)

    Still, I get my licks in and I make it to the top of the scoreboard from time to time; got to be king twice yesterday (though I think once was as an archer) so it can’t be all that bad.

    @Daiyuki:

    1. I disagree, I picked Vanguard at first too just because it was the coolest to me. He tends to look the most badass I find and the guy with the biggest baddest weapons is going to draw in new players imo.

    That’s a fair point - I admit that I gravitated to towards the vanguard, too, though it was mostly because I thought they were that guy who charges in first (literally the vanguard) and takes one for the team while hopefully dragging a bunch of guys with him. I quickly learned that this is a great way to drag a lot of your guys with you, too, and so I started playing more carefully, and eventually wound up settling on maa for the high-risk, high-reward style. But I can see a lot of new players having a similar connection with the vanguard out of the gate; I don’t think it entirely or even primarily accounts for the overrepresentation, but I’m sure it helps._



  • @Deviat:

    What do you mean “hope a vanguard makes a mistake”? Anyone with a shield can walk right up to a vanguard and be within nose to nose range. I don’t think I ever implied anywhere that killing a vanguard could be done by mashing LMB. The Vanguards attacks are so slow, that if he misses, or overshoots, or gets parried that he can be punished easily by fast weapons. Even slow weapons of knight classes have great ability to destroy the vanguard in a few hits.

    I just seriously have to question how much experience you have with the game if you think Vanguards are actually this “overpowered”.

    Actually, I have concerns about the halberd because my experience against a skilled halberd wielder spamming thrust attacks is that they can only be beaten by ranged weapons and tag teams unless they do make a mistake. Between the attack speed and the push-back, it is possible to kite an opponent with lower range using only thrust when the vanguard is good enough to land every attack and moves correctly. As for using a long range weapon, the halberd is generally faster and still has one of the best ranges, so the halberd still generally has the edge.

    I find the halberd is easily the strongest vanguard weapon overall and possibly op. Vanguard is just fine except for maybe the halberd. Vanguard feels strong, but that’s a good thing., and so does everyone else.



  • @Daiyuki:

    1. I disagree, I picked Vanguard at first too just because it was the coolest to me. He tends to look the most badass I find and the guy with the biggest baddest weapons is going to draw in new players imo.
    2. It’s the opposite to me, Vanguards are fairly straightforward, my only issue is close-range Halberd pokes being hard to deal with while staying in close, though a sideways dodge is pretty much foolproof and doesn’t put you too far away, depending how he moved as well.
    3. True, but I believe that guy was making the point that “If there’s a bunch of shitty Vanguards an MAA can run in and LMB them all to death just as easily as a Vanguard can run in and LMB a bunch of shitty MAAs to death.” He was saying it doesn’t really matter what class you are, it’s the difference in skill that makes the difference in pretty much all cases of public play.

    1. I picked MaA at first because it was obvious at first glance all the noobs were playing Vanguard as it seemed a low-skill class. This was re-affirmed to me the first games I played noticing the amount of LMB vanguards that would often comprise 80% of the team (on both sides) and still do pretty well.

    2. A sideways dodge does not clear you of vanguard’s 2h attack, (not even a poke, sometimes it will save you from an overhand).

    3. In my experience I saw a lot of noob vanguards taking out noob knights, MaA, archers, and noob knights taking out etc, but what I rarely saw was noob MaA taking out noob vanguards. Clearly the amount of skill required to be successful at the vanguard class is lower than for any other class. It wasn’t until I played MaA for much longer before I could even figure out a hint of strategy to deal with even the noobiest of LMB spamming Vanguards without trading blows.

    Conversely, the times where random class put me on vanguard I literally felt “dirty” as to how easily I obtained high K:D’s using low-skill tactics (LMB spam, poke at edge of range).
    I’m sure the balance changes at higher levels of play, but it remains the point that you necessarily need to be at a higher level of play to beat a lower-skilled vanguard, which points to the fact that the advantages of the class itself is making up for a lack of skill.



  • @RenegadeTM:

    @Daiyuki:

    1. I disagree, I picked Vanguard at first too just because it was the coolest to me. He tends to look the most badass I find and the guy with the biggest baddest weapons is going to draw in new players imo.
    2. It’s the opposite to me, Vanguards are fairly straightforward, my only issue is close-range Halberd pokes being hard to deal with while staying in close, though a sideways dodge is pretty much foolproof and doesn’t put you too far away, depending how he moved as well.
    3. True, but I believe that guy was making the point that “If there’s a bunch of shitty Vanguards an MAA can run in and LMB them all to death just as easily as a Vanguard can run in and LMB a bunch of shitty MAAs to death.” He was saying it doesn’t really matter what class you are, it’s the difference in skill that makes the difference in pretty much all cases of public play.

    1. I picked MaA at first because it was obvious at first glance all the noobs were playing Vanguard as it seemed a low-skill class. This was re-affirmed to me the first games I played noticing the amount of LMB vanguards that would often comprise 80% of the team (on both sides) and still do pretty well.

    2. A sideways dodge does not clear you of vanguard’s 2h attack, (not even a poke, sometimes it will save you from an overhand).

    3. In my experience I saw a lot of noob vanguards taking out noob knights, MaA, archers, and noob knights taking out etc, but what I rarely saw was noob MaA taking out noob vanguards. Clearly the amount of skill required to be successful at the vanguard class is lower than for any other class. It wasn’t until I played MaA for much longer before I could even figure out a hint of strategy to deal with even the noobiest of LMB spamming Vanguards without trading blows.

    Conversely, the times where random class put me on vanguard I literally felt “dirty” as to how easily I obtained high K:D’s using low-skill tactics (LMB spam, poke at edge of range).
    I’m sure the balance changes at higher levels of play, but it remains the point that you necessarily need to be at a higher level of play to beat a lower-skilled vanguard, which points to the fact that the advantages of the class itself is making up for a lack of skill.

    The advantages of having a weapon with three times the reach of a one-handed weapon, that’s all. It’s powerful when no one knows how to block and people are just mindlessly swinging at other people. A game shouldn’t be balanced on the lower end of play, however, and Vanguards are fine besides the clear superiority of the Halberd, which is getting a slight nerf next patch. We’ll see if that helps.

    However, how do you figure that a sideways dodge doesn’t clear you from a poke at close range? I’m talking about facehugging a Vanguard and instead of parrying when you see him pull his arm back, you side-dodge. Whether or not it was a feint, you can probably get in there on the counter-attack depending on how the positioning and terrain works out, but at a further range it’s preferable to block rather than attempt a dodge. It’s still fairly reliable to get out of the way of a poke because it can’t be dragged all that far, just don’t dodge too early at range.



  • @Teefy:

    @Kimiko:

    No.

    They already got nerfed as it is.

    let me guess. you play vanguard, no ?

    biased opinion is biased.

    maybe you could elaborate on why another nerf is not justified ?

    i agree with the OP and think vanguard is overpowered. too little drawbacks for too much power (read: raw damage.)

    I am not a good player (yet).

    And originally I thought vanguards were the beast with those heavy hitting shots.

    But now that I have focused on man-at-arms I dont fear the vanguard because they are so freaking slow to recover from a big swing.

    Sure if you just run up into his spammed LMB you are going to get cut down. But after the swing a dodge forward to close the distance they are quickly owned.

    They have no shield so they are quite vulnerable to archers.

    Of all the classes I fear the knight the most.





  • Theres an easy way to counter the average pub slay0r vanguard as the average noob, its called blocking (aka right click)



  • Out of all this discussion, this idea popped into my head:

    What if we switch Vanguard health w/ MaA health??

    Then
    1. Most offensive melee class has the least health to offset their high dmg, high reach (in MMO’s isn’t the most destructive class usually the weakest aka Wizard,)
    2. Men At Arms become more viable by having a bit more health

    P.S. Vanguards are not that OP. In fact any Vanguard that does not switch to secondary when facing a skilled Archer/MAA in melee will almost always lose. Their swings are just too slow, save for the stab after parry combo.

    Anyways please discuss.



  • Result is MMA’s in your face would be impossible to kill and remove, and Vanguard rage would get even worse due to them falling over and dying everytime an Archer sneezed near them. :P


Log in to reply