Some issues I have run into ballance wise.



  • In no particular order

    the parrying mechanic needs to be changed. there are so many problems with it at the moment that It makes me rage every time I play.

    The type of weapon has NO EFFECT on the parrying. If you have a dagger it can parry a maul. If you have a maul you can parry as fast as you can with a dagger.

    While that sounds like ‘oh, its all the same, so no imballances’ the damage of something like a maul is so high that if it connects once it can kill a lighter class with a sword or hatchet, where on the other side it can take upward of 6 swings to kill the opponent.

    The size damage and weight of the weapon should affect parrying. Heavy weapons should parry slower and take stamina hits when they do so since they are fairly heavy and unwieldy, making them alot more risk reward but then you have your bonus to HP as heavy classes that should counteract that.

    Smaller weapons should beable to parry as fast as they do but should take into account the size of another weapon, a dagger should not beable to parry a maul, or a battle axe. Lighter classes have the speed and the dodges to avoid those kinds of attacks, and for archers wel, your aim should be good enough to kill them before they get close.

    On the subject of parrying the whole ‘you shold be looking at the tip of their weapons’ thing is bunk. I had an archer, standing away from me, parry an enemy’s attack AND MINE with a single parry, just for the record I was BEHIND HIM stabbing him in the back, he was parrying an overhand swing from a pole arm.

    my second issue is with the vanguard and his magic polearms.

    For the most part his polearms are fine, (with some exceptions) my issue is that a polearm itself is designed to gain the maximum momentum from having the head and weight balance so far out ont he shaft that it inflicts superior damage. Because of this if you are INSIDE the head’s radius a horizontal swing or a vertical swing should not even happen, it would hit you, maybe stumble you slightly, bt not kill you and DEFINITELY NOT do the damage of a full hit.
    At the moment vanguards are just rush in and spam M1 to kill everything classes, which is not how it should be

    Lastly is a lesser extent fists are wayyyyyyy over powered. I cant tell you how much it sends me into a rage trying to fight a knight with fists in FFA, especially against light classes they do an insubstantially high amount of damage, to the point that they can take more hits with an axe then a man at arms can punches.



  • The type of weapon has NO EFFECT on the parrying. If you have a dagger it can parry a maul. If you have a maul you can parry as fast as you can with a dagger.

    Smaller weapons take more stamina to block bigger weapons.

    While that sounds like ‘oh, its all the same, so no imballances’ the damage of something like a maul is so high that if it connects once it can kill a lighter class with a sword or hatchet, where on the other side it can take upward of 6 swings to kill the opponent.

    Maul deals huge damage but it’s also slow and has very short reach (for a two handed weapon) while a lighter classes are more flexible when it comes to feinting and attacking with their faster weapons. There are also weapons that need only 2-3 hits to kill a knight if you manage hit the head.

    Heavy weapons should parry slower and take stamina hits when they do so since they are fairly heavy and unwieldy, making them alot more risk reward but then you have your bonus to HP as heavy classes that should counteract that.

    You can feint to make your enemy to misparry, opening his for an attack or attack from another direction, kick, bash him with a shield, etc. Adding more time to parry with two handed weapons would make two handed weapons pretty useless and only cause balance problems.

    Smaller weapons should beable to parry as fast as they do but should take into account the size of another weapon, a dagger should not beable to parry a maul, or a battle axe.

    What’d be the point of having small weapons like daggers or fighting with a one handed weapons without shields, then?

    At the moment vanguards are just rush in and spam M1 to kill everything classes, which is not how it should be

    Block them or kick them and they’ll be easily overwhelmed and killed. The most common mistake is that players try to attack rather than prevent enemy from attacking so others can kill him. It’s also very easy to block M1 spammers as they rarely change their attacks and are predictable.

    Lastly is a lesser extent fists are wayyyyyyy over powered. I cant tell you how much it sends me into a rage trying to fight a knight with fists in FFA, especially against light classes they do an insubstantially high amount of damage, to the point that they can take more hits with an axe then a man at arms can punches.

    My advice is to use superior range of your weapon - you’ll be able to hit him harder than he’ll be able to hit you and he’ll have to get closer to you in order to land a hit. Let him come, maintain distance and attack when it’s safe. He can’t parry your attacks. With shields it’s even simpler.



  • any class that uses a light one handed weapon should be avoiding straight combat with knights and vanguards anyhow. Men at arms can use that one button dodge thing to avoid attacks and archers can easily just shoot them as they come in. These small, light weapons, like the dagger or short sword are meant for personal, last ditch defence, they are not/should not be weapons you can use to dominate anyone on the battlefield.

    Also, if you were to try and block or parry a maul’s strike (for example) with anything short of a shield (and even then) it would break your bloody arm.

    Also with the parrying, the issue isn’t that the smaller weapon takes more stamina, its that the risk/reward of a heavy weapon is a slow swing that leaves you open for massive damage. That ENTIRE SYSTEM is countered when you can parry almost instantaneously.

    Large weapons are bulky, slow, and unwieldy. If anything they should have a hard time themselves parrying quick attacks from smaller weapons.

    Also, you sort of hit the nail on the head with the shield. They are so really used in the game and it really doesn’t make sense.



  • These small, light weapons, like the dagger or short sword are meant for personal, last ditch defence, they are not/should not be weapons you can use to dominate anyone on the battlefield.

    I don’t say they should and I don’t see how they do? I admit the dagger has been put into the game for semi-historical or semi-realism reasons but I don’t see how making men-at-arms and archers completely defenseless against two handers (which are already very popular setup due to range or damage) is helping balance of the game here. From what I can see in my games two handed weapons are dominating the battlefield…

    Also, if you were to try and block or parry a maul’s strike (for example) with anything short of a shield (and even then) it would break your bloody arm.

    Agreed, but then again we don’t have the in-game mechanic to lock enemy’s blade or with a crossguard (while not striking) and kick him in the gut at the same time. Or we can’t hold enemy’s shaft with one hand and cut his head off with broadsword. Blocking attacks with smaller weapon will cost you stamina which means you’ll run out of stamina faster than the enemy if you just keep blocking. And each hit can be fatal for weaker (in a sense of less of life) classes.

    Also with the parrying, the issue isn’t that the smaller weapon takes more stamina, its that the risk/reward of a heavy weapon is a slow swing that leaves you open for massive damage. That ENTIRE SYSTEM is countered when you can parry almost instantaneously.

    I must disagree here - smaller weapons take more hits to kill, especially a knight, while heavier weapons have more range and deal more damage. It’s 1-2 hits to kill archer or men-at-arms and proves to be excellent for crowd combat. With short weapons you have to be at a hugging distance and then you can be kicked off. As a heavy weapon user you must utilize aim and different attacks while maintaining distance.

    Large weapons are bulky, slow, and unwieldy. If anything they should have a hard time themselves parrying quick attacks from smaller weapons.

    Your approach would simply lead to heavy weapons spam, bigger than current one. If you can’t block a blow from a two handed weapon (due to it’s strength), if you don’t have the advantage of reach there is very little one can do. Try to use dodges to get near the vanguard who’s spamming M1… Something I thought you want to avoid. People would simply mass switch to knights to fight fire with fire. Or use archers even more, but they can be countered by shield by second secondary and a broadsword. I am not for making any class useless.

    Also, you sort of hit the nail on the head with the shield. They are so really used in the game and it really doesn’t make sense.

    Parrying mechanic seems to block more than shield is, I suspect it’s done that way to maintain balance. People think shields are buggy but that’s simply because they work very differently than parrying. Shields also aren’t as good for counter-attacks. Plus many weapons that allows you to equip shields aren’t long and very damaging.

    Take knights for example. War Hammer is short and slow. Deadly but you need to be really close and you’re very slow while attacking. Bastard-like swords are long but - correct me if I am wrong here - slower than any pure two handed sword because of shield. This leaves very short, face-hugging weapons in most of the cases. Falchion seems to be a favourite. Sometime a Flanged Mace. Moderately damaging and moderately fast (“if something is for everything it’s for nothing”) weapons aren’t liked by the people at first. I can use Sword of War and Morning Star pretty well but this requires different mindset. You can’t simply spam M1 attacks and hope something hits. You also need to be more careful when blocking and can’t count on counter-attacks to outrun your enemy.



  • any class that uses a light one handed weapon should be avoiding straight combat with knights and vanguards anyhow. Men at arms can use that one button dodge thing to avoid attacks and archers can easily just shoot them as they come in.

    The point of having classes is for it to fit different playstyles, so knights shouldn’t be invincible against archers/MaA

    Using shields will make it almost impossible for archers to kill you while you’re approaching them, and if it doesn’t you can just combine it with zig-zagging.

    These small, light weapons, like the dagger or short sword are meant for personal, last ditch defence, they are not/should not be weapons you can use to dominate anyone on the battlefield.

    Grab a dagger and try to dominate with it on the battlefield, it won’t work. And if it does, it’s not because of the weapon, rather it’s because you play against low-skilled players.

    Also, if you were to try and block or parry a maul’s strike (for example) with anything short of a shield (and even then) it would break your bloody arm.

    Welcome to Hollywood realism! Balance should go over realism, making the heavy weapons unblockable for lighter weapons would cause archers (and to a much lesser extent MaA) to be totally ineffective in melee combat.

    Also with the parrying, the issue isn’t that the smaller weapon takes more stamina, its that the risk/reward of a heavy weapon is a slow swing that leaves you open for massive damage. That ENTIRE SYSTEM is countered when you can parry almost instantaneously.

    The slow windup allows other people with lighter weapons to interrup their attack as long as they’re not recovering from a block/parry.

    Large weapons are bulky, slow, and unwieldy. If anything they should have a hard time themselves parrying quick attacks from smaller weapons.

    It can be quite easy for light weapons to interrup a heavy weapon’s attack, and feint is much more effective when using a one-handed weapon.



  • I agree with a lot of your issues when I think realistically, but if they implemented them, it would COMPLETELY make the game unbalanced. I like it when an archer with a dagger can parry my maul or morningstar with good timing - it means they are a skilled player, and I look forwards to a fight.

    On balance, NO NO NO NO NO.

    On realism, maybe.



  • I see some of your points, most of the, one that I must really disagree with is the comment ‘would make archers useless in melee…’ they are ARCHERS. They are meant to be useless in melee, bowmen and crossbowmen are meant to stay back and fire into the enemy, letting their own troops do the hand to hand, skirmishers (javelin, etc) are meant to get close, throw a spear then move back as the enemy approaches, always keeping a distance between them where they can hit but the enemy can not, its simple ranged tactis. Archers should NOT, EVER, be good in melee combat. the fact that I can, without much effort, completly hold off a knight with my short sword with just parrying until the cavalry comes is so unrealisitc its insane.



  • @smeagolthevile:

    I see some of your points, most of the, one that I must really disagree with is the comment ‘would make archers useless in melee…’ they are ARCHERS. They are meant to be useless in melee, bowmen and crossbowmen are meant to stay back and fire into the enemy, letting their own troops do the hand to hand, skirmishers (javelin, etc) are meant to get close, throw a spear then move back as the enemy approaches, always keeping a distance between them where they can hit but the enemy can not, its simple ranged tactis. Archers should NOT, EVER, be good in melee combat. the fact that I can, without much effort, completly hold off a knight with my short sword with just parrying until the cavalry comes is so unrealisitc its insane.

    Except you’re forgetting one thing - to survive any length of time at all, medieval archers also had to be adequate swordsmen.



  • an adequate swordsman is not going to beable to stand up in combat against a trained knight wielding a heavy weapon, its just not going to happen.



  • an adequate swordsman is not going to beable to stand up in combat against a trained knight wielding a heavy weapon, its just not going to happen.

    “[…] Their limited mobility made them easy targets for the volleys from the English archers. The mud also increased the ability of the much more lightly armoured English archers to join in hand-to-hand fighting against the French men-at-arms”.

    This is an excerpt from this article on Wikipedia. You base your view on… what exactly? This game isn’t simulation. You want sword to be able to damage knights by stabbing only? That would make them completely overpowered and I don’t really see the point to make men at arms or archers even more weaker than they already are when it comes to fight in battle.



  • @Holy.Death:

    an adequate swordsman is not going to beable to stand up in combat against a trained knight wielding a heavy weapon, its just not going to happen.

    “[…] Their limited mobility made them easy targets for the volleys from the English archers. The mud also increased the ability of the much more lightly armoured English archers to join in hand-to-hand fighting against the French men-at-arms”.

    This is an excerpt from this article on Wikipedia. You base your view on… what exactly? This game isn’t simulation. You want sword to be able to damage knights by stabbing only? That would make them completely overpowered and I don’t really see the point to make men at arms or archers even more weaker than they already are when it comes to fight in battle.

    Agreed.