Fighting multiple enemies. MaA better than Knights



  • Blame the Stamina Bar, slow weapons, and slow movement.

    One would think that a heavily armored knight should be better equipped to fight multiple enemies at once than a lowly Man at Arms.
    But in this game, its the exact opposite.

    No matter how good a Knight is he will die facing 3 decent enemies at once.
    He cant move fast, he swings slow with his 2handed weapons, and he loses a ton of energy with each swing.

    Yes, he can take more hits. But Its much better to not get hit at all and live, than take more hits and die anyway.

    I’ve played both classes.
    With the MaA I’ve beaten as many as 5 attackers at once.
    Moving quickly I can force them to get in each others way.
    I can make multiple swings quickly to hit different directions, and I can dodge in and out.
    I have so much stamina I can dance around and swing all day, while my opponents end up hitting each other and wasting all their energy.

    If I play as a knight, I may be able to take out 2 of 3 enemies attacking at once.
    But I can’t attack without also getting struck. And evntually that 3rd guy will kill me.

    A knight has fewer options in a fight.
    I may kick one enemy away and turn to face another.
    But 2 or 3 swings later and I’m stuck with no stamina left.

    This just doesn’t feel right.
    There is something wrong here.
    Other people hasve posted that if heavier weapons are moving slower and use more energy, they shouldn’t get parried by daggers. I agree.

    The big slow weapons like 2H swords and Hammers may be strong but they are so easy to avoid.
    It doesn’t seem balanced.

    But maybe the 2 handed weapons should just not eat up as much energy.
    Being slow is punishment enough. Yes they are heavier weapons but you are using 2 hands to carry them, not one.It should pretty much equate.



  • Most 2-handers have superior reach compared to 1-handers, giving 2-handers the same attack speed will cause imbalance. You won’t lose stamina unless you miss or you combo, and it takes less stamina to parry lighter weapons.



  • MAA is a dark horse; lots of people, particularly casual players will argue it’s a mediocre class at best, but this is simply not the case when you find top MAAs. Personally, I hate fighting good MAAs because it’s a completely one-sided fight with that dodge that allows them to get out of states I force upon them that would normally allow me to capitalise on a mistake, for example, if they miss, they can just dodge out of attack recovery, or if I feint, they can just dodge out of parry recovery, dodge back in, and hit me during my own recovery, or my combo and flinch me. Obviously this is not true for every MAA, because it’s one of those classes that are hard to master so there are only a few that do things almost perfectly, but when they do, MAA is annoying as hell to fight. With crouching now increasing your Stamina regen too, it’s so easy to just crouch whilst you’re in a duel to gain quick bursts of Stamina. In fact, the MAA in Chiv is kind of reminiscent to the early AoC days, when you could jump during attacks and start attacks mid-air; MAA could attack you and simply jump backwards so any attack you threw back wouldn’t be in range. Thankfully it was nerfed though, those damn overpowered Catgirls.



  • I wouldn’t say a Knight is flat out worse for the job. It heavily depends on your playstyle and what your enemies do. Also, I think there is absolutely no reason why one player should be able to take on two or more other players at a time unless he clearly outskills/outplays them.

    Just use different strategies for each class. This is coming from someone who has won 3 v 1 or worse fights as a MMA, Knight and Vanguard.

    As an MMA, you want as much space as possible to dodge around, single out enemies and outdance them, get in fast and out fast. Once a MMA is trapped in place his threat level falls dramatically.

    As a Knight, you want an enclosed space where you may fall back when needed but the enemy cannot surround you. You are a massive wall, hard to be moved and can even shrug off some hits that get through to you.

    And as a Vanguard, you want to keep your enemy at distance, striking from as far away as possible with your long range weapons, switch attack angles, hit unsuspecting targets, hit multiple enemies at once and deliver crushing blows with your huge weapon all while staying in constant movement and creating room.

    The classes each play out differently in those situations and a lot of factors come in, one of the most important is the terrain. If caught in the open, it surely is easier to catch and surround a Knight than it is to catch a Man At Arms. But position a Knight on a small ramp and see how many folks he can take on while a MMA in the same position would have been crushed because he could not play to his strengths. If you can force a scenario where you actually can play to your classes’ strengths, all of them can be equally effective. It just seems you have an easier time doing so as Man At Arms.

    PS: I agree with Martin. I have met a handful of extremely potent MMAs (also from Martin’s clan) which are extremely frustrating to fight because they have an easy time forcing mistakes upon you and punishing you for it while it is extremely hard to do so to them. I just started playing MMA and now I realize this even more (though I am far from that good).



  • @Toans:

    Most 2-handers have superior reach compared to 1-handers, giving 2-handers the same attack speed will cause imbalance. You won’t lose stamina unless you miss or you combo, and it takes less stamina to parry lighter weapons.

    That’s not the solution most people asking for. Perhaps it makes more sense and will balance things if we made heavy 2handers unparryable and even give them the ability to smash shields.

    As it stands right now, who would win in a fight with equal skill: A MAA wielding a sword or a maul knight? That’s right.



  • @Magnificent:

    @Toans:

    Most 2-handers have superior reach compared to 1-handers, giving 2-handers the same attack speed will cause imbalance. You won’t lose stamina unless you miss or you combo, and it takes less stamina to parry lighter weapons.

    That’s not the solution most people asking for. Perhaps it makes more sense and will balance things if we made heavy 2handers unparryable and even give them the ability to smash shields.

    As it stands right now, who would win in a fight with equal skill: A MAA wielding a sword or a maul knight? That’s right.

    Right. I never said make the two handers faster. I suggested reducing the stamina loss. But you shpuldnt be able to parry a maull swing with a shortsword.



  • Gotta love watching enemies TK each other as they come rushing at you. ;)



  • This conclusion doesn’t jive with what competitive teams are putting out on the field.

    You can’t compare a single class against each other in a context vacuum and then claim it applies to all situations. This game exists to be played as a team against team environment and thus is balanced with that in mind.



  • @Martin:

    MAA is a dark horse; lots of people, particularly casual players will argue it’s a mediocre class at best, but this is simply not the case when you find top MAAs. Personally, I hate fighting good MAAs because it’s a completely one-sided fight with that dodge that allows them to get out of states I force upon them that would normally allow me to capitalise on a mistake, for example, if they miss, they can just dodge out of attack recovery, or if I feint, they can just dodge out of parry recovery, dodge back in, and hit me during my own recovery, or my combo and flinch me……

    Brilliant exposition about MAA, nothing more to add (maybe the jangling & maddening laugh of the MAA when they kill you… make me lose my mind :? ).



  • @Dr.:

    You can’t compare a single class against each other in a context vacuum and then claim it applies to all situations.

    This, pretty much. If you need any ideas what contexts there could be look at my previous post.

    MaA are a great choice for duel situations with lots of space. MaAs are rather uncomfortable in the midst of battle when lots of Knights and Vanguards swing their weapons at each other while Archers fire in the mass. Many people even claimed Men At Arms were underpowered because they are not well suited for these situations.

    And the example of Maul Knight vs. Sword MMA is ridiculous. In an open space duel the MAA may have an advantage, in the midst of battle clearly not. If the Knight comes from behind the MMA cannot even react as he dies in a single hit, if you equip the Knight with a Norse Sword and the MMA with a Saber (chosen just as randomly as your example) I’d bet my money on the Knight. Your whole point seems pretty moot.



  • @Don_Kanaille:

    @Dr. Malpractice:

    You can’t compare a single class against each other in a context vacuum and then claim it applies to all situations.

    This, pretty much. If you need any ideas what contexts there could be look at my previous post.

    MaA are a great choice for duel situations with lots of space. MaAs are rather uncomfortable in the midst of battle when lots of Knights and Vanguards swing their weapons at each other while Archers fire in the mass. Many people even claimed Men At Arms were underpowered because they are not well suited for these situations.

    And the example of Maul Knight vs. Sword MMA is ridiculous. In an open space duel the MAA may have an advantage, in the midst of battle clearly not. If the Knight comes from behind the MMA cannot even react as he dies in a single hit, if you equip the Knight with a Norse Sword and the MMA with a Saber (chosen just as randomly as your example) I’d bet my money on the Knight. Your whole point seems pretty moot.

    I disagree. I think its aready known that the MaA owns in a 1on1.
    What I am saying is that if you put the time in, MaA is the best choice in ANY situation.
    Watch some tournament videos with a good MaA. they just have more options.



  • @CrimsonAvenger:

    What I am saying is that if you put the time in, MaA is the best choice in ANY situation.
    Watch some tournament videos with a good MaA. they just have more options.

    I disagree. While MAA may always have the MOST options, it doesn’t mean they can get get the job done. If their team goes down, then assuming the other team is competent, you WILL die before doing anything useful.

    I agree that it’s an extremely powerful class when used properly, but it isn’t a one-man killing machine without the main backbone of knights and vanguards.



  • @CrimsonAvenger:

    I disagree. I think its aready known that the MaA owns in a 1on1.
    What I am saying is that if you put the time in, MaA is the best choice in ANY situation.
    Watch some tournament videos with a good MaA. they just have more options.

    Which videos would those be exactly? Which teams are fielding all M@As in place of Knights/Vanguards and consistently dominating? As of Right now this just seems completely unfounded.



  • @Dr.:

    @CrimsonAvenger:

    I disagree. I think its aready known that the MaA owns in a 1on1.
    What I am saying is that if you put the time in, MaA is the best choice in ANY situation.
    Watch some tournament videos with a good MaA. they just have more options.

    Which videos would those be exactly? Which teams are fielding all M@As in place of Knights/Vanguards and consistently dominating? As of Right now this just seems completely unfounded.

    No team is using all MaAs
    But the MaAs on the field do really well. taking on multiple opponents.

    Check the videos in the newsletter.



  • @CrimsonAvenger:

    @Dr.:

    @CrimsonAvenger:

    I disagree. I think its aready known that the MaA owns in a 1on1.
    What I am saying is that if you put the time in, MaA is the best choice in ANY situation.
    Watch some tournament videos with a good MaA. they just have more options.

    Which videos would those be exactly? Which teams are fielding all M@As in place of Knights/Vanguards and consistently dominating? As of Right now this just seems completely unfounded.

    No team is using all MaAs
    But the MaAs on the field do really well. taking on multiple opponents.

    Check the videos in the newsletter.

    What I see are single M@As simply doing what their class is good at, flanking around enemies to take down archers or stragglers. No M@A is deliberately frontline/pointman rushing into a mob of enemies and coming out consistently unscathed.

    All good M@A know to avoid clusters and pick off on the edges. Just because a M@A manages to survive a 2v1 situation doesn’t mean suddenly M@A are the best or the most logical choice to throw into cluster-fights en mass.



  • In any game with a true veteran MAA, they lead every single match killscore wise, against anyone else.
    I’m not sure if this is just a good tribute to their skill, or if some MAA things really are just too gimmicky / glitchy-OP.

    The known bugs like dodge despite stun are already reported, so I guess we’ll see how the next patch goes.

    I would agree with the other thread that the maul needs to be able to oneshot MAAs either in swing or overhead, btw. Dito for the Zweihander.



  • Hmm MAA, the fatest and most agile class, can take on 5 enemies (if he doesnt get hit!). knight the slowest class with most hp can take 3+ hits and still live most of the time but cant outmaneuver and outwit 5 opponents. What is the problem exactly? I’d say that’s exactly how the classes were designed in mind.

    EDIT

    I think when people start looking at as realistic, medieval combat they tend to want to see balance as realistic. Just because knights are fully plated with armor and shield and huge swords, doesn’t mean that the game intended them to be the most dominant melee class on the field. Sure in the real medieval ages men at arms were fodder for archers and the vanguard (the unit not the class lol) and the knights were extremely valuable because they had the best armor and weapons, but it’s a game people. lol.



  • MAA might have better potential than the knight but only a small percentage of people actually get skilled enough to capitalize on it.



  • @SomeDudeOnAForum:

    In any game with a true veteran MAA, they lead every single match killscore wise, against anyone else.
    I’m not sure if this is just a good tribute to their skill, or if some MAA things really are just too gimmicky / glitchy-OP.

    This is because the MAAs job is to go around bashing people in the back of the head and making every 1v1 into a 2v1.

    In the case of pub games, good MAA can dish out tons of damage to poor players very quickly. One mistake and they’re dead, but good MAAs don’t often make mistakes against your average pub.



  • What I read from people on these forums is that MaA are like support, Knights damage dealers and vanguards who the hell knows.

    I don’t know what the classes are intended as, but the way I see and feel when playing the game is that MaA are great skirmishers and duelers, Vanguard hard hitters with great range and Knights tanks that can wield a 2-h. I am having a lot of fun playing MaA as an agile 1v1 fighter and Knights as pure tanks, Getting in the middle of the fray just shielding attacks, which destabilizes ennemies just long enough for allies to kill them. Using the 2-h when im out numbered. People seem to want the knight to be armored DPS, as in best of all worlds albeit slow as if that would offset everything. I like those classes as they are now, be it or not their intended roles.


Log in to reply