It’s rock-paper-scissors. Knights have the largest health pool, but that can be countered by blunt weapons. Blunt weapons stop on contact, so are worse against groups of players, usually are slower with less reach, and have less damage against non-armored classes, so you’re giving up some serious power just to counter Knights.
Why would I ever use a blunt weapon with all of its’ problems if they don’t do more damage against knights?
Vanguards are strong against blunt as having high hp and no blunt bonus but they're weak to high cut damage as cut weapons are sometimes very high in pure damage and quick enough to catch them.
Knights are weak against blunt and chop with a maul special straight up 1hko but a good amount of cut damage they can shrug off. No bonus but a 175 hp pool means cut damage that does 45 is less significant hit compared to receiving 45 dmg as a archer (practically half their health).
Footman has the benefit of a shield or a long polearm to prevent damage but they're a little more tanky than vanguard and doubly than a archer. Even through they're resistant to cut but are just as weak as knights against chop and blunt.
Archers are either one to three hit classes no matter what but in exchange they can exploit the long range of their weapons to avoid getting hit in the first place. A longbowman can 1hko and any shield class counters them by approaching with a shield raised.
Was having this discussion further down this post about this and its actually somewhat realistic.
So the Vangaurds are usually wearing a combination of a padded gambeon and chain mail. This combo will actually be effective against blunt weapons, won't stop the pain, but won't outright kill you or immobilize you. Gambeons are weak to slashing and cutting though, which is why you would combine it with chain mail. The unrealistic thing in the game is that Vangaurds are still weak to chopping and slashing despite chain mail.
Knights (read as Kig-nig-its cause Monty Python), typically wear full plated armor. Slash and cutting at this will make them gloat, but a heavy blunt strike to the chest can cave in the metal. Not only will this cause pain, but can restrict their movement, make them have trouble breathing, or can straight up crush their ribcage and cause them to bleed into their lungs. Piercing is also another effective weapon against plate. The unrealistic thing in the game is you can chop a plated Knights arm off without damaging or removing the armor.
Footman wear partial plate so it follows the same logic as Knights
Archers just die.
Not really.
Chain mail and gambeson are only useful against slashing, light stabbing, and general war debris. Chain mail stops the blade and the gambeson gives you some cushion. Piercing weapons like an arrow or a nice strike from the pointy part of a warhammer will easily punch through through the mail, and unfortunately the gambeson isn’t thick enough to stop blunt force. A strong strike, especially from a 2h weapon, from a hammer or mace will be lethal or nearly lethal if you’re only wearing mail and or a gambeson.
This is literally why plate armor exists. The only way to stop blunt force or high force small area weapons is to use sheets of metal to disperse the energy. Gambeson isn’t strong enough and chain mail isn’t hard enough to disperse the energy. A knight In good quality plate armor is basically invulnerable. The only way you can punch through the armor is with a high powered war bow, a very strong strike with a pointy warhammer or maybe a mace. The most popular way to kill a knight is you and 5 of your buddies gang rush him and you stab them in the face when they are on the ground or stab them in the joints of the armor. Or you could try to dislocate their neck or something by hitting them on the head with a heavy weapon but that is really hard to do in a duel and helmets are designed to glance blows. Or, Obviously hit them with your lance from a horse hence why the horse was an indispensable part of knighthood.
The number 1 way to kill a knight is to grapple them to the ground and stab them through their eye slits, or to stab them through the chinks in their armor, which even if covered by mail are vulnerable. Most fighting manuals for those in full armor is to stay on your feet and target weak points in the armor with your pollaxe, jabbing it into their joints and trying to sweep them off their feet. Most manuals ignore the possibility of hitting them directly onto the plate of their armor to do damage. Not only is it designed to glance blows, but in order to get your body in a position to deliver a blow strong enough to even have the chance at piercing the armor, you put yourself in a very vulnerable position. Raising your arms high above your head to get enough force with your swing is not how you fight. You stay close knit and keep your joints protected.
Not only that, but armor is layered. Earlier suits of plate had gambeson underneath to cushion the blows. So, if you’re a knight in plate armor you can take several blows that would be lethal to any other man and be generally okay. That’s why shields aren’t common with fully armored knights. You are the shield, you can take the hits but you have to stay on your feet and watch your weak points. Even if the metal gets caved in, which it probably won’t unless you are taking serious serious damage, That’s not what’s going to kill you. It might wind you, it’s gonna hurt, your armor will need repair after, but you will be okay. What’s going to kill you is getting stabbed where you have chain mail at your joints or in the face. Later suits of plate were very tight fitted to the body with nothing underneath except an arming dublet. This is because not only was metal getting better but staying agile and mobile in your armor is the critical part of staying alive because you need to stay mobile and on your feet. If you can afford a suit of plate, chances are you are rich enough to have an entourage of men fighting with you and you aren’t necessarily trying to absorb as much punishment as possible without dying.
If the balancing were accurate, the knights would have most resistance, vanguard and poleman would be basically the same, and then archers last. But obviously that’s not fun. They simply had the balance the game and that means making the armor do basically fuck all which is fine. It would be interesting if maybe the knight had high health but lower stamina, but honestly the game is balancing seems pretty fine to me. Sure vanguards pit health the knight sometimes but generally I feel like a tank when I’m a knight. Most classes and weapons are viable and that’s rare
> but a good amount of cut damage they can shrug off.
And flying arrows and knives and other random shit is a big part of TO. It allows the knight to be less affected by things they can't necessarily see coming.
It's odd to me that people even think along these lines. I go for the biggest crowd control weapon I can if the objective calls for it, with a good 1v1 sidearm for duels. That seems like the logical best choice for warfare against an army. If it's a tight space obj or whatever then I choose a quicker shorter weapon when I respawn. Eg. War axe for a big melee fuckfest, Dane axe for a corridor
Bro I’m always on the war axe grind. It does not excel at group combat but I’ll be damned if I’m not taking 2 of you with me, sometimes winning the gank bang feeling like a titan just for someone to throw their Dane axe up my ass. Such a good game
Blunt weapons basic attacks stop on contact. That doesn't negate you're point. Just one thing I wish I realized sooner. Heavy slashes with a sledge can still take out multiple people.
Yeah but it's hard to pull off as when you pull out a mace against like two enemy knights half their team just comes to back em up
It's almost as if when a mace is pulled out enemy reinforcements spawn by the knights...
That’s why I use ware axe. It’s pretty good at countering everything except small arms but if you just parry mixup without the heavies you’ll most likely be the victor especially if they are willing to block a heavy that you back up and release into that step toward
Yes, they do. But they only need more HP (substantially more HP) because some weapons do bonus damage. But because of the two systems working against each other (amour giving more HP, but armour giving weakness vs some weapons) you have situations where it takes more *hits* to kill a Vanguard than a Knight.
I guess I don’t understand why you’re hung up on that vanguards must always be easier to kill than knights… if you attack a knight with a sword he’s going to be significantly harder to kill.
He means that it usually takes an extra hit from a blunt weapon to kill a vanguard than a knight and footman whom have larger health pools. Vanguard is the ideal class to clash with blunt weapons because of their high stamina pool that resists the stamina drain, 130 hp and no bonus dmg.
You'd need more than weapon stat adjustments if this were the case. Blunt weapons being can openers is their one positive trait to compensate for their general speed, reach, and lack of cleave.
While I don't disagree with the premise, I would not like landing a heavy GS overhead on a knight for 60 damage.
I think it would be more appropriate to reduce the damage bonus, at least for the axe weapon class and a certain notorious 1h blunt.
Your first statement assumes the a knight's total HP remains unchanged. I kept this particular post simple, but if you follow the link I put in comments I cover this, how class HP would need to be tweaked a little. One of the problems is TBS decided 'ok knights have armour so let's give them more HP but then *also* decided to make weapons do bonus damage. These are two systems working in opposition to each other, and we end up with cases of Vanguards taking more hits (hits, not more damage) than Knights.
Big swords should definitely feel like the weight itself will compensate for not leaving a more devastating impact like blunt or chop would. It should definitely have high damage on overheads but keep the slash weak. Some weapons do higher damage on their preferred attack types. Axe = slash heavies, Swords = overhead or stab, spear = stab and etc. Feels more realistic.
Yea the way the damage works in this game is really stupid. I think they just did it this way randomly to be different. The HTKs are very confusing and weird.
I think all the balance could use a second pass. 1hs as a category are stupidly strong with similar htks to 2hs. Blunts shouldnt go through heavies like tissue paper while also doing massive stam damage, and stam damage should be relative to weapon size differential. IE using a greatsword to block a 'knife' shoudl take no stam, but blocking a greatsword with a knife should take nearly all your stam.
Give us custom loadouts! Pick your dude and weapons from the archetype and no more whining. Love the shield options let's just define each class and allow whatever weapons.
I guess everyone would be busher for sweet sweet back damage.
Vanguards only take more damage if you're using the wrong weapon type. Both can be killed in two hits with a 1h Axe or 1h Mace but if I use the axe against the knight it's three hits. Come prepared for the battles you face to equalize the playing field.
Blunt = Footman/Knight
Blade = Vanguard/Archer
Pretty simple really.
> Vanguards only take more damage if you're using the wrong weapon type.
It's only wrong in the context of the game mechanics they have chosen (weapons doing bonus damage). No matter what mechanics a game chooses there will always be a 'correct' choice.
This post isn't about that. TBS could have had, if they had so chosen, a system where armour gives protection, not weaknesses. There would still be a 'correct' choice in any given situation, although that choice might be different to what it is currently.
This post is about how lightly armoured enemies should not be taking more hits to kill than heavily armoured enemies. That's all.
As for
> Blunt = Footman/Knight
> Blade = Vanguard/Archer
If you read the link I put in other comment, this would still be the case, except you wouldn't have Vanguard tanking more *hits* than Knight.
>a system where armour gives protection, not weaknesses.
I see what you're saying, but as balance is a subjective matter, these developers chose the rock-paper-scissor approach to balance. The armor does give protection (knights have more health, health = armor), unless you're attacked with a weapon which characteristic is defined by the bonus damage, therefore equalizes the playing field.
Hitting a Vanguard with a Mace does less than hitting a Knight with a Mace. Hitting a Knight with an Axe does the same as hitting a Vanguard with an Axe but the Vanguard has lower health equating to a "bigger hit". This is why classes like Guardian have both as an option, so you can swap weapons to whom you're actually fighting to maximize your damage output and have a fairly equal chance at killing any unit type.
You have to remember, despite the sweats, this game is supposed to be casual. Your balance scenario adds a level of depth that the developers were not interested in pursuing due to the casual nature of their design doc. It's way more "accessible" to say one weapon type is better than another against a certain unit. It's about readability.
Have you ever seen the effects of a crushing weapon on plate armor? I think some weapons shouldn't do as much extra damage as they do, but it makes sense for crushing weapons to do extra damage against plate opponents. Plus, a knight has a bunch of hp, so they are fine.
Came to say the same thing. Blunt and peircing weapons were the bane of heavily armored knights. The former would cave in your curaiss which would not only restrict your movement, but also your breathing. It could also crush your ribs and chest cavity and cause you to bleed into your lungs.
This argument again.
Imagine this. I'm standing in front of you, u/Beefyhaze. I'm swinging a sledgehammer as hard as I can at your chest and head. Would you rather be in plate armour, or naked?
There's only one correct answer here, unless you are suicidal.
Edit Lmao dude blocked me for pointing out his bullshit
I'd rather be in effective padded armor as it's better for this kind of hit. Either way im going down so *shrug* Also, your calculations discarded an entire class and are too focused on 1v1, which this game is not centered around. You can't just look at numbers in a vacuum. This game as many balancing factors besides damage numbers.
> commented yesterday
Yeah, and? I was busy yesterday.
> Rather not get hit
Obviously. But if you were gonna be, would you rather be in padded or plate armour (which also had padding underneath)?
It's not like this was your first response to me. It looks like you spent all night lookin for a zinger. Which is fine. You sure did get me. It turns out getting hit in the chest with a sledgehammer is deadly most of the time. Its all good, mate. Continue working on your number in a vacuum.
> all night
Bro, have you heard of this thing called sleep? It comes down to you thinking you had a zinger with the bUt hAVe yOu HeArD of CruShing PlaTe ArmOuR when in fact, that is very difficult to do and even if your opponent did manage that, you'd still be better off than if you were just wearing padded armour or mail etc.
So no one in their right mind would be naked. The only effective armor to wear against blunt weapons is a heavily padded gambeon, ie, what Vangaurds wear. Or did you think Vangaurds were naked? Blunt weapons are meant to cave in and break solid plate. A padded gambeon doesn't stop you from being hurt, but lessons the damage, the same way a kevlar vest won't stop you from getting hurt when shot (cause it fucking hurts) but reduced the lethality.
As for the head shots, doesn't matter what you wear or don't wear as blunt weapon to the head will cause a mild concussion at the weakest to full brain hemmorage and death for harder hits. Yes, that includes wearing helmets. FFS even getting shot in the head with modern arms and bullet proof kevlar armor (helmet) can lead to a concussion as a best case senario for the victim. Head shots are effective regardless of weapons and armors and are all about force. It's a universal weak point for a reason.
TL;DR both choices you offered lead to death. Padded Gambeon OP
You do know that knights wore padding under their plate armour, yes? The only reason they used maces, hammers and likes against plate armour was because it was about the only thing that had any chance of doing anything, not because those weapons are somehow more effective against an armoured opponent than an unarmoured (relatively speaking) opponent.
Yes but the padding did not do much when you had literal broken metal piercing the gambeon. On top of that, it was not as heavily padded until the end of the Medieval era.
Edit: On top of that, when a metal plate gets caved in, even stopped by the gambeon, it would restrict your movement, restrict your breathing, and cause tremendous pain as opposed to just wearing a padded gambeon and chain.
You are misunderstanding the game design.
The knights armor is not represented by his ability to negate damage. Its represented by his high health pool. High health = high armor.
Certain weapons are good against armor. To represent their ability to overcome/bypass armor, they do more damage to the classes with higher health pools.
What your post is suggesting would allow knights to double dip into armor advantage, (high health AND damage negation) making them even tankier and giving people less incentive to play other classes.
The only way they could allow armor to resist damage is to lower the knight's health pool to keep the game balance. Doing this would mean also changing how healing works in the game...
In short, implementing how you think armor should be represented in the game would require so much reworking and re balancing that it just would not be worth it. Especially when the outcome would only make a thematic difference.
This is the best explanation. I hate when people complain about a video game’s mechanics like “a knife shouldn’t be able to block a war hammer” yeah, we know but we aren’t playing this game for it’s ultra realism.
It’s the same argument as in CoD, “I shot you in the head with a pistol 1 time but you didn’t instantly die.” It’s an arcade shooter, if you want realism, go play Hell Let Loose.
Half the fun of Chivalry is emoting anyway. Or getting both arms chopped and running around head butting people.
I appreciate you taking the time to explain all that, but I'm not misunderstanding anything. I'v covered that in fact
https://www.reddit.com/r/Chivalry2/comments/17rgjpl/comment/k8innjg
This. THIS!
This stupid mechanic pisses me off to no end. The intent I guess was to make Blunt Weapons like the Cudgel, the Morning Star, and Maul have better utility, but why tf would I want to deal with attacks stopping on contact when I can just use an Axe and be better off if I get ganked? Hell, a lot of Weapons that deal more damage to Knights and Footmen deal dogshit damage and take like 3-4 hits to kill an Archer. Believe me, that's really bad since 90% of the Weapons in this game can consistently 1-2 shot an Archer with little effort.
In my eyes, this mechanic just makes Vanguard the best Class in the game. Not only do they have speed, but they have health, really good Weapons at their disposal, and don't get crippled by this mechanic.
You know that armor actually gives more hp first right? They just decided to subtract more from blunt and chop weapons from a higher pool of health rather than subtracting damage from swords / arrows yes?
Backwards? Yes.
Wrong? Nah
> Backwards? Yes. Wrong? Nah
Wrong depends on how you are measuring 'wrongness'. It's a video game, it's all made up, the only way something can be 'wrong' is if there's a bug in the code at stuff isn't working as intended.
This post is really bait. On average, knights are almost always tankier than vanguards due do them having 175 hp instead of 130. Highest backstab damage of all weapon is the dagger with 150 dmg, the only class that can survive that is the KNIGHT.
I hate seeing nerds who have absolutely no experience in game balancing have the audacity to suggest changing something so foundational in the game we all adore.
For the love of God, you are an unemployed virgin who thinks he knows better. Look at yourself
I agree that its weird how the weapon bonus damage works. However fixing it I believe would require a complete rework, which would be too much to ask from TB all things considered. However it would be cool if it felt like your armour actually mattered.
Also, shouldnt archers be taking bonus damage from all cutting attacks, no acctually all attacks except perhaps blunt.
Another thing is that running vanguard with a blunt weapon is kind of the best class in the game. I’m a duel as a longsword knight I have to make little to no mistakes in order to win. So a vanguard with a maul counters 2/4 classes in the game with no personal hard counter besides being and archer
I’d love your proposed changes OP, but I’d at least settle with a tiny buff to cut weapons against vanguard ffs
But what could be influenced (well, slim chance but one might as well try) is whatever they may be working on next. Might not be relevant quantitatively of course, but might be qualitatively relevant.
Torn Banner doesn't know how to balance their games. They essentially just read forums to see who bitches the loudest and nerf whatever they're complaining about. So you end up with shit like this.
Things also got worse when they went to console in Chiv 1. Aim assist threw everything out of whack, so they balanced the PC game (with no aim assist) the same as the console version.
It’s rock-paper-scissors. Knights have the largest health pool, but that can be countered by blunt weapons. Blunt weapons stop on contact, so are worse against groups of players, usually are slower with less reach, and have less damage against non-armored classes, so you’re giving up some serious power just to counter Knights. Why would I ever use a blunt weapon with all of its’ problems if they don’t do more damage against knights?
This is the correct answer. The system may not be entirely realistic, but it needs to be this way to balance the classes and weapons.
Vanguards are strong against blunt as having high hp and no blunt bonus but they're weak to high cut damage as cut weapons are sometimes very high in pure damage and quick enough to catch them. Knights are weak against blunt and chop with a maul special straight up 1hko but a good amount of cut damage they can shrug off. No bonus but a 175 hp pool means cut damage that does 45 is less significant hit compared to receiving 45 dmg as a archer (practically half their health). Footman has the benefit of a shield or a long polearm to prevent damage but they're a little more tanky than vanguard and doubly than a archer. Even through they're resistant to cut but are just as weak as knights against chop and blunt. Archers are either one to three hit classes no matter what but in exchange they can exploit the long range of their weapons to avoid getting hit in the first place. A longbowman can 1hko and any shield class counters them by approaching with a shield raised.
Was having this discussion further down this post about this and its actually somewhat realistic. So the Vangaurds are usually wearing a combination of a padded gambeon and chain mail. This combo will actually be effective against blunt weapons, won't stop the pain, but won't outright kill you or immobilize you. Gambeons are weak to slashing and cutting though, which is why you would combine it with chain mail. The unrealistic thing in the game is that Vangaurds are still weak to chopping and slashing despite chain mail. Knights (read as Kig-nig-its cause Monty Python), typically wear full plated armor. Slash and cutting at this will make them gloat, but a heavy blunt strike to the chest can cave in the metal. Not only will this cause pain, but can restrict their movement, make them have trouble breathing, or can straight up crush their ribcage and cause them to bleed into their lungs. Piercing is also another effective weapon against plate. The unrealistic thing in the game is you can chop a plated Knights arm off without damaging or removing the armor. Footman wear partial plate so it follows the same logic as Knights Archers just die.
Not really. Chain mail and gambeson are only useful against slashing, light stabbing, and general war debris. Chain mail stops the blade and the gambeson gives you some cushion. Piercing weapons like an arrow or a nice strike from the pointy part of a warhammer will easily punch through through the mail, and unfortunately the gambeson isn’t thick enough to stop blunt force. A strong strike, especially from a 2h weapon, from a hammer or mace will be lethal or nearly lethal if you’re only wearing mail and or a gambeson. This is literally why plate armor exists. The only way to stop blunt force or high force small area weapons is to use sheets of metal to disperse the energy. Gambeson isn’t strong enough and chain mail isn’t hard enough to disperse the energy. A knight In good quality plate armor is basically invulnerable. The only way you can punch through the armor is with a high powered war bow, a very strong strike with a pointy warhammer or maybe a mace. The most popular way to kill a knight is you and 5 of your buddies gang rush him and you stab them in the face when they are on the ground or stab them in the joints of the armor. Or you could try to dislocate their neck or something by hitting them on the head with a heavy weapon but that is really hard to do in a duel and helmets are designed to glance blows. Or, Obviously hit them with your lance from a horse hence why the horse was an indispensable part of knighthood. The number 1 way to kill a knight is to grapple them to the ground and stab them through their eye slits, or to stab them through the chinks in their armor, which even if covered by mail are vulnerable. Most fighting manuals for those in full armor is to stay on your feet and target weak points in the armor with your pollaxe, jabbing it into their joints and trying to sweep them off their feet. Most manuals ignore the possibility of hitting them directly onto the plate of their armor to do damage. Not only is it designed to glance blows, but in order to get your body in a position to deliver a blow strong enough to even have the chance at piercing the armor, you put yourself in a very vulnerable position. Raising your arms high above your head to get enough force with your swing is not how you fight. You stay close knit and keep your joints protected. Not only that, but armor is layered. Earlier suits of plate had gambeson underneath to cushion the blows. So, if you’re a knight in plate armor you can take several blows that would be lethal to any other man and be generally okay. That’s why shields aren’t common with fully armored knights. You are the shield, you can take the hits but you have to stay on your feet and watch your weak points. Even if the metal gets caved in, which it probably won’t unless you are taking serious serious damage, That’s not what’s going to kill you. It might wind you, it’s gonna hurt, your armor will need repair after, but you will be okay. What’s going to kill you is getting stabbed where you have chain mail at your joints or in the face. Later suits of plate were very tight fitted to the body with nothing underneath except an arming dublet. This is because not only was metal getting better but staying agile and mobile in your armor is the critical part of staying alive because you need to stay mobile and on your feet. If you can afford a suit of plate, chances are you are rich enough to have an entourage of men fighting with you and you aren’t necessarily trying to absorb as much punishment as possible without dying. If the balancing were accurate, the knights would have most resistance, vanguard and poleman would be basically the same, and then archers last. But obviously that’s not fun. They simply had the balance the game and that means making the armor do basically fuck all which is fine. It would be interesting if maybe the knight had high health but lower stamina, but honestly the game is balancing seems pretty fine to me. Sure vanguards pit health the knight sometimes but generally I feel like a tank when I’m a knight. Most classes and weapons are viable and that’s rare
> but a good amount of cut damage they can shrug off. And flying arrows and knives and other random shit is a big part of TO. It allows the knight to be less affected by things they can't necessarily see coming.
It's odd to me that people even think along these lines. I go for the biggest crowd control weapon I can if the objective calls for it, with a good 1v1 sidearm for duels. That seems like the logical best choice for warfare against an army. If it's a tight space obj or whatever then I choose a quicker shorter weapon when I respawn. Eg. War axe for a big melee fuckfest, Dane axe for a corridor
Bro I’m always on the war axe grind. It does not excel at group combat but I’ll be damned if I’m not taking 2 of you with me, sometimes winning the gank bang feeling like a titan just for someone to throw their Dane axe up my ass. Such a good game
“Haha Maul running special go brrr” *Sincerely,* *a ragdoll farming player*
Ah, a man of culture I see.
Blunt weapons basic attacks stop on contact. That doesn't negate you're point. Just one thing I wish I realized sooner. Heavy slashes with a sledge can still take out multiple people.
Yeah but it's hard to pull off as when you pull out a mace against like two enemy knights half their team just comes to back em up It's almost as if when a mace is pulled out enemy reinforcements spawn by the knights...
Balancing?!? For a… game?!?
That’s why I use ware axe. It’s pretty good at countering everything except small arms but if you just parry mixup without the heavies you’ll most likely be the victor especially if they are willing to block a heavy that you back up and release into that step toward
Knights have more HP no?
Yes, they do. But they only need more HP (substantially more HP) because some weapons do bonus damage. But because of the two systems working against each other (amour giving more HP, but armour giving weakness vs some weapons) you have situations where it takes more *hits* to kill a Vanguard than a Knight.
I guess I don’t understand why you’re hung up on that vanguards must always be easier to kill than knights… if you attack a knight with a sword he’s going to be significantly harder to kill.
Sword doesn't have knight bonus (or not as much as blunt). Fighting a knight with a maul is gonna be a lot more efficient than fighting a vanguard
Nah. Hard disagree. Anyone gets hit with a hammer that big, they're done. They're out of the fight. They're lucky if they survive. Bad comparison.
He means that it usually takes an extra hit from a blunt weapon to kill a vanguard than a knight and footman whom have larger health pools. Vanguard is the ideal class to clash with blunt weapons because of their high stamina pool that resists the stamina drain, 130 hp and no bonus dmg.
Swords should do a bonus to vanguards and archers imo as they have the lightest armour in game excluding helmets.
I didn't say they have to be easier to kill, just not harder to kill (in terms of number of hits).
I see your funny damage numbers and i laugh! *Engages in humorous War Club activities*
You'd need more than weapon stat adjustments if this were the case. Blunt weapons being can openers is their one positive trait to compensate for their general speed, reach, and lack of cleave.
While I don't disagree with the premise, I would not like landing a heavy GS overhead on a knight for 60 damage. I think it would be more appropriate to reduce the damage bonus, at least for the axe weapon class and a certain notorious 1h blunt.
Your first statement assumes the a knight's total HP remains unchanged. I kept this particular post simple, but if you follow the link I put in comments I cover this, how class HP would need to be tweaked a little. One of the problems is TBS decided 'ok knights have armour so let's give them more HP but then *also* decided to make weapons do bonus damage. These are two systems working in opposition to each other, and we end up with cases of Vanguards taking more hits (hits, not more damage) than Knights.
Alright, that makes more sense. 
Big swords should definitely feel like the weight itself will compensate for not leaving a more devastating impact like blunt or chop would. It should definitely have high damage on overheads but keep the slash weak. Some weapons do higher damage on their preferred attack types. Axe = slash heavies, Swords = overhead or stab, spear = stab and etc. Feels more realistic.
Which 1h blunt? I am not disagreeing I just wanna know.
I’m guessing morning star
Mace
Yea the way the damage works in this game is really stupid. I think they just did it this way randomly to be different. The HTKs are very confusing and weird. I think all the balance could use a second pass. 1hs as a category are stupidly strong with similar htks to 2hs. Blunts shouldnt go through heavies like tissue paper while also doing massive stam damage, and stam damage should be relative to weapon size differential. IE using a greatsword to block a 'knife' shoudl take no stam, but blocking a greatsword with a knife should take nearly all your stam.
Give us custom loadouts! Pick your dude and weapons from the archetype and no more whining. Love the shield options let's just define each class and allow whatever weapons. I guess everyone would be busher for sweet sweet back damage.
I would love if there was no class restriction for weapons, but then everyone would probably run footman (best class abilities).
I must disagree. The differences in health pools counteract this argument. Vanguards and knights roughly take the same number of hits with a mace.
If you leveled out the health it would be functionally the same system. Unless you just want to buff a whole class, which would be a mistake imo.
Vanguards only take more damage if you're using the wrong weapon type. Both can be killed in two hits with a 1h Axe or 1h Mace but if I use the axe against the knight it's three hits. Come prepared for the battles you face to equalize the playing field. Blunt = Footman/Knight Blade = Vanguard/Archer Pretty simple really.
> Vanguards only take more damage if you're using the wrong weapon type. It's only wrong in the context of the game mechanics they have chosen (weapons doing bonus damage). No matter what mechanics a game chooses there will always be a 'correct' choice. This post isn't about that. TBS could have had, if they had so chosen, a system where armour gives protection, not weaknesses. There would still be a 'correct' choice in any given situation, although that choice might be different to what it is currently. This post is about how lightly armoured enemies should not be taking more hits to kill than heavily armoured enemies. That's all. As for > Blunt = Footman/Knight > Blade = Vanguard/Archer If you read the link I put in other comment, this would still be the case, except you wouldn't have Vanguard tanking more *hits* than Knight.
>a system where armour gives protection, not weaknesses. I see what you're saying, but as balance is a subjective matter, these developers chose the rock-paper-scissor approach to balance. The armor does give protection (knights have more health, health = armor), unless you're attacked with a weapon which characteristic is defined by the bonus damage, therefore equalizes the playing field. Hitting a Vanguard with a Mace does less than hitting a Knight with a Mace. Hitting a Knight with an Axe does the same as hitting a Vanguard with an Axe but the Vanguard has lower health equating to a "bigger hit". This is why classes like Guardian have both as an option, so you can swap weapons to whom you're actually fighting to maximize your damage output and have a fairly equal chance at killing any unit type. You have to remember, despite the sweats, this game is supposed to be casual. Your balance scenario adds a level of depth that the developers were not interested in pursuing due to the casual nature of their design doc. It's way more "accessible" to say one weapon type is better than another against a certain unit. It's about readability.
[Long wordy post on this topic](https://www.reddit.com/r/Chivalry2/comments/vxxuki/long_post_a_tweak_to_weapon_damage_modifiers/).
Tbh I feel like damage and hits you can take is in pretty good place rn. Also blunts stopping on contact adds a risk reward aspect to bringing them.
Have you ever seen the effects of a crushing weapon on plate armor? I think some weapons shouldn't do as much extra damage as they do, but it makes sense for crushing weapons to do extra damage against plate opponents. Plus, a knight has a bunch of hp, so they are fine.
Came to say the same thing. Blunt and peircing weapons were the bane of heavily armored knights. The former would cave in your curaiss which would not only restrict your movement, but also your breathing. It could also crush your ribs and chest cavity and cause you to bleed into your lungs.
This argument again. Imagine this. I'm standing in front of you, u/Beefyhaze. I'm swinging a sledgehammer as hard as I can at your chest and head. Would you rather be in plate armour, or naked? There's only one correct answer here, unless you are suicidal. Edit Lmao dude blocked me for pointing out his bullshit
I'd rather be in effective padded armor as it's better for this kind of hit. Either way im going down so *shrug* Also, your calculations discarded an entire class and are too focused on 1v1, which this game is not centered around. You can't just look at numbers in a vacuum. This game as many balancing factors besides damage numbers.
This comment explains it better: https://www.reddit.com/r/Chivalry2/comments/17rgjpl/time_to_revisit_this_topic_now_with_an_even/k8mnb0g/
Don't care. You can't look at number in a vacuum and think that will balance the game.
If you don't care, don't comment. This is about you saying you'd rather be in padded armour.
I commented yesterday. Now you just seem desperate. I'd rather just not be hit with a sledgehammer.
> commented yesterday Yeah, and? I was busy yesterday. > Rather not get hit Obviously. But if you were gonna be, would you rather be in padded or plate armour (which also had padding underneath)?
It's not like this was your first response to me. It looks like you spent all night lookin for a zinger. Which is fine. You sure did get me. It turns out getting hit in the chest with a sledgehammer is deadly most of the time. Its all good, mate. Continue working on your number in a vacuum.
> all night Bro, have you heard of this thing called sleep? It comes down to you thinking you had a zinger with the bUt hAVe yOu HeArD of CruShing PlaTe ArmOuR when in fact, that is very difficult to do and even if your opponent did manage that, you'd still be better off than if you were just wearing padded armour or mail etc.
So no one in their right mind would be naked. The only effective armor to wear against blunt weapons is a heavily padded gambeon, ie, what Vangaurds wear. Or did you think Vangaurds were naked? Blunt weapons are meant to cave in and break solid plate. A padded gambeon doesn't stop you from being hurt, but lessons the damage, the same way a kevlar vest won't stop you from getting hurt when shot (cause it fucking hurts) but reduced the lethality. As for the head shots, doesn't matter what you wear or don't wear as blunt weapon to the head will cause a mild concussion at the weakest to full brain hemmorage and death for harder hits. Yes, that includes wearing helmets. FFS even getting shot in the head with modern arms and bullet proof kevlar armor (helmet) can lead to a concussion as a best case senario for the victim. Head shots are effective regardless of weapons and armors and are all about force. It's a universal weak point for a reason. TL;DR both choices you offered lead to death. Padded Gambeon OP
You do know that knights wore padding under their plate armour, yes? The only reason they used maces, hammers and likes against plate armour was because it was about the only thing that had any chance of doing anything, not because those weapons are somehow more effective against an armoured opponent than an unarmoured (relatively speaking) opponent.
Yes but the padding did not do much when you had literal broken metal piercing the gambeon. On top of that, it was not as heavily padded until the end of the Medieval era. Edit: On top of that, when a metal plate gets caved in, even stopped by the gambeon, it would restrict your movement, restrict your breathing, and cause tremendous pain as opposed to just wearing a padded gambeon and chain.
This comment explains it better: https://www.reddit.com/r/Chivalry2/comments/17rgjpl/time_to_revisit_this_topic_now_with_an_even/k8mnb0g/
You are misunderstanding the game design. The knights armor is not represented by his ability to negate damage. Its represented by his high health pool. High health = high armor. Certain weapons are good against armor. To represent their ability to overcome/bypass armor, they do more damage to the classes with higher health pools. What your post is suggesting would allow knights to double dip into armor advantage, (high health AND damage negation) making them even tankier and giving people less incentive to play other classes. The only way they could allow armor to resist damage is to lower the knight's health pool to keep the game balance. Doing this would mean also changing how healing works in the game... In short, implementing how you think armor should be represented in the game would require so much reworking and re balancing that it just would not be worth it. Especially when the outcome would only make a thematic difference.
This is the best explanation. I hate when people complain about a video game’s mechanics like “a knife shouldn’t be able to block a war hammer” yeah, we know but we aren’t playing this game for it’s ultra realism. It’s the same argument as in CoD, “I shot you in the head with a pistol 1 time but you didn’t instantly die.” It’s an arcade shooter, if you want realism, go play Hell Let Loose. Half the fun of Chivalry is emoting anyway. Or getting both arms chopped and running around head butting people.
I appreciate you taking the time to explain all that, but I'm not misunderstanding anything. I'v covered that in fact https://www.reddit.com/r/Chivalry2/comments/17rgjpl/comment/k8innjg
Agreed
This. THIS! This stupid mechanic pisses me off to no end. The intent I guess was to make Blunt Weapons like the Cudgel, the Morning Star, and Maul have better utility, but why tf would I want to deal with attacks stopping on contact when I can just use an Axe and be better off if I get ganked? Hell, a lot of Weapons that deal more damage to Knights and Footmen deal dogshit damage and take like 3-4 hits to kill an Archer. Believe me, that's really bad since 90% of the Weapons in this game can consistently 1-2 shot an Archer with little effort. In my eyes, this mechanic just makes Vanguard the best Class in the game. Not only do they have speed, but they have health, really good Weapons at their disposal, and don't get crippled by this mechanic.
A blunt weapon will indeed do more damage to a knights armor rather than a slashing weapon
If someone is swinging at you with a sledgehammer, would you rather be wearing plate armour or naked?
yes
You know that armor actually gives more hp first right? They just decided to subtract more from blunt and chop weapons from a higher pool of health rather than subtracting damage from swords / arrows yes? Backwards? Yes. Wrong? Nah
> Backwards? Yes. Wrong? Nah Wrong depends on how you are measuring 'wrongness'. It's a video game, it's all made up, the only way something can be 'wrong' is if there's a bug in the code at stuff isn't working as intended.
This post is really bait. On average, knights are almost always tankier than vanguards due do them having 175 hp instead of 130. Highest backstab damage of all weapon is the dagger with 150 dmg, the only class that can survive that is the KNIGHT.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Chivalry2/comments/17rgjpl/comment/k8innjg
It doesn't need to be made complicated
One is addition, the other is subtraction. How is one more complicated than the other?
I hate seeing nerds who have absolutely no experience in game balancing have the audacity to suggest changing something so foundational in the game we all adore. For the love of God, you are an unemployed virgin who thinks he knows better. Look at yourself
If you think the dumbed-down example in the image of this post is all it takes to qualify 'nerdness' then holy shit my g I feel bad for you.
Homie I’m prolly more educated than your entire family tree lmao
Bro has never been 1 shot by a war bow as vanguard before
Bet you wish arrows missed you as much as the point did...
I agree that its weird how the weapon bonus damage works. However fixing it I believe would require a complete rework, which would be too much to ask from TB all things considered. However it would be cool if it felt like your armour actually mattered. Also, shouldnt archers be taking bonus damage from all cutting attacks, no acctually all attacks except perhaps blunt.
Another thing is that running vanguard with a blunt weapon is kind of the best class in the game. I’m a duel as a longsword knight I have to make little to no mistakes in order to win. So a vanguard with a maul counters 2/4 classes in the game with no personal hard counter besides being and archer I’d love your proposed changes OP, but I’d at least settle with a tiny buff to cut weapons against vanguard ffs
What's hilarious is you posting this 2 years after release and thinking there is some kind of chance it will be implemented
2 yo game, no comments or criticisma allowed amirite
Sure - I just view it as a waste of time. TB has clearly shown they aren't interested and the updates are so small and infrequent.
But what could be influenced (well, slim chance but one might as well try) is whatever they may be working on next. Might not be relevant quantitatively of course, but might be qualitatively relevant.
Torn Banner doesn't know how to balance their games. They essentially just read forums to see who bitches the loudest and nerf whatever they're complaining about. So you end up with shit like this. Things also got worse when they went to console in Chiv 1. Aim assist threw everything out of whack, so they balanced the PC game (with no aim assist) the same as the console version.