Junior Member
Junior Member
I was wondering about this as well.Originally Posted by SLV_Legacy Go to original post
When you play a "large" character like shugoki or kensei for example, you are already having a hard time to fight assassins like peacekeeper since your attacks are really slow.
Why would you make it even harder by making blocking attacks near to impossible?
Member
Before I jump into the balance reason, I will begin with the logical reason.
Not all weapons are as easily used defensively. Balanced weapons, such as swords, can move from side to side very easily while imbalanced weapons, like hammers and axes, are much more difficult to do this with. It's very difficult to conceptualize this if you haven't held these weapons. Think of it like gaming sensitivity. Whether you use a cursor or a joy stick, holding a sword is like having a high sensitivity. You can move left, right, up, down very swiftly. Using an axe is like having a low sensitivity, it takes more time and effort to move your weapon from side to side. Not just attacking, but redirecting the momentum as well as simply altering its position.
Now, for the balance reasons. I cannot say why Ubisoft chose who to have slower guard change speed and I cannot say how they are balanced. I do not believe that they are imbalanced, personally, but some are a little questionable. Lawbringer and Raider make sense. Nobushi, not so much. Nobushi should have equal to or greater speed than Valkyrie as both are using polearms are general mass, however the Nobushi is two handing it. The Warden should most certainly have superior guard speed when compared to the Raider.
A longsword, when compared to a long axe, has the advantage of maneuverability. The axe's advantage comes from its damage. The axe inflict much more damage and penetrates armor more efficiently because its weight is on the top. Because its weight is on the top, it is harder to maneuver. Because the longsword's weight is closer to the cross guard, it won't have such a massive punch, however, the tradeoff is that is can more easily be handled, redirected, and recover from swings.
Lawbringer and Raider have the balancing factor incorporated into their damage, albeit some might say that the damage is offset by the attack speed. Attack speed and guard change speed are two properties of a weapon that come hand in hand. This game does not have armor penetration factored into it which offsets the balance in favor of the lighter weapons.
Junior Member
I've already held a Dane Axe and an Halberd, but never held a longsword tho. I know how hard it is to block attacks with a polearm ahah but we're going to talk about "logical" reasons. I mean, knights shouldn't even been losing any fights because of their armor. LawBringer is supposed to be undying while on the other hand you got vikings that are almost nude ahah
For balance reasons, I can't get why they are doing that ... Heavy classes are already struggling against assassins because of their slow speed as you said earlier so why should they get even slower ? You can't even keep up to a PK's spam because of the slow guard change speed on classes like raider and LB, that's ridiculous. To me it doesn't make any sense at all ... Everyone should be able to block at the same speed.
And LawBringer is not doing much damages compaired to any other classes. Raider is sure doing a hell lot of damages but he's way too slow ...
Member
Yes, I mentioned that this game takes no consideration of armor, which is unfortunate. Weapons like the flail are made intentionally to counter armor and the Conqueror would be better off like the Warlord, with a sword that cuts through steel like a knife through butter.
They made compromises, and one of them was ignoring armor.
To be clear. All classes shift guards at the same speed. What is difference is that some of the classes have a delay between guard changes. They are locked into a guard for a moment before they can switch again. Say, for example, I'm fighting a Peacekeeper as the Lawbringer and I'm in top guard but I think she's going to attack me on the left so I switch to the left but she makes an attack on the right. Well, because I just switched I have a moment before I can switch again so I won't have enough time. The proper way is to only switch guards in a response to an attack and never before, lest you get stuck in the wrong guard.
Other classes, like Warden or Orochi, can switch guards very quickly and don't have to worry about this.
I should say, though, that imbalanced weapons held in two hands don't suffer nearly as much as one handed weapons. Like, a Dane Axe or Halberd won't be so bad because you have the leverage of your hand spaced apart. Where this is truly noticeably is when holding one handed weapons. I would imagine a longsword would be much easier to handle than a poleaxe, especially the long as **** poleaxe the lawbringer carries.
Member
Junior Member
Member
They did not have to make the compromise that they did. What they chose to do was make armor nothing more than a fashion show. Instead, what they could have done is for 1, armored the vikings appropriately. That would fix a lot because vikings weren't unarmored barbarians. They were heavily armored raiders during an era before plate.Originally Posted by AveImperator85 Go to original post
What they could have done, instead, was compromise the Knights' heavy armor with slower movement speeds, dodging, and make all of their actions require a lot more stamina. Lawbringer is a good example of how Conqueror and Warden should move around and play, the only difference is the Warden's attack speed would still be nice and nimble.
The Vikings would have weaker armor without access to plate, but they deal a heavy punch. The Warlord would be pretty ****ed, though, his sword can't do ****.
The Samurai have more swords than they should anyway. Only the weeabos think that the katana is the main weapon of a samurai when in actual fact it was the spear, or yari.
Member
Senior Member
