54 replies to this topic

[SkyTime]

Cavalry? Disadvantage?

 

The fuck did you come from?

[Viator]

Well, replace "heavy cavalry" with cavalry in my post and there you go.

 

EDIT:

 

The fuck you cannot read properly.

Edited by Rock_Solid, 11 April 2014 - 21:42.

[ZombieJR]

Well, 0-13

 

I haven't seen or heard anyone complain about that falling damage yet, I think it's perfectly fine as it is

Simon has but that's just him... xD Complains about everything. IMO the cav damage is fine.

Edited by ZombieJR, 12 April 2014 - 00:13.

[Gazz]

Increasing the charge damage will just do two things:

 

 

1) it will make you kill low-armoured players by simply running  at them, which is pretty unfuckingbalanced if you ask me, you're already strong enough

 

2) as I've said before when Gwaihir asked ages ago, charge damage also increases the amount of people you can charge through before your horse gets reared

 

 

So, in essence, increasing charge damage would mean you could kill 30% of the server (light armoured derps) by simply pressing W towards them and that you could rampage through 10 infantrymen without stopping, bumping and slashing at them with your sword.

 

 

And that, is bullshit.

Edited by Gazz, 12 April 2014 - 06:29.

[Remus]

The fall damage is good now, doesn't need a change imo.

[SkyTime]

Well, replace "heavy cavalry" with cavalry in my post and there you go.
 
EDIT:
 
The fuck you cannot read properly.

 
I'm fairly sure I can, you're just (insults).

[Jepekula]

Come on, Skoitoim, atleast he did offer some arguments and reasoning about his opinion, unlike the other 10 (insults) who voted for the horse fall damage to fuck off.

[SkyTime]

Yeah, that IS an argument, indeed, but still heavy cavalry is disadvantaged.

 
 

Cavalry? Disadvantage?
 
The fuck did you come from?

 
 

Well, replace "heavy cavalry" with cavalry in my post and there you go.
 
EDIT:
 
The fuck you cannot read properly.

 
He's still an individual (insults).

[Jepekula]

Maybe so, but he still did write this:

I used to be quite unhappy about that damage. My main class is cavalry, yet I do not use courser nor any sarranid horse. I've got the charger and going like "RaMBo CHaRGe!" doesnt belong to my tactic. But still I recieve alot of damage, even though my horse isnt really fast.

 

I guess that damage is a nice add to the mod as it is way more realistic. But in my eyes it disadvantages the use of heavy horses even more.

 

Cons for H(eavy)H(orses):

1. They're expensive.
2. They're slow.
3. They have quite a little maneuver.
4. They've got a high difficulty.
5. One still recieves much falling damage even though one is slow.

Pros for HH:

1. They look badass. Thats actually why I bought the charger.
2. They got 40 HP more than a courser or a sarranid horse.
3. They got more body armour.
4. Their charge actually is three times as much as the lighter horses ones.

So sometimes I wonder why one should buy a heavy horse. Those arguments above are quite valid. The price-earning ratio isnt really good. One has to give people a reason to buy them. But all I get is another negative aspect for those heavy horses and horses in general. Whether or not the damage is now based on speed, it does not matter.

As a veteran player of merc I know the benefits of an heavy horse, but why should a new player spend his well or not earned money on a horse which is as expensive as the best armour?

 

I've already stated out (in this post or in older posts) that there is a point which could make HH more attractive. It is the charge damage. I am considering the arguments we already had about that, that such a high damage easily makes HH overpowered. But then again, yeah, those HH were overpowered in the middle ages. That's why real knights used them in battle and spit on light horses. And that's why (or not?) those horses cost twice as much as normal horses. And now I ask myself: Why is the fall-off-horse damage implented. Correct me if I am wrong, but I guess we got it to lessen cavalry and to add more realism. And again I proclaim:

If we are at the realism part, why not increase the charge damage of HH to make them more attractive.

 

Yeah, but to summarize I have to admit that the falling damage makes it even more easier to smash those light cavalry even as a HH user.

Which I never bothered to read. But still, it is reasoning. He gave somekind of points instead of just voting because omfg I can not be an unstoppable shoeless juggernaut of death anymore.

[SkyTime]

I see.

 

Heavy cavalry is disadvantaged to light cavalry that is then. I retract my insults and apologize, sorry, didn't read the earlier messages >.<

Even though I don't entirely agree but it's a boring argument.

[LastKnightOfCydonia]

Don't try to act all adult-like Slytime.

 

Just because you turned 18 doesn't mean you are an adult.

 

I'm only saying this because I just got Tywin to go back to drama and if you stop being an arrogant little braggart about things then I don't know what I will do.

 

I can't handle all this change.

[SkyTime]

It's not my fault if I'm right about most of the things I bother to fight about, I know when I'm wrong or mistook something for something entirely else, hence the apology :I

[Eiku]

I was standing still and got dismounted.. i lost half life... how dafuq?

[SolemNRomanHD]

I was standing still and got dismounted.. i lost half life... how dafuq?

Arrr, ye is a weakling matey.

[Gazz]

I haven't lost half of my hp bar a single time, don't know if it's because im stronk or wut, if i'm standing still the damage is reeeaally, reaaally small.

[sandorra]

Heavy armour, no ironflesh, or you got hit alongside your horse. Or combination of these.

[LastKnightOfCydonia]

I haven't died once after being dismounted since the update.

 

6 IF, heavy armour.

[Viator]

no horse

[The Guardian]

the fall from the horse should be deadly, so deadly that the rider will die 100% no matter armor or horse

[SkyTime]

And why should that be?