Mounted

Rhias

Well-known member
May 28, 2020
223
250
63
We are going to have much bigger world in MO2 and using mounts will probably be some sort of necessity.Making cavalry too easy may impact infantry playstyle more than in MO1 if they became unpractical we may not see any foot roams:(
Even in MO1 I roamed with a mount on my foot fighter.
When you encounter Mounteds just ride towards the next mountain, dismount there and sent your pet a mount a few meters up the hill and then fend the mounteds off.

But in my opinion the issue became worse over time. Back in the days people used wheelchair builds and didn't dismount.
Nowdays they dismount and instantly transform into (full stamina) heavy fighters. And that's in my opinion the main issue.
I would be fine with draining a lot of their stamina on dismount. But full stamina after dismounting does not feel right.
 

Kavu

Active member
Jun 21, 2020
192
191
43
24
USA
-Achieve high ground/rough terrain
-Swim away and use obstacles like rivers, trees, caves, etc to block or reduce options for movement.
-Use buildings
-Equip shortbows or longbows (bows were almost always cheap during the game's lifecycle and required few skills to use)
-Use tight packed formations to reduce the chance of any single person getting isolated and killed.
-Carry heavier weapons designed to unseat a horseman
- The fight is now a stalemate. Not fun.

- The fight now does not happen. Not fun.

- The fight is now a stalemate, assuming there are buildings, which.. there probably aren't. As most of the map is likely to be, a desolate wasteland.

- Bows did next to no damage when I played, but I definitely see people using them in the newer videos, so maybe they were actually worth having on a footfighter towards the end. This is good, because it adds variety, strategy, and the fun of weapon-swapping. This is actually a good anti-cav option, assuming its a fast enough swap that it doesn't make you easy as hell to bait into bow and then smack when you can't defend. I like this, but I think it will need refinement, especially if damage to riders becomes too poor to actually ever REALLY stop any of them.

- The 2 ton golden cuprum hammers/axes people would carry around for the express purpose of dismounting... were kinda silly, and it didn't feel good to have to carry around a weapon that had one and only one purpose. Especially if the mounted you were fighting was an MA/MM and could just stay out of your effective range. A solid overhead to the horse's dome piece should dismount a rider, even if it's with your great sword. The skill for the rider then will lay in approaching their target without exposing the horse's head or too much of their own body up to damage. If this proves to yield too frequent of dismounts, and riders can never safely engage, tweaking turn speed or dismount likelihood could be a solution.

This text, like mounted mages, is now hella gay. Good for them, good for them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dracu

Rhias

Well-known member
May 28, 2020
223
250
63
Against character with 100 knockdown resistance? Every time?
As long as it's a fully charged clean (non-head) hit, yes.
I usually only have trouble dismounting Arctic or Stalker Lyks...
And I think it won't work on a Veela, due to low damage bonus...

Posted that video already a few pages earlier...
 
May 29, 2020
38
15
8
Wandering the road
- The fight is now a stalemate. Not fun.

- The fight now does not happen. Not fun.

- The fight is now a stalemate, assuming there are buildings, which.. there probably aren't. As most of the map is likely to be, a desolate wasteland.

- Bows did next to no damage when I played, but I definitely see people using them in the newer videos, so maybe they were actually worth having on a footfighter towards the end. This is good, because it adds variety, strategy, and the fun of weapon-swapping. This is actually a good anti-cav option, assuming its a fast enough swap that it doesn't make you easy as hell to bait into bow and then smack when you can't defend. I like this, but I think it will need refinement, especially if damage to riders becomes too poor to actually ever REALLY stop any of them.

- The 2 ton golden cuprum hammers/axes people would carry around for the express purpose of dismounting... were kinda silly, and it didn't feel good to have to carry around a weapon that had one and only one purpose. Especially if the mounted you were fighting was an MA/MM and could just stay out of your effective range. A solid overhead to the horse's dome piece should dismount a rider, even if it's with your great sword. The skill for the rider then will lay in approaching their target without exposing the horse's head or too much of their own body up to damage. If this proves to yield too frequent of dismounts, and riders can never safely engage, tweaking turn speed or dismount likelihood could be a solution.

This text, like mounted mages, is now hella gay. Good for them, good for them.
-Stalemates happen, it's not always gonna be "fun". Not every fight will reach the conclusion of a total wipe of either side, even if that's your intention.

Sometimes the only goal available to some people is to survive a skirmish so that they can continue about their other goals.

-See Above


-Also See above about Stalemates


-Bows always did extra damage to mounts because incoming damage to mounts was always registered as damage against an unarmored/no stat/resistance target.

Even in the early days (read as 2010-2013) this was the case with next to no skill investment needed at all if you could place a shot. Worst case scenario you force the mounted guy to flee from the fight.


-Some tools are just that, tools. They don't always have a purpose beyond achieving a specific object.



Honestly dude, the short and long of your points is that Infantry/Footies in your position want a fight to happen whenever they want it to happen at their convenience and that every fight should always reach a conclusion of a wipe, either theirs or the enemy.

That's not how this game works. Sometimes your only hope is to just survive. Sometimes the people fighting you want you to just fuck off and bother someone else and don't enjoy your intrusion into their world.
 

Rhias

Well-known member
May 28, 2020
223
250
63
-Bows always did extra damage to mounts because incoming damage to mounts was always registered as damage against an unarmored/no stat/resistance target.
Deequip your horse armor. Let some shoot at your mount. Equip it and do the same. There will be a difference.
But yes, horse armor is worse than player armor, and the damage is therefore high.
 

Kavu

Active member
Jun 21, 2020
192
191
43
24
USA
Honestly dude, the short and long of your points is that Infantry/Footies in your position want a fight to happen whenever they want it to happen at their convenience and that every fight should always reach a conclusion of a wipe, either theirs or the enemy.

That's not how this game works. Sometimes your only hope is to just survive. Sometimes the people fighting you want you to just fuck off and bother someone else and don't enjoy your intrusion into their world.
What I want is for people to have to somewhat commit to their engagements. If you take one look at your would-be opponent and decide to fuck off, that's fine. What I dislike is players being able to, as you put it, start fights "at their convenience" and then fuck off as soon as they realize they're not gonna stomp.

Mounteds have that luxury in spades. There's next to no scenario where they can't just press the gas pedal and send you a post card from their palisade.

As for stalemates, any fight between a competent foot and competent mounted in a 1 on 1 or small scale situation will typically end in a stalemate. When you roam around on foot and find all of your enemies are mounted... all of your fights become stalemates. Nothing ever happens. It's not interesting, it stops being engaging, and yeah it ain't.. fun.

Of course we don't even have ranged weapons or mounts in game yet in MO2 so things could play out very differently.
 
May 29, 2020
38
15
8
Wandering the road
What I want is for people to have to somewhat commit to their engagements. If you take one look at your would-be opponent and decide to fuck off, that's fine. What I dislike is players being able to, as you put it, start fights "at their convenience" and then fuck off as soon as they realize they're not gonna stomp.

Mounteds have that luxury in spades. There's next to no scenario where they can't just press the gas pedal and send you a post card from their palisade.

As for stalemates, any fight between a competent foot and competent mounted in a 1 on 1 or small scale situation will typically end in a stalemate. When you roam around on foot and find all of your enemies are mounted... all of your fights become stalemates. Nothing ever happens. It's not interesting, it stops being engaging, and yeah it ain't.. fun.

Of course we don't even have ranged weapons or mounts in game yet in MO2 so things could play out very differently.

Okay, but see the issue there is that by being infantry you make a conscious decision to not have mobility, to be vulnerable to people who are mounted. Just like someone with a melee weapon is vulnerable to people with ranged weapons or magic. Cavalry/ mounted players took the skills that they did to be mobile, to have those advantages over people who are on foot. That's not a flaw, that's design and rightfully so. Disparity is at the heart of this game, not everything will be equal or "balanced". Some builds are going to be stronger than others and better for doing different tasks.

Nobody complains about how a Huergar is better than a Blaine or a Veela or a Human in all things academic or crafting based. Nobody bitches about how a Thursar is de facto the best combat racial build other than it's boring design. People accept it as it is and move on. They accept that some builds are at the core, going to be better than others. In that same vein, cavalry are going to be superior to infantry in terms of mobility and options (and in some cases damage output). That's what being mounted is SUPPOSED to do for you. Being on foot means you can take and hold a wider variety of ground better.


Mounteds have that luxury in spades. There's next to no scenario where they can't just press the gas pedal and send you a post card from their palisade.
Sounds like you either need to be mounted as well or you need to lay siege to them. That's not a "balance" issue that's a fundamental misunderstanding that Infantry has disadvantages when compared to cavalry.
 

Kavu

Active member
Jun 21, 2020
192
191
43
24
USA
Nobody bitches about how a Thursar is de facto the best combat racial build other than it's boring design. People accept it as it is and move on. They accept that some builds are at the core, going to be better than others.
They do complain, and even Henrik doesn't like it and it's on record that the goal is to avoid the single-race model of the last game. It ain't MO1 anymore Rhodri. Anyone can see there will always be meta builds, but there needs to be significantly more than just 1 meta build. It has to feel like genuine options to be interesting.


That's not a "balance" issue that's a fundamental misunderstanding that Infantry has disadvantages when compared to cavalry.
It IS a balance issue when one unit has all of the advantages. The "more types of terrain" that a foot can theoretically better hold are.. the ocean... and standing on top of a rock. Neither are really that applicable. Any decent lykiator was always able to climb over or around anything else, and if it was an MA or an MM, they didn't even need to, they could just open fire from wherever they were sitting, and ride around the angles of cover. That's the trouble for me. Mounteds had the advantage of mobility, dead stop. They had the speed, the damage, the extra health, and they rarely felt like they couldn't push a location that anyone would realistically be in. Foot were great for sieges (at least once the walls are actually breached) but the majority of MO fights are not sieges. They're mostly awkward small skirmishes and 1 on 1 wrestling a knife in the woods.

If they can make mounts actually feel like they aren't magic go-karts, then yeah sure, be faster, whatever, but we need to have more terrain areas that are altogether shitty for mounteds for that concept of balance to be legitimate. So there's places that a charge or an escape will work, and places it won't. So it doesn't constantly feel like mounteds just have the run of the place.

The good news is I think this might be true this time around anyway though as the forests are significantly denser, and there's some real rocky terrain in MO2 right now.
 
May 29, 2020
38
15
8
Wandering the road
They do complain, and even Henrik doesn't like it and it's on record that the goal is to avoid the single-race model of the last game. It ain't MO1 anymore Rhodri. Anyone can see there will always be meta builds, but there needs to be significantly more than just 1 meta build. It has to feel like genuine options to be interesting.
Henrik is not infallible and has been on record saying many things. Several things even against your position in this discussion and several things for. One would argue that the only thing Henrik's opinion is good for is to try and encourage anyone he's talking to at that specific point in time; That's what Henrik does, he manages people and tries to spin perception to be positive towards him and the company without ever really doing anything. That's why it it always seems like he's contradicting himself.

Point: You're not really presenting an argument that means much of anything by bringing Henrik into it. Obviously this ain't MO-1 anymore, and lacking any time, will, or desire to really participate in MO-2, I cannot say with any firsthand experience what the future holds for this game, however if you continue down this path without accepting the cynical reality of SV's track record in handling "balance" or just how specious the concept is, you'll only see this turn into a visually beautiful disaster like MO-1 was.




It IS a balance issue when one unit has all of the advantages. The "more types of terrain" that a foot can theoretically better hold are.. the ocean... and standing on top of a rock. Neither are really that applicable. Any decent lykiator was always able to climb over or around anything else, and if it was an MA or an MM, they didn't even need to, they could just open fire from wherever they were sitting, and ride around the angles of cover. That's the trouble for me. Mounteds had the advantage of mobility, dead stop. They had the speed, the damage, the extra health, and they rarely felt like they couldn't push a location that anyone would realistically be in. Foot were great for sieges (at least once the walls are actually breached) but the majority of MO fights are not sieges. They're mostly awkward small skirmishes and 1 on 1 wrestling a knife in the woods.
Infantry were better at holding caves too, buildings, forests, really anything that could restrict movement. Infantry is a weaker build compared to cavalry and relies on coordinated cohesive group formations. That's the reality of fighting, and I'm not just talking about using real world examples.


Mounted players didn't have "extra health" and it makes arguing with you all the less appealing when you make such a disingenuous take on that. Mount and player HP were ALWAYS separate entities and required player skill or magic to hit a player hitbox over the larger mount hitbox.

I won't accuse you of lying, but don't argue in bad faith as if I'm stupid because we both know that claim of "extra health" is false. They did have speed (due to mobility of a mount) they did have increased damage (due to velocity/momentum and primary/secondary skills related to mounted fighting) and while it did give them a distinct advantage over infantry, their advantages could be mitigated and countered intelligently; which you acknowledged already over the SEVERAL times I've described them in this thread and others.




If they can make mounts actually feel like they aren't magic go-karts, then yeah sure, be faster, whatever, but we need to have more terrain areas that are altogether shitty for mounteds for that concept of balance to be legitimate. So there's places that a charge or an escape will work, and places it won't. So it doesn't constantly feel like mounteds just have the run of the place.
They were never "magic go-karts" and again blatantly exaggerating like this when we BOTH KNOW BETTER, insults my intelligence and comes off as you arguing in bad faith as if I hadn't been a part of this game and community and watched literal cycles and waves of players and combat trends since the launch of 2010 up until now. I've seen it all man, I've heard every argument in the book, and I've watched as mounted combat went from decent, to barely useable, to almost impossible to use, to actually kinda good, to OP AF, and back to decent (to which I lost track after early 2017.

I've watched every trend in foot fighting and magic and so on and so forth up until the day I stopped playing. I have seen people come and go and people bitch in both directions.


As for your comment about terrain not necessarily being conducive to anti-mounted play.. I am actually inclined to agree, and I think a lot of the gripes against mounted playstyles would have been resolved had there been stronger terrain options, but that rounds back to SV's shitty attempt at world building, only managing to push Myrland, Sarducaa, and newb island in their 10 year run. The world was mostly flat wasteland and it was easy to breeze through it on a mount. (something the lore supported as far as Myrland and the central steppe goes)


The good news is I think this might be true this time around anyway though as the forests are significantly denser, and there's some real rocky terrain in MO2 right now.
Well then maybe there's some hope yet in SV having learned some actual lessons.
 

Kavu

Active member
Jun 21, 2020
192
191
43
24
USA
I won't accuse you of lying, but don't argue in bad faith as if I'm stupid because we both know that claim of "extra health" is false.

They were never "magic go-karts" and again blatantly exaggerating like this when we BOTH KNOW BETTER, insults my intelligence and comes off as you arguing in bad faith
Bro chiiilll, for health I was talking about the fact many mounteds would,

in addition to their big tall sturdy mount which would make their upper extremities harder to strike,

show up fat af, tall af, and heavy armored af, because they could afford to do so on account of not needing foot movement speed. This DID provide them with extra health. Not necessarily to a mind blowing degree, but on paper they had more staying power to work with. The difficulty of protecting the body of their steed detracted from this a bit, but it was easy enough to overcome with good breeds, horse armor, and a good boy horse-healer on standby.

As for magic go karts, I actually started the game as MA, and I recall mounts being repeatedly changed to being more easily controlled and user friendly, with some of their systems for independence or intelligence being outright tossed. This wasn't necessarily the wrong play, as player-friendly systems go a long way, but I think they went too far with it. Of course, its been a long time since either of us played MO1 so really it beats me, dont really care, game is dead.

if you continue down this path without accepting the cynical reality of SV's track record in handling "balance" or just how specious the concept is, you'll only see this turn into a visually beautiful disaster like MO-1 was.
Not to worry, if I decide to play MO2 after alpha, I will be probably be playing a thief or something more interesting. Melee combat will likely boil down to parry baiting the way things are going. The lackluster nature of that aside; parry-online doesn't really benefit NA players, so I guess that means I'm out of the running.

Well then maybe there's some hope yet in SV having learned some actual lessons.
Oh no, don't buy into my optimism, there's not a chance they've learned a damn thing.

I'm not naive, I know very well what SV is and I know what I can expect from them. I just think the mounted conversation is tired and drowned in years of half-assed patches that have given everyone involved their own warped view of it. Views that come from MO1, which, nobody plays anymore, and won't necessarily reflect MO2, as it is- in theory, a different game, with re-visioned systems 10 years later. If you don't plan on ever participating in MO2 though, I don't really know why you bother to keep checking in?
 
May 29, 2020
38
15
8
Wandering the road
Mounts were magical go-carts. Anyone who disputes that clearly has an agenda and can not be trusted.
Eldrath you've been a notorious anti-mount member of the community for as long as you've existed.

Your position is no less biased than my own and perhaps even more so since you cannot shed yourself of any exaggeration or hyperbole.

You're the one with an agenda bud; take longer than 20 seconds to shit out a shit take on this topic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Speznat

Eldrath

Active member
Eldrath you've been a notorious anti-mount member of the community for as long as you've existed.

Your position is no less biased than my own and perhaps even more so since you cannot shed yourself of any exaggeration or hyperbole.

You're the one with an agenda bud; take longer than 20 seconds to shit out a shit take on this topic.
I have played ONLY mounted characters since I started MO1.
 
May 29, 2020
38
15
8
Wandering the road
I have played ONLY mounted characters since I started this game.
And yet your entire forum persona has ONLY denigrated the playstyle with lies, hyperbole and half truths. Meanwhile I've played next to every type of way with the exception of magic.

I've been on both sides of this argument and I see clearly where you harbor only hatred and limited vision.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Speznat

Viknuss

New member
Jun 6, 2020
3
6
3
How did everyone here get their signatures figured out? I have tried SO many things, but every time I post it ALWAYS tells me that my 'characters are too long' in some manner or way, but there are people with HUGE signatures. Wtf.
 

bbihah

Active member
Jul 10, 2020
126
95
28
How did everyone here get their signatures figured out? I have tried SO many things, but every time I post it ALWAYS tells me that my 'characters are too long' in some manner or way, but there are people with HUGE signatures. Wtf.
Signatures have been borked for a long time. The people that got em, got em before the system got borked.