Balancing notes for if the game was actually fun

[Kaemik]

The issue is an MC may get off big hits but they don't hit frequently enough to kill anything unless your mages are dumpster tier. MAs can be a threat if they can put a ton of arrows into the same target in a short enough span to kill it. This is easier said than done, it takes a rather exceptional MA to kill anything on foot in the current state of things. And an MM is really good at not dying while also posing significantly less threat than a mage on foot.

I have used mounted builds to effectively pull my weight in a team fight and disrupt enough to not have my team down enough like with most mounted builds.

And the entire strategy is based on getting the enemy to overreact to the meagre threat you pose while your true goal is to stay alive and be just disruptive enough to make them devote way more attention to you than you deserve. Literally all it takes for the role to become useless is for the enemy to be like "Yeah FF guy watching our flank, focus on the veela divers as they're the actual threat to our mages. But peg that MA's horse a couple times with your longbow if you see him so he has to run away and heal it."

This is why I say a very small number of very good mounted players can pull their weight. The first step to being a good mounted build is realizing your role is not to make kills but to disrupt and harass above your pay grade with mind games.

Cavalry deserve to be more than a nuisance. They deserve to be a legitimate threat. Hopefully trampling comes with enough trampling damage to make this a reality. If MC at least became a role that dealt hits to a lot of targets when they ride through a cluster of enemies it would justify their role on the battlefield. But it still wouldn't make them something that's overly powerful without a larger foot force to set them up and capitalize on the opportunities they create. They would need a foot force to be the anvil for their hammer. And MAs and MMs would be a lot more useful if MC were a legitimate threat to footies.

 

[Hodo]

Not true, having a mounted in your backline is so disruptive to your mages that you generally have to dedicate someone to sitting with a bow out. Its a really good trade off for having a terrible shmerrick tier bagworded player disrupt a mage or keep a footfighter locked out of combat when they would just instaflop on foot otherwise.

Anyone in the backline is disruptive. It doesnt matter what they are. If it is mounted or a veela with a spear, it doesnt matter. Hell it could be a damned wolf in your backline.

 

[Jatix]

The ability to ride away and heal up is nice but it comes at the cost of being dramatically weaker.

The issue is while mounted can perform weaker, they are also partially stronger than foot. Fatmages hit harder than foot mages, just with a slower cast time. MA's can use big bows without worrying about stam from moving. A foot archer is only stronger if they use a max str longbow that they have to stand still to shoot (and wont be stamming up). To me mounted aren't weak enough to counter their advantages.

 

[Kaemik]

For MM I'd say even on paper weaknesses outweigh their on paper advantages. I can't say this 100% for sure but my hypothesis is if you took a stout sheevra light hybrid on foot and and an obese Huergar or Sidoain on mount had them each spam the same spell at a target for 1 minute and totaled the damage the footie would win.

For MA the on paper weakness might not be significant. Especially if you calculate in weakspotting as longbows don't get that.

And I imagine if you calculated a MC going four speed getting off an attack every time they could vs someone on foot they would actually have a substantially higher damage potential on paper.

What all these scenarios really fail to factor in is the difficulty of maneuvering a mount and dealing damage at the same time. Of course that's most dramatic for the MC but even the MM and MA really have to worry about the fact they are on a slow turning and easy to hit target that can easily get hung up on many terrain features and die to some terrain features that are minor obstacles to footies.

Now I see your argument seems to be somwhat about how powerful they are on foot. To which my response is. The main weakness they have over a true foot build is 100 points of controlled riding and 100 points of the primary damage type required with another 100 potential points in a secondary damage type for some of my favorite mounted builds (Though to be fair most my 300 point builds have roughrider).

There isn't a single build I can't make a dramatically stronger foot build with an extra 200-300 primaries. Not to mention I'd personally never suggest an obese Sidoian or Huergar as a foot build. The MA and MC builds I suggest always do translate pretty well on foot though.

 

[Hodo]

The issue is while mounted can perform weaker, they are also partially stronger than foot. Fatmages hit harder than foot mages, just with a slower cast time. MA's can use big bows without worrying about stam from moving. A foot archer is only stronger if they use a max str longbow that they have to stand still to shoot (and wont be stamming up). To me mounted aren't weak enough to counter their advantages.

There is a reason why throughout history... time and time again people have used horses or mounts in combat. Ever since the invention of the stirrup the horse charge has been one of the most terrifying things a foot army could experience. Even up till the time of the rifle cavalry were very much kings of the battlefield. Even in the modern battlefield the mounted infantry or armored forces are far superior to the dismounted foot in open field combat.

For every situation there is the right tool. You dont take longbows and mounted archers into the woods to fight, much like you dont take light foot infantry into the desert to fight in the open.

 

[Kaemik]

And that is one thing people who haven't played MC may not realize. If you stick your back to a cliff of any size in this game you immediately become immune to MC.

 

[Hodo]

And that is one thing people who haven't played MC may not realize. If you stick your back to a cliff of any size in this game you immediately become immune to MC.

True. Doesnt even need to be a cliff, can be a rock, or a tree.

 

[Kaemik]

True. Doesnt even need to be a cliff, can be a rock, or a tree.

A rock or an obstacle definitely is bad for the MC. But a 5 foot cliff will one shot their mount.

 

[Teknique]

There is a reason why throughout history... time and time again people have used horses or mounts in combat. Ever since the invention of the stirrup the horse charge has been one of the most terrifying things a foot army could experience. Even up till the time of the rifle cavalry were very much kings of the battlefield. Even in the modern battlefield the mounted infantry or armored forces are far superior to the dismounted foot in open field combat.

For every situation there is the right tool. You dont take longbows and mounted archers into the woods to fight, much like you dont take light foot infantry into the desert to fight in the open.

There's a reason its a video game and there is a reason this one doesn't do that well.

Observe a game that has sensical movement and dismount mechanics for horses.

The idea that the way Mortal does it is the only possible way to design a game and also the only way you can simulate reality is pure delusion, folly, and or deception.

This system is much more realistic anyway.

 

[Hodo]

There's a reason its a video game and there is a reason this one doesn't do that well.

Observe a game that has sensical movement and dismount mechanics for horses.

The idea that the way Mortal does it is the only possible way to design a game and also the only way you can simulate reality is pure delusion, folly, and or deception.

This system is much more realistic anyway.

Thank you for reminding me how jank that system was. It had some cool ideas but it was so jank.

And well... MO1 had dismounts... horses in LIF were like motorcycles and less like horses.

 

[Kaemik]

I think the idea of a mounted charge being terrifying is perfectly fine. If well armored horse of one of the more substantial breeds did 30-50 damage to any foot soldier it contacted with at 4 speed that would be pretty powerful without being broken. What that would mean is a mounted charge could just delete a cluster of infantry if each footy got hit by multiple horses. It would also mean a horse or two making a good pass through enemy ranks during a foot vs. foot fight would soften up enemy ranks for a push by allied footies.

But think about how easily that is countered. If the footies simply loosen their formation and focus some of the horses with longbows they can easily dismount a few of them to be easily dispatched by the greater numbers of footies around them while their buddies ride back around for a 2nd pass.

If you add poleaxes losing their animation advantage but gaining significant damage bonus and dismount against horses this would further increase things in the footy's favor.

And that's talking flat field, no obstacles. Which is fine. Long pointy sticks did counter cav charges in flat fields with no obstacles. And the idea of loosening ranks and killing the charge as it passed through gaps in your formation is also a real world tactic though that one was mainly used against elephants.

Essentially this means cav is a threat to footies only with significant numerical superiority OR allied footies that create opportunities for them to hit a flank (hammer and anvil tactics) and capitalize on the advantage that cav create by hitting the flank. That's balanced. That's exactly where MC needs to be. And if MC is strong MAs grow in usefulness as their primary counter. With a few fixes to the archery tree to nerf 200 primary MAs and substantially buff 500 primary MAs they would be in a good spot. MMs grow in usefulness as both a counter and a support. They probably would require no nerf or buff, especially if MAs got the buff they need to counter MMs more effectively.

As far as the suggestion of ranged dismounts... Ranged dismounts would signal the complete death of cav as viable builds without basically making them I-win-buttons if they manage to say saddled. It's as bad of an idea as adding stuns to the game. If it is added I vote we add a 10 second stun to anyone whose hit by a lance at 4 speed. Sound insane and terrible? It is. But balanced if we have ranged dismounts. They are both equally reasonable suggestions.

If you want ranged counter to MM then the mechanic to implement is damage to the horse counting as damage to the player in terms of a cast interrupt. If that were to be done though, they should remove all casting speed penalties to MM as it's stupid easy to hit a horse. Their ease of interrupt would become the new primary downside to playing them. That and continued maneuverability issues.

 

[Kaemik]

Sidenote nothing listed above makes sense until we have passenger mounts. It's part of why passenger mounts are literally the most important change that could be possibly be made right now and should be moved to the front of the roadmap.

 

[Teknique]

I think the idea of a mounted charge being terrifying is perfectly fine. If well armored horse of one of the more substantial breeds did 30-50 damage to any foot soldier it contacted with at 4 speed that would be pretty powerful without being broken. What that would mean is a mounted charge could just delete a cluster of infantry if each footy got hit by multiple horses. It would also mean a horse or two making a good pass through enemy ranks during a foot vs. foot fight would soften up enemy ranks for a push by allied footies.

But think about how easily that is countered. If the footies simply loosen their formation and focus some of the horses with longbows they can easily dismount a few of them to be easily dispatched by the greater numbers of footies around them while their buddies ride back around for a 2nd pass.

If you add poleaxes losing their animation advantage but gaining significant damage bonus and dismount against horses this would further increase things in the footy's favor.

And that's talking flat field, no obstacles. Which is fine. Long pointy sticks did counter cav charges in flat fields with no obstacles. And the idea of loosening ranks and killing the charge as it passed through gaps in your formation is also a real world tactic though that one was mainly used against elephants.

Essentially this means cav is a threat to footies only with significant numerical superiority OR allied footies that create opportunities for them to hit a flank (hammer and anvil tactics) and capitalize on the advantage that cav create by hitting the flank. That's balanced. That's exactly where MC needs to be. And if MC is strong MAs grow in usefulness as their primary counter. With a few fixes to the archery tree to nerf 200 primary MAs and substantially buff 500 primary MAs they would be in a good spot. MMs grow in usefulness as both a counter and a support. They probably would require no nerf or buff, especially if MAs got the buff they need to counter MMs more effectively.

As far as the suggestion of ranged dismounts... Ranged dismounts would signal the complete death of cav as viable builds without basically making them I-win-buttons if they manage to say saddled. It's as bad of an idea as adding stuns to the game. If it is added I vote we add a 10 second stun to anyone whose hit by a lance at 4 speed. Sound insane and terrible? It is. But balanced if we have ranged dismounts. They are both equally reasonable suggestions.

If you want ranged counter to MM then the mechanic to implement is damage to the horse counting as damage to the player in terms of a cast interrupt. If that were to be done though, they should remove all casting speed penalties to MM as it's stupid easy to hit a horse. Their ease of interrupt would become the new primary downside to playing them. That and continued maneuverability issues.

I didn't do particularly well here, but the amount of impact I was able to have in certain footfights by being mounted and destroying enemy mages and people who were trying to get heals was pretty crazy. Being a solo mounted in a footfight was a crazy amount of fun.

I'm not saying every single dismount mechanic I suggested would make sense, but i'm looking for some balance between this where i'm running in and out at a whim, to I can still play like this but have a few actual counters.

The point is I played these classes, a lot. I'm not just trying to kill them.

 

[MolagAmur]

I didn't do particularly well here, but the amount of impact I was able to have in certain footfights by being mounted and destroying enemy mages and people who were trying to get heals was pretty crazy. Being a solo mounted in a footfight was a crazy amount of fun.

I'm not saying every single dismount mechanic I suggested would make sense, but i'm looking for some balance between this where i'm running in and out at a whim, to I can still play like this but have a few actual counters.

The point is I played these classes, a lot. I'm not just trying to kill them.

Mounted was so aids back then lol. It just wasn't worth the risk of trading with a mounted, because you could leave whenever you wanted, where as the footie you hit for 50 is still in danger.

I don't think mounted can ever be balanced to be honest. Call me crazy, but the most balanced it ever was was back in Dawn with tames only and dicerolls. MA was still very strong, but risky if you were out alone. MC was risky and not that good when alone except when the enemy is routing. It was great for cleaning up kills. Which is how it should work when you're alone anyway, you should NEVER be able to do what you did in the video...and the only reason you were was because of bad game mechanics...not lack of skill from the other side.

(haven't read this thread btw, just commenting on the video)

 

[Hodo]

Mounted was so aids back then lol. It just wasn't worth the risk of trading with a mounted, because you could leave whenever you wanted, where as the footie you hit for 50 is still in danger.

I don't think mounted can ever be balanced to be honest. Call me crazy, but the most balanced it ever was was back in Dawn with tames only and dicerolls. MA was still very strong, but risky if you were out alone. MC was risky and not that good when alone except when the enemy is routing. It was great for cleaning up kills. Which is how it should work when you're alone anyway, you should NEVER be able to do what you did in the video...and the only reason you were was because of bad game mechanics...not lack of skill from the other side.

(haven't read this thread btw, just commenting on the video)

Mounted should never be balanced against foot. It is like trying to balance a M1A2 Abrams vs a man with a rifle. You dont. You balance mounteds against mounteds and footies against footies.

 

[Kaemik]

I didn't do particularly well here, but the amount of impact I was able to have in certain footfights by being mounted and destroying enemy mages and people who were trying to get heals was pretty crazy. Being a solo mounted in a footfight was a crazy amount of fun.

I'm not saying every single dismount mechanic I suggested would make sense, but i'm looking for some balance between this where i'm running in and out at a whim, to I can still play like this but have a few actual counters.

The point is I played these classes, a lot. I'm not just trying to kill them.

That video kind of illustrates my point. Your value in the mounted portion was really low to be honest. The amount of time that elapsed between instances of you actually doing any damage was huge. If you had been a foot fighter you could have been in the fight the whole time, switching between melee and archery to keep your value sustained at any range. If you were a hybrid or mage you could have been keeping up a constant amount of healing or damage.

You were upset at me when we were allies because I wiffed a few swings your direction during a big brawl and I could have been healing or dealing damage to the enemy. But a couple missed swings because I mistook "Darklord" for "Dreadlord" were pretty small potatoes next to the amount of time you're doing nothing in that clip. I'm also not seeing much fire directed at your horse by them which means they weren't perceiving you as much of a threat either. I think there is a huge reason everyone else in that fight is on foot. You're the lowest value player there. And that's not really a commentary on your skill, MC is just a low value role unless your trying to kill horses or slow down a fleeing foot opponent so allies can catch up.

The highest value you had of all those clips of you on horse is when you were just sitting there with a bow out keeping up a constant barrage of arrows. Which given you weren't really moving at that point would have just as easily been accomplished on foot.

 

[Teknique]

That video kind of illustrates my point. Your value in the mounted portion was really low to be honest. The amount of time that elapsed between instances of you actually doing any damage was huge. If you had been a foot fighter you could have been in the fight the whole time, switching between melee and archery to keep your value sustained at any range. If you were a hybrid or mage you could have been keeping up a constant amount of healing or damage.

You were upset at me when we were allies because I wiffed a few swings your direction during a big brawl and I could have been healing or dealing damage to the enemy. But a couple missed swings because I mistook "Darklord" for "Dreadlord" were pretty small potatoes next to the amount of time you're doing nothing in that clip. I'm also not seeing much fire directed at your horse by them which means they weren't perceiving you as much of a threat either. I think there is a huge reason everyone else in that fight is on foot. You're the lowest value player there. And that's not really a commentary on your skill, MC is just a low value role unless your trying to kill horses or slow down a fleeing foot opponent so allies can catch up.

The highest value you had of all those clips of you on horse is when you were just sitting there with a bow out keeping up a constant barrage of arrows. Which given you weren't really moving at that point would have just as easily been accomplished on foot.

It was a fight we lost and got no kills in and I almost killed a few mages. The impact you have when winning and actually routing an enemy is huge.

 

[Teknique]

Mounted was so aids back then lol. It just wasn't worth the risk of trading with a mounted, because you could leave whenever you wanted, where as the footie you hit for 50 is still in danger.

I don't think mounted can ever be balanced to be honest. Call me crazy, but the most balanced it ever was was back in Dawn with tames only and dicerolls. MA was still very strong, but risky if you were out alone. MC was risky and not that good when alone except when the enemy is routing. It was great for cleaning up kills. Which is how it should work when you're alone anyway, you should NEVER be able to do what you did in the video...and the only reason you were was because of bad game mechanics...not lack of skill from the other side.

(haven't read this thread btw, just commenting on the video)

Read the op. I think that would be balanced and maybe even make mounteds too vulnerable.

 

[Jatix]

For every situation there is the right tool. You dont take longbows and mounted archers into the woods to fight, much like you dont take light foot infantry into the desert to fight in the open.

My issue is in MO MA's are good in the open and in the woods. Horses are insanely mobile and theres nothing on the ground to mess up their movement like there would be in a real forest, where the trees actually die and drop stuff. You can try to run around trees but they just fly in circles around your tree and still shoot you (in the case where you arent winning and have 0 hope of running because they can always chase). So it just makes for annoying gameplay. If Ma's attack and you are winning they ride off with 0 risk. If you are losing, GG you cant get away 95% of the time. With a few select cases of water or mountains they cant ride on.

And IRL didnt have obese mages jetting around shooting magic lmao.

And IRL if someone ran into a tree going max speed on their horse, RIP. MO2 you can slam into a rock, tree, etc and nothing happens lol. but as stated above theres a reason for this haha. Mounts would play like insane ass if Sv tried to code in more 'realistic' mount behavior.

 

[Jatix]

For MM I'd say even on paper weaknesses outweigh their on paper advantages. I can't say this 100% for sure but my hypothesis is if you took a stout sheevra light hybrid on foot and and an obese Huergar or Sidoain on mount had them each spam the same spell at a target for 1 minute and totaled the damage the footie would win.

The mounted V foot dps may be worse for the mounted but thats not factoring moblilty. A sheevra is muc hweaker than a thursar. Less hp, damage bonus, stam, and cna use weaker bows / weapons due to str req's. for a whole like 20-30 speed.

Mounted go easily over 2x foot speed, while still having good damage, and not needing to worry about stamina from attacking, because they dont share stam with attackign and movement like foot players do.

This is the core of my issue with mounted. On foot, faster builds are weaker. Thats a fair tradeoff. Mounted gets to be strong and fast. IRL mounts were op too. Bu this is a game, so to me it doesnt have to obey IRL logic. Because almost nothing about this game is realistic anyway.