Hammers

[Exiledkhallisi]

You say you only need to hit 2-3 times like it was easy. I mean sure, in a group fight that is actually very handy.

In a small skirmish? The speed of a 1h skadite hammer plus the 1h animations themselves just makes parry so easy for anyone that can fog a mirror (I mean... even I can do it and I ain't no 1337 kid) that hitting 2-3 times for full damage is actually a tall ask.

Tbh the sword meta legit pisses me off.. sword is too good. And henrik for some bizarre reason thinks the weapons are balanced simply because there is a well rounded use of weapons.

People try tontell him just because theres a balanced use of weapons doesnt mean 1 weapon isnt better than the rest.

Hammers do need a little love... maybe allow for solid chip damage on blocks/parries regardless of blocking skill.

 

[Kaemik]

I think the biggest buff would be treating hammers as if they were lighter for purposes of swing speed. It both lowers their biggest drawback and also kind of makes sense when you think about weight distribution and the physics reasons why hammers exist in the first place.

Failing to do that, I think making them easier to head-hit and less easy to handle hit with could be good. But I personally dislike that option compared to the first. There are already people who have trained hard at landing head hits. Those people would be more rewarded by making what they do stronger than easier.

I will say yes. They could use a buff. Currently, their biggest upsides have to do with very meta reasons and even mind games to a large degree. Only a little of it comes from them actually being a good weapon stat-wise.

 

[Kaquenqos]

Go duel Dagasi in MK. She exclusively uses hammers and is considered a very powerful combatant in both team fights and 1v1s despite her west coast ping. I won't speak to all the reasons she swears by hammers unless she wants to divulge that information but there are numerous good reasons.

Hammers are WAY easier to handle hit with though. Personally, as a self-admitted trash melee, I always use swords or spears/polearms because they are WAY easier to fight with IMO. I'd never dream of using an axe or hammer. But people who can and get good with them wreck hard.

Yeah, I'm sure there are exceptions of people who have swum upstream long enough that they are good with them.


It just makes me wonder how much better they would be with the added fluidity of any of the pole weapons or swords that don't require master footwork/spacing to land a hit with.

For my part, I don't regret deleveling hammers for swords. Combat feels way more enjoyable.

 

[Exiledkhallisi]

Yeah, I'm sure there are exceptions of people who have swum upstream long enough that they are good with them.


It just makes me wonder how much better they would be with the added fluidity of any of the pole weapons or swords that don't require master footwork/spacing to land a hit with.

For my part, I don't regret deleveling hammers for swords. Combat feels way more enjoyable.

Hammer is only really goodnin group situations when targets are engaged with other players and you attack from behind.

I feel like they should at least normalize block speed for all weapons.

 

[Kaquenqos]

Hammer is only really goodnin group situations when targets are engaged with other players and you attack from behind.

I feel like they should at least normalize block speed for all weapons.

I feel like the warhammer head should have pierce damage closer to a spear than they do now. It would at least offer one of the blunt head types a bit of versatility. Not saying it would fix the weapon, but at least it would give a blunt type weapon an option other than directional swings that have a very narrow hitbox. That way you still have hammers function with their challenging hitboxes at large, but also have one head type that can forego them & only use them when it looks like you can land the hit. It might give 2h hammers a bit more accessibility pvp wise.

Block speed normalization, + some kind of added gimmick type bonus to hammers (like maybe chip damage even if the hit is blocked like you described, or lower blunt protection on plate a bit more), and warhammer pierce damage (so you at least have a 'pvp' option that is faster than other hammers & has thrusting capability) would make hammers a bit more alluring. It's a tall order to have different weapons feel different and have them close to balanced, but at least this would give hammers some kind of draw over weapons with hit-boxes that don't suck.

And henrik for some bizarre reason thinks the weapons are balanced simply because there is a well rounded use of weapons.

Is this true? Because from what I can see almost nobody uses hammers. I'd say, for melee, it looks like swords>poleswords=poleaxes=spears>axes>hammers to me... Which is actually also best to worst hitboxes. So to me, it looks like the balance does lean more towards the least terrible hit-box...This is just anecdotal conjecture of course, but from what I've seen balance is definitely skewed toward sword meta.

 

[Exiledkhallisi]

I feel like the warhammer head should have pierce damage closer to a spear than they do now. It would at least offer one of the blunt head types a bit of versatility. Not saying it would fix the weapon, but at least it would give a blunt type weapon an option other than directional swings that have a very narrow hitbox. That way you still have hammers function with their challenging hitboxes at large, but also have one head type that can forego them & only use them when it looks like you can land the hit. It might give 2h hammers a bit more accessibility pvp wise.

Block speed normalization, + some kind of added gimmick type bonus to hammers (like maybe chip damage even if the hit is blocked like you described, or lower blunt protection on plate a bit more), and warhammer pierce damage (so you at least have a 'pvp' option that is faster than other hammers & has thrusting capability) would make hammers a bit more alluring. It's a tall order to have different weapons feel different and have them close to balanced, but at least this would give hammers some kind of draw over weapons with hit-boxes that don't suck.



Is this true? Because from what I can see almost nobody uses hammers. I'd say, for melee, it looks like swords>poleswords=poleaxes=spears>axes>hammers to me... Which is actually also best to worst hitboxes. So to me, it looks like the balance does lean more towards the least terrible hit-box...This is just anecdotal conjecture of course, but from what I've seen balance is definitely skewed toward sword meta.

Picking up a sword after using a hammer for months feels like i just turned the handicap mode up to 100% its the same game but everything is easier.

I agree hammers need fixing... whether normalize blocking speeds across all weapons or allow for hammers to do real chip damage through blocks/parries.

 

[SterlingL]

I think they need to add a chain maul Swinging that around while on a horse, especially in a group battle... Maybe I've seen too many movies

 

[Emdash]

I miss the length of old flanged maces. New flanged seem weird. I liked that little ball on the end. When you get a sword, you have to learn how to hit w/ it... when you use you fists, you have to learn, etc etc, same w/ hammers EXCEPT they recoil. I wonder if anyone has tested the recoil of hammers (not really the right word lol, but they reflect off after a hit) vs a short slash or stab and noted if it actually takes longer to regain control of a blunt based wep... or less time!

It's not too bad to hit w/ head, but lag is an issue, people not being where they look like is an issue, when you got double kall axe that is just like a giant hit box on a stick... haha. Big hammers are tough. I don't have blocking (rip) and I got 27'd by a hammer thru a parry as a last hit. That's really the only plus, dismounting, too, I guess, but I haven't gone into hammer MC. But there isn't really a good hammer IMO that is light enough + applies enough dmg.

They inexplicably changed the heads and the stats of hammers, it seems like moreso than other weps. Prol needs more balance, but even in 1, people used axes to dismount because it's way better hitbox wise and you get good blunt with a nice DK.

 

[Kaquenqos]

Yeah, I think hammers are ok situationally I guess, but personally I just can't fathom why you'd pick hammer to invest 100 points into vs. almost any other weapon.

It's cool that you can get good damage with heavy mats; for example the only use for stuff like Bron in the game, as far as I can tell, is hammer crafting... But they're so damn heavy that the fact that the damage is higher is pretty pointless. Like, you're still almost better off just using something like incisium because of the huge weight trade-off...

Which also brings me to another minor nitpick: why is Bron so trash, and why the hell can't cuprum alloys be better than flake-stone or cuprum that you make it from...? I feel like there are so many shit-tier metals that are worse than molarium, flake, or incisium, when they take an insane amount of time investment to produce vs. mol/incis/flake that you can just easily grind up in 5 minutes hunting or 30mins mining. It just doesn't make sense from a gameplay standpoint and just turns refining into much more of a slog in terms of progression than it needs to be.

It feels really bad leveling refining and having bron & messing worse for bladed weapons than easily farmable animal tissue mats... What is the justification here? Like, first of all, it makes no sense-- any metal weapon will be sharper than bone. I know the real world comparison doesn't matter since it's a game, but Bron is presumably bronze which was an excellent material for crafting weapons historically but in game it's worse than cuprum (presumably copper equivalent) and molarium/incis/stone etc...? Historically, bronze was still used well into the iron age as it was just as sharp & hard as early iron weapons, the only trade off being that you needed tin & copper, which could rarely be found in the same place, to make it.

So basically I'm just saying, bron & messing being worse than easily farmable animal mats (ie. super heavy and sometimes less or comparable damage) doesn't make sense mechanically because they are so much harder to get in terms of time/skill investment, and it doesn't make sense from a RP sense either since metals should be objectively better at holding a point/edge than bone or stone based materials... Pig-iron could use a buff to make it closer to cuprum, but honestly at least with pig-iron the progression makes sense, pig-iron->grainsteel->steel->tungsteel, each being progressively a bit better for all purposes...

Feels bad that the next metal better than cuprum is steel or all the way up to tindremic messing if you stay cuprum alloy, while shit-tier easy to farm mats are better than all the metals in between them. That's a huge gap of tons of utterly useless metals, and for what? I'm not saying they should be better than steel, just saying it would make sense to have bron & messing slightly better than cuprum and worse than steel. IDK what is the point of making so many metals useless, unless the point is to make refining more of a grind...

Plus, if you buffed Bron specifically, then it would make another useless metal, bleck, have an actual use. Just saying, give these cuprum alloys a buff so they are at least better than flake-stone ffs, that's all I'm asking. Why is a by-product from tier1 extraction better for almost all purposes than alloys that take ages to make comparatively...?

Jadeite/flakestone/incisium should not be better than bron or messing...! It's just gross, it takes so much time & skillpoint investment to get those metals...!

 

[Amelia]

I like One hand war club, it's sufficently fast.

 

[Griswaalt]

Weren’t they talking about weapons having like skilled attacks? That could help fix hammers and give some utility.

Imagine a big ground slam with a chance to knockdown your opponent.

 

[Philthie]

The reason metals are better than animal materials for blunt weapons is purely for the dura because you will definitely need it since even if you do manage to kill your opponent with your gimped weapon they will drop a sword you cant use as loot anyway...

Who decided it was a good idea to make all the different types of weapons primaries?

 

[Hodo]

Weren’t they talking about weapons having like skilled attacks? That could help fix hammers and give some utility.

Imagine a big ground slam with a chance to knockdown your opponent.

No.

The skills they will introduce are more "realistic" than some cartoon Hulk Smash and people fall down crap. They will most likely be direct ports from MO1.

So there was spear stance for spears, which meant you braced your spear at a 40-45deg angle and any mount that rode into it took stupid amounts of damage. You could easily one shot many sub 100 level horses with that if they were dumb enough to ride into it.

Clubs had a knock down attack but it wasnt like an AOE thing, you had to physically hit your target with the weapon and it was a dice roll versus their knockdown resistance and balance skill and your weapon skill and damage.


But the special attacks werent that great or even useful.

 

[Jatix]

What makes me really salty with hammers. Is they actually added a hammer with a spike on it like I asked for in MO1 for years. And it sucks at thrusting. Just why.

 

[Wyndorn]

Which also brings me to another minor nitpick: why is Bron so trash, and why the hell can't cuprum alloys be better than flake-stone or cuprum that you make it from...? I feel like there are so many shit-tier metals that are worse than molarium, flake, or incisium, when they take an insane amount of time investment to produce vs. mol/incis/flake that you can just easily grind up in 5 minutes hunting or 30mins mining. It just doesn't make sense from a gameplay standpoint and just turns refining into much more of a slog in terms of progression than it needs to be.

It feels really bad leveling refining and having bron & messing worse for bladed weapons than easily farmable animal tissue mats... What is the justification here? Like, first of all, it makes no sense-- any metal weapon will be sharper than bone. I know the real world comparison doesn't matter since it's a game, but Bron is presumably bronze which was an excellent material for crafting weapons historically but in game it's worse than cuprum (presumably copper equivalent) and molarium/incis/stone etc...? Historically, bronze was still used well into the iron age as it was just as sharp & hard as early iron weapons, the only trade off being that you needed tin & copper, which could rarely be found in the same place, to make it.

Yeah, I really think animal/bone and metal mats need rebalanced, great points

 

[Xronim]

weapons need a general rebalance, by animations alone (assuming all spongewood weapons), 2h swords are noticably faster than every other animation set with the 2h axe/hammer being the slowest by far, making it harder to hit people with them on top of the really bad hitboxes for clean hits.

in mo1 you could make lighter options for axes/hammers that werent crippled by animation speed at the cost of them hitting weaker like the warhammer and hand axe options.

 

[Kaquenqos]

What makes me really salty with hammers. Is they actually added a hammer with a spike on it like I asked for in MO1 for years. And it sucks at thrusting. Just why.

Yeah, I commented on that earlier lol... WTF doesn't warhammer have good thrusting damage!? At least then you would have 1 hammer with some versatility for PvP; poke most of the time, go in for a big swing when you think you can land it... Sounds like it could be fairly good for 1v1 and fun.

Yeah, I really think animal/bone and metal mats need rebalanced, great points

Yes... You have to invest so much time and actual skillpoints of your build into making metals and yet they make super easy to get mats better than some of them. Bron & messing are mostly useless, and Bleck is completely useless. Because of the amount of time they take, all metals should at least be slightly better or comparable to mats that you get as waste from crushing like jadeite or flake stone... It just makes sesne.

It should be roughly mol>incis>flake=jade>bleck=piron=cup>gsteel>bron>steel=messing>tung=tmess... There's really no reason not to have it this way... Make cuprum alloys slightly heavier with slightly more dura (and slightly better for blunt), ... boom, easy. No metal is useless anymore.

 

[Hodo]

Yeah, I commented on that earlier lol... WTF doesn't warhammer have good thrusting damage!? At least then you would have 1 hammer with some versatility for PvP; poke most of the time, go in for a big swing when you think you can land it... Sounds like it could be fairly good for 1v1 and fun.


Yes... You have to invest so much time and actual skillpoints of your build into making metals and yet they make super easy to get mats better than some of them. Bron & messing are mostly useless, and Bleck is completely useless. Because of the amount of time they take, all metals should at least be slightly better or comparable to mats that you get as waste from crushing like jadeite or flake stone... It just makes sesne.

It should be roughly mol>incis>flake=jade>bleck=piron=cup>gsteel>bron>steel=messing>tung=tmess... There's really no reason not to have it this way... Make cuprum alloys slightly heavier with slightly more dura (and slightly better for blunt), ... boom, easy. No metal is useless anymore.

Considering Blecks real world comparison is tin. Last I checked tin doesnt really do well for any weapon.

 

[Emdash]

One thing I'd like to see and... fuck rite off w/ the 1h suggestions... is a crafting system where you can make weps (not flake or w/e) for any class. Hammer and Axes are too heavy. They don't have a good lite option. War hammer is COOL even tho I like the old skin better, but they removed slash dmg and all it's like ehh... none of the hammer weps really seem like fighting weps like old flanged or war hammer was. Disappoint.

I found the same problem w/ axes. They need weps that are viable and 2h 2kg~ for every wep style imo.

 

[Kaquenqos]

Considering Blecks real world comparison is tin. Last I checked tin doesnt really do well for any weapon.

So you're going to use real world comparisons to justify 1 metal being useless, but never use real world comparisons for any other metals? That's inconsistent, we should at least continue the analogy if we're going to do that...

obligatory: Of course, we can't really use real world comparisons because technically this is just a game and it doesn't apply here.

BUT, if we did:
Why is bron useless? Bronze is a highly capable metal and better than Cuprum (copper) from which it is made in EVERY SINGLE WAY. Bron should be slightly lower than steel in durability, slightly lower in slash/pierce, and with overall higher blunt dmg & weight (iron being lighter than bronze was one of the only advantages it had over its bronze counterparts in the early iron age).

In the early iron age (which I'm using to compare the early tiers of the iron line), bronze was not moved away from because iron was better than bronze(that is a popular historical myth) at that stage, it was because civilizations were having a harder and harder time to source tin with the breakdown of major trade-networks leading up to & following the Bronze Age collapse. So you could outfit a much larger army in inferior iron weapons/armor relatively easily versus trying to do the same thing in superior bronze. So if we are using the real world as a parallel Bron should be right next to steel, slightly less slash/pierce, slightly more weight/blunt. It should be close to steel in damage, slightly heavier, and better than anything excepting top tier metals (tung/t.mess/cron, etc.)

If we were going by real world comparisons, bleck(tin) & cuprum(copper) & pig iron should be the only (mostly) useless metals (cuprum should be the best of the 3 of course, and should be better or at least comparable to ANYTHING made of organic material/stone/bone etc) . Everything else should be within a couple points of each other, and completely viable & certainly better than organic materials if we are using the historical/common-sense outlook.


Again, I don't think any of this as relevant because this is a game-- but, I'm just saying, if we're going with real world comparisons the inconsistencies are no less jarring.

So basically, from a gameplay standpoint it's stupid, and from a historical comparison standpoint it's also stupid.