Melee Counters to Mounts

[Kaemik]

Polearms + 200% damage to mounts and 100% more likely to dismount on normal attacks if on foot. This is reduced to 100% more damage and 50% more dismount chance if mounted. Lances are treated as a polearm for this ability.

No bonus to spears.

Spear stance - Takes 1 second and 50 stamina to adopt. Cannot sprint and slow turning while active. Parries mounted attacks for 100% of damage and deals 300% weapon damage as a thrust to enemy mounts with auto-dismount. Taking melee damage breaks stance for three seconds. Lances outrange 1h spears and the defender takes 25% damage with the parry (meaning lancers can break 1h spear formations if they hit with their lance), but polearms outrange lances.

NO BUFFS to current polearms against infantry or else the ones that get buffs are reclassified to spears for the purposes of these bonuses. The downside of a weaker melee weapon that costs 100 more primary points is part of the balance. Weapons that are fully viable against infantry and counter mounts would be run by literally everyone. That's part of the reason spears get such terrible bonuses in comparison to polearms as well. Because they are already good.

 

[Anabolic Man]

i would like to see that mounts could climb mountains
up to a certain degree of slope, but only if they wear no Horse Armor ! Every Weapon should be able to dismount a Player on a Horse with no armor.

Mounts with armor should not be able to climb mountains, but only specific weapons should be able to dismount a player on a Horse with a horse Armor.

I thinkt hat would balance the System.

 

[Kaemik]

Interesting. I'm assuming this is about Lykiators and their famed climbing properties. That would certainly be an interesting way to handle it. I was presuming the solution to it would be less jump for them but certainly making all melee weapons counter them would make them a lot more interesting.

 

[bbihah]

Mounts should be able to walk up any elevation a player can IMO. Its the running up and down, jumping etc that needs to go. Mounts should get slowed down trying to run up or down mountains. Mounts jumping down mountains should receive fall damage after falling even just a little bit and have a significant chance of throwing the rider.

Trying to fight footfighters in mountain terrain should be very disadvantageous for the mounted fighter, even with a lykiator. The risk of getting thrown off the mount for falling down a tiny cliff or getting thrown off by foot fighters and then getting flung down the mountain to your death should be a very real risk. Mounted fighters dont belong on mountains for fighting.

But they should definitely be able to climb them, although slow, at stam cost for the horse and at risk and disadvantage.

 

[Eldrath]

I would like to see how mounts work first.

Obviously weapons designed for fighting cavalry should be better at doing so.

 

[ThaBadMan]

Could be as simple as +25% more damage vs mounts but I agree with Eldrath, need to see how they perform and how different they are from MOs abomination of something called mounts.

 

[agui]

Yeah agree Need to see first mounts and how dismounts weaps will work

 

[Floky]

this does not make sense you would do more dmg on a horse than on foot with momentum plus a height advantage u have greater potential energy than any person who is on foot.

 

[Floky]

foot have mage that is already busted 20 silver build can beat 1000g mounted build

 

[Kaemik]

this does not make sense you would do more dmg on a horse than on foot with momentum plus a height advantage u have greater potential energy than any person who is on foot.

With polearms, the idea is you are more stable on your opponent with both feet on the ground and particularly in spear stance their momentum is working against them. Your weapon hits their horse while they are going full speed converting the momentum into damage against the mount. Very much like if I walk into a brick wall, it hurts less than sprinting into that same wall full force.

foot have mage that is already busted 20 silver build can beat 1000g mounted build

Every single build of our doctrine will require you to be mounted unless mounted combat is complete and utter garbage, so I certainly don't want to see mounts be underpowered. However, if I'm rolling with all my mounted guys and there are 5 of us and 15 enemies, we're turning around and riding away. They don't get our gear they just get to hold the field.

If there are 15 of us and 5 enemies... free loot. They aren't getting away.

This is why you play mounted. I fully expect every foot only force that is well built to fight mounted builds to be stronger 1:1 because of this. A super expensive heavy cav build facing down infantry WITHOUT polearms should ride them down like grass. But turning a weak infantry vs. infantry weapon into a powerful counter to mounts seems like a great way to keep infantry good if mounts get the power they deserve.

To a certain degree I would agree and say "Lets see how mounts work" as well. But to another degree I would say, if a good counter against mounted builds doesn't feel justified, then mounts are perhaps a bit underpowered as they should have contexts in which they are actually stronger 1:1 ontop of their greater mobility.

 

[bbihah]

this does not make sense you would do more dmg on a horse than on foot with momentum plus a height advantage u have greater potential energy than any person who is on foot.

Goes both ways though. The people on foot hitting you have the same amount of potential energy when hitting you when you are coming at them.

Cavalry doesn't normally charge spears, its suicide. What made it even remotely possible in later medieval times was the more reliable heavy armor for both horse and rider and the doctrine of riding in a tight formation, basically throwing your bodies at a single point in the spear line, punching through at great cost but once through if the cavalry kept momentum they could charge through other formations and then get back out again. This was normally not done. The shame of basically committing suicide on a peasant's spear for lack of better tactics and maneuvering is not something that anyone wanted and a great waste of an important asset such as heavy cavalry.


You don't really hear about light cavalry charging against spear or pike lines, because either it didn't happen at all, or it was so unsuccessful and such a embarrassment that it was best left to go into obscurity.

 

[Floky]

I am a noble knight I only fight from horseback the ground is far to dirty for my noble personage

 

[ThaBadMan]

this does not make sense you would do more dmg on a horse than on foot with momentum plus a height advantage u have greater potential energy than any person who is on foot.

Thats good to hear, im glad now all my weapons 1 shots a charging horse if I can manage to hit it before it hits me, even better that when the rider is dismounted he has a 75% chance of dying if at galloping speed.

Thats gonna make any foot soldiers job so much easier...back to reality and the VIDEO GAME...

 

[Bicorps]

this does not make sense you would do more dmg on a horse than on foot with momentum plus a height advantage u have greater potential energy than any person who is on foot.

Logic does not apply here. We just want it balanced and enjoyable for both side not like on MO1.

 

[Floky]

mounted build should be better than foot on flat terrain end of the story if you argue that foots can fight mounted on terrain that favors mounts that is nuts in mo2 there is so much stuff to mess with mounted and you guys want to nerf it more I like mortal because you could do different build if I wanted to play everyone has same build game I would play warzone.

foot fighters have advantages in forest and hill areas mounted are the kings of the open step why are you guys trying to homogenize the game. A core aspect is different builds are better in different circumstances If ppl can play foot anywhere and counter everything why would anyone play anything but foot. It would be boring

 

[Grasthard]

please don't put ideas that discourage mount usage.

I know many are dedicated foot fighters, but with the current map size no one wants to walk for literally 4 hours in between towns in search of a fight

 

[agui]

I am a noble knight I only fight from horseback the ground is far to dirty for my noble personage View attachment 1407

Make a guild called slayers of the red dot (SRD)

 

[BleckCat]

lyks should add less damage to weapons, but still work in mountains. They are lisards

 

[Rulant]

Mounts should be able to walk up any elevation a player can IMO. Its the running up and down, jumping etc that needs to go. Mounts should get slowed down trying to run up or down mountains. Mounts jumping down mountains should receive fall damage after falling even just a little bit and have a significant chance of throwing the rider.

Trying to fight footfighters in mountain terrain should be very disadvantageous for the mounted fighter, even with a lykiator. The risk of getting thrown off the mount for falling down a tiny cliff or getting thrown off by foot fighters and then getting flung down the mountain to your death should be a very real risk. Mounted fighters dont belong on mountains for fighting.

But they should definitely be able to climb them, although slow, at stam cost for the horse and at risk and disadvantage.

no, a horse isn't going to climb a rocky 60 degree slope so don't put it in game

 

[Bicorps]

mounted build should be better than foot on flat terrain end of the story if you argue that foots can fight mounted on terrain that favors mounts that is nuts in mo2 there is so much stuff to mess with mounted and you guys want to nerf it more I like mortal because you could do different build if I wanted to play everyone has same build game I would play warzone.

foot fighters have advantages in forest and hill areas mounted are the kings of the open step why are you guys trying to homogenize the game. A core aspect is different builds are better in different circumstances If ppl can play foot anywhere and counter everything why would anyone play anything but foot. It would be boring

That just sound like MO1 balance. To be honest I dont even care anymore, foot fighter are so boring to play on MO2(Foot FIgher was the only reason why I was playing MO1 in the first place) and with the size of the map we have, I dont think StarVault have learn anything from devlopping MO1 for 10years+ .