Mounted

[Rhodri_Taliesin]

Just wanted to point out that there more options then mentioned and the discussion feels sometimes a bit... one sided.
But I fully agree with what chingaperros said above.

The discussion oftentimes is one sided. I'll admit my bias, however I am doing the best I can to remain reasonable and rational on the discussion, to stay as close to objectivity as possible, and it is a little bit frustrating to see most "anti-mount" people who oftentimes exaggerate the capabilities of mounted players.

There were plenty of issues with terrain negotiation, and that mostly just stemmed from SV not having any clear way of cleaning up their terrain and map. Netcode and networking was just bad all the way around which exaggerated the issues presented by mounts.


I think it's double important to note though that many videos providing examples of "mounts OP" oftentimes show the infantry group having done multiple things wrong, or making themselves ineffective at countering them. Closing up your spacing, keeping a mage on retainer or two, cheap bows with arrows you can still use without skills to do damage to a mount. All these things and more, and people just don't want to listen.

 

[ThaBadMan]

The discussion oftentimes is one sided. I'll admit my bias, however I am doing the best I can to remain reasonable and rational on the discussion, to stay as close to objectivity as possible, and it is a little bit frustrating to see most "anti-mount" people who oftentimes exaggerate the capabilities of mounted players.

There were plenty of issues with terrain negotiation, and that mostly just stemmed from SV not having any clear way of cleaning up their terrain and map. Netcode and networking was just bad all the way around which exaggerated the issues presented by mounts.


I think it's double important to note though that many videos providing examples of "mounts OP" oftentimes show the infantry group having done multiple things wrong, or making themselves ineffective at countering them. Closing up your spacing, keeping a mage on retainer or two, cheap bows with arrows you can still use without skills to do damage to a mount. All these things and more, and people just don't want to listen.

I cant agree with that.
At one point mounts where not able to get up even the lowest raised terrain. How come they suddenly cant do that anymore ? Lazyness is the only answer to why mounts continued being able to climb terrain better than players.

The fact that infantry groups will get demolished by even average mounteds if not choosing to go for 1 of the severly limiting "counters" to mounts is proof of how imbalanced and OP mounted combat became from how it originally was when it did work great back in the day.

Loose spacing was used against mounteds to not have more than 1 player get fucked up at a time due to the speed of a mounteds swings, since you could not kill the mount even with a group of 10 most of the time if he did crash into such a group, losing 1 or 2 players without getting even a mount kill is futile.

Cheap bows and arrows did nothing to a combat mount and left you open to attack without being able to block off any damage from the mounted, sounds like a death sentence to me and against average and above mounteds it was.
When I played my mounted combat archers was first to be focused and killed in 2 or 3 hits that where guarranteed full dmg hits since they where retarded for not changing to a melee weapon and block dmg, mages second and the rest of the group third. On my mounted I only died to other mounteds and very rarely and I did not even use the broken weapons because I refused to sink so low.

By the way from your reasonings it sounds like mounteds always run solo against groups, but 4 mounteds vs 10-20 was childs play most of the time. Mages/archers was no prob cause of low dps against both mount and rider. Melees could only do dmg to you if you so wished and even then you out dps them 100% of the time.

With my far from top tier mounted weapon hit 60-80 through steel you SHOULD know its broken. Its futile to even TRY to argue against it like you are doing.

 

[Rhodri_Taliesin]

-stuff-

Dude, obviously not everyone agrees with you on every thing and obviously you don't agree with me on everything, but claims like "it's futile to even try to argue against it sic.." it carries the implication that you and your position are objectively "correct" in the matter and neither side is totally correct. Obviously some things were broken, and those things got nerfed, and other things got buffed and perhaps overbuffed.

But to sit there and say "mounts OP!" without looking at every situation with objectivity, to not scrutinize every video you post, or every detail, to not acknowledge that this doesn't occur in a vacuum is intellectually dishonest.

Hell that annecdoate "but 4 moutneds vs 10-20 was child's play most of the time", you're exaggerating, you're obviously exaggerating because unless those 10-20 (wide range by the way) were completely braindead or afk, or noobs, one of several things would happen in response to those 4 mounted players.

1: A mage or several would have EQ'd them

2: The 10-20 on foot would close ranks, which would deny any opportunities for the mounteds to seize upon

3: The footies would have maneuvered to a cave, mountain, building, forest, really anywhere with obstacles, to deny the "4 mounteds" any clean attack lines.

4: They would have started to draw bows to pelt them from a distance or strike at the mounts when they closed to attack (which was a good way to get your mount body blocked and stuck and therefore killed, or get dismounted


Badman, come on, I know you're not a fool because nobody is dumb enough to take on odds of 4v20 except for maybe mounted archers, but melee cav who have to enter striking distance? Nah man, that's a recipe for disaster every time. Certainly you can come up with real examples that aren't exaggerations or bald faced lies to make your point?

This is a new game, new opportunities to start fresh and leave old grudges behind. We can discuss these things with a modicum of respect without need for extreme exaggeration.

 

[ThaBadMan]

Dude, obviously not everyone agrees with you on every thing and obviously you don't agree with me on everything, but claims like "it's futile to even try to argue against it sic.." it carries the implication that you and your position are objectively "correct" in the matter and neither side is totally correct. Obviously some things were broken, and those things got nerfed, and other things got buffed and perhaps overbuffed.

But to sit there and say "mounts OP!" without looking at every situation with objectivity, to not scrutinize every video you post, or every detail, to not acknowledge that this doesn't occur in a vacuum is intellectually dishonest.

Hell that annecdoate "but 4 moutneds vs 10-20 was child's play most of the time", you're exaggerating, you're obviously exaggerating because unless those 10-20 (wide range by the way) were completely braindead or afk, or noobs, one of several things would happen in response to those 4 mounted players.

1: A mage or several would have EQ'd them

2: The 10-20 on foot would close ranks, which would deny any opportunities for the mounteds to seize upon

3: The footies would have maneuvered to a cave, mountain, building, forest, really anywhere with obstacles, to deny the "4 mounteds" any clean attack lines.

4: They would have started to draw bows to pelt them from a distance or strike at the mounts when they closed to attack (which was a good way to get your mount body blocked and stuck and therefore killed, or get dismounted


Badman, come on, I know you're not a fool because nobody is dumb enough to take on odds of 4v20 except for maybe mounted archers, but melee cav who have to enter striking distance? Nah man, that's a recipe for disaster every time. Certainly you can come up with real examples that aren't exaggerations or bald faced lies to make your point?

This is a new game, new opportunities to start fresh and leave old grudges behind. We can discuss these things with a modicum of respect without need for extreme exaggeration.

In my mind it is futile to argue against mounteds being severly imbalanced for year and most possibly still is today with a lower gap perhaps because its a fact.
Yes anyone can have their opinions about it but that wont change the fact of it.

Having all advantages without really any disadvantages with no other playstyle really there to counter you except your own playstyle is what people call imbalanced, unbalanced or over powered because it is. Being able to dictate every single outcome based on style of play is being over powered, arguing that is in itself a futile arguement.

Do have your own opinion about it but dont try to make it sound like it was not the case since it most certainly was.
Rather say yes it was imbalanced but I feel this and that instead.

I have not said "mounts OP" without providing reasons why it was severly overly powerful the majority of MOs lifespan. I would know since I played said overly powerful playstyle for half of MOs lifetime. Its not my fault if you gimped yourself while playing it to fool yourself into thinking it wasnt.

 

[barcode]

Its not my fault if you gimped yourself while playing it to fool yourself into thinking it wasnt.

i think thats reallly the point that rhodri is missing

-barcode

 

[ThaBadMan]

i think thats reallly the point that rhodri is missing

-barcode

/agree

 

[Rhodri_Taliesin]

i think thats reallly the point that rhodri is missing

-barcode

How arrogant can you be? Badman literally just made a point that his build was similar to my own.

My bad for trying to have a discussion, don't let me interrupt the Footie biased anti-mount rhetorical circle jerk.

 

[Teknique]

How arrogant can you be? Badman literally just made a point that his build was similar to my own.

My bad for trying to have a discussion, don't let me interrupt the Footie biased anti-mount rhetorical circle jerk.

I think you’re just objectively wrong is the problem. Again earlier in this thread it took 10 foot 17 seconds to kill a mount. In an actual group fight you can’t dedicate 17 seconds to a mounted or you will wipe. And before you say death hand keep in mind I’m probably the best with that spell to date

 

[Rhodri_Taliesin]

I think you’re just objectively wrong is the problem.

The topic is entirely subjective.

Again earlier in this thread it took 10 foot 17 seconds to kill a mount. In an actual group fight you can’t dedicate 17 seconds to a mounted or you will wipe. And before you say death hand keep in mind I’m probably the best with that spell to date

If you've seen one video clip you've seen them all. I know from countless experiences of fighting people in this game that you can't just compare things in a vacuum. The issues come down to group cohesion, preparedness, and skill. If you can't keep your group nice and tight, you're going to have a hard time killing anyone. Period.

If you aren't prepared for the various threats you'll face out there, whether they be infantry, mages, mounteds, magic, pets. If you don't have the hard and soft counters to deal with them, then you failed yourself and your group by not being prepared. We know who our enemies are, we know what they usually field, we also know how we can counter them. Making excuses does nothing to help your argument on the matter.

and lastly, if you don't have the skill or ability to deal with some playstyles or some players, you're just going to have a bad time.

Frankly, I think it's a joke that some people are so absolutely focused on the foot infantry v foot infantry paradigm of this game that they completely disregard that anyone else had different playstyles that they built around dealing with those kinds of players.

 

[Kavu]

Let me tie a rope to my spear so I can reel the poor bastard back in after I spear him for the 15th time and he tries to ride away. Fixed.

But in all seriousness,

If you aren't prepared for the various threats you'll face out there, whether they be infantry, mages, mounteds, magic, pets. If you don't have the hard and soft counters to deal with them, then you failed yourself and your group by not being prepared. We know who our enemies are, we know what they usually field, we also know how we can counter them. Making excuses does nothing to help your argument on the matter.

I love your anti-scrub mentality, but at the same time, it's easy to see how people can become frustrated when most of their play doesn't involve bringing a full party with every weapon needed to deal with every situation, and when it goes from simply being EASIER to stop a particular unit with a given strategy to outright impossible to stop the unit without that exact strategy, you drift into rock-paper-scissors territory. That shit has never been fun. You're right that it's fine for unbalanced matchups to exist! That absolutely adds some flavor to combat and a need for mixed-unit-tactics in larger scale warfare... but its a pain in the neck for every day skirmishes if you can't reasonably solve a problem with the tools you have available and statted up.

If someone comes to a fight with a polesword, they want to be able to kill people if they're statted and personally skilled in its use. They don't want to watch the same horseman ride away after slashing them close to death 5 times in a row, because they didn't bring a giant copper maul. From the mounted side of things, it's equally annoying for foots to repeatedly retreat into a pile of rocks or a building. It would be nice for more tools for breaking stalemates, both for the mounted and the foot fighters aside from both parties just staring at each other until someone gets bored and logs out.

Frankly, I think it's a joke that some people are so absolutely focused on the foot infantry v foot infantry paradigm of this game that they completely disregard that anyone else had different playstyles that they built around dealing with those kinds of players.

I think the foot vs. mounted is just the most noticeable disconnect. It's often annoying for both sides, and its really apparent and frustrating when the matchup plays out in a way nobody really gets satisfaction from. You're right though that there has been an awful lot of purism and a lack of empathy in play causing people not to understand the other side. Not unlike the red vs. blue murdercount debates.

 

[barcode]

and lastly, if you don't have the skill or ability to deal with some playstyles or some players, you're just going to have a bad time.

Frankly, I think it's a joke that some people are so absolutely focused on the foot infantry v foot infantry paradigm of this game that they completely disregard that anyone else had different playstyles that they built around dealing with those kinds of players.

IMO the MC part of this is discussion can be ok. high damage, mobility, i get it. an honest question tho, how do you feel mounts should be balanced?

should it be possible for the highest hp mount to also be the fastest with no downsides? (kind of a trick question, since if you say yes to this, i think theres nothing further to discuss)

honestly put yourself in SV's shoes and design a 'balanced' mount system that accomodates various playstyles. mounted archery, combat, magery, and non-pvp roles like transporting/adventuring/travelling where the priority may be simply to escape combat focused players. should it be possible for them to escape? should combat focused toons have to make hard decisions about their mount's characteristics in order to 'catch' these other players?

-barcode

 

[Teknique]

The topic is entirely subjective.



If you've seen one video clip you've seen them all. I know from countless experiences of fighting people in this game that you can't just compare things in a vacuum. The issues come down to group cohesion, preparedness, and skill. If you can't keep your group nice and tight, you're going to have a hard time killing anyone. Period.

If you aren't prepared for the various threats you'll face out there, whether they be infantry, mages, mounteds, magic, pets. If you don't have the hard and soft counters to deal with them, then you failed yourself and your group by not being prepared. We know who our enemies are, we know what they usually field, we also know how we can counter them. Making excuses does nothing to help your argument on the matter.

and lastly, if you don't have the skill or ability to deal with some playstyles or some players, you're just going to have a bad time.

Frankly, I think it's a joke that some people are so absolutely focused on the foot infantry v foot infantry paradigm of this game that they completely disregard that anyone else had different playstyles that they built around dealing with those kinds of players.

You're right you can't just compare things in a vacuum. When you compare mounted's ability to move the fastest in the game, hit the hardest in the game, have the most HP in the game, carry the most weight in the game while pveing, kill the most monsters solo in the game, have the highest solo survivability in the game, and require the least amount of armor slots in the game (only head torso legs boots more or less). You can OBJECTIVELY say it is too strong.

I also play mounted please tell me what you think my deficits are in understanding and or skill level that i'm assessing this completely wrong.

Also just because I can kill mounteds without much trouble, doesn't mean its balanced

 

[Maxstor]

you will play Mo2 max?

yeah Amigo I will be in MO2 for sure

 

[Maxstor]

IMO the MC part of this is discussion can be ok. high damage, mobility, i get it. an honest question tho, how do you feel mounts should be balanced?

should it be possible for the highest hp mount to also be the fastest with no downsides? (kind of a trick question, since if you say yes to this, i think theres nothing further to discuss)

honestly put yourself in SV's shoes and design a 'balanced' mount system that accomodates various playstyles. mounted archery, combat, magery, and non-pvp roles like transporting/adventuring/travelling where the priority may be simply to escape combat focused players. should it be possible for them to escape? should combat focused toons have to make hard decisions about their mount's characteristics in order to 'catch' these other players?

-barcode

easy way of balancing mounted warfare vs foot fighters is that its not just the blunt damage that dismounts but any high damage hit would dismount be it slashing or piercing to horse damage and maybe make blunt only dismount only on rider hits. Thing is bred warhorses like bulls toward the end of MO1 balancing was okay they had lower hp where one dismount could mean death for horse almost always and they didn't feel easy to control anymore cause of how stopping changed while riding and also yeah naturally training horses to become stronger and faster is good and okay, have you ever heard of destriers? aka real life bullhorses of war. Other thing they can do is to increase stamina usage by stronger horses so as they go faster they use much more stamina than usual their hp is fine at 125 which ppl won't be able to get that easily in MO2 early on at least. But like I said one small change in all damage types allowed to dismount horse itself would make foot fighters easily fight mounteds and I've played mounted and foot for years. But I know one thing for sure and it's a fact 98% of people crying about mounteds are people that never played mounted and if you don't play and know how something works you won't be able to fight against it. Its proven and I've seen many times that mounted main players who played on their foot fighters often carried dismounters and know how to fight a mounted when to start parrying where to go how to hit etc. I know from myself I never had any problem with any mounted. Problem is people like to bitch about stuff they lose against and not work on themselves instead they like to say oh I died to this so its OP plz nerf but not to say oh I died to this mounted let me watch my recordings and see my mistakes and maybe bring a dismounter weapon along or take better decisions next time lets improve myself and becoming a better fighter. but sadly most people won't do the latter and find it way easier to just bitch about something they lose to.

 

[ElPerro]

easy way of balancing mounted warfare vs foot fighters is that its not just the blunt damage that dismounts but any high damage hit would dismount be it slashing or piercing to horse damage and maybe make blunt only dismount only on rider hits. Thing is bred warhorses like bulls toward the end of MO1 balancing was okay they had lower hp where one dismount could mean death for horse almost always and they didn't feel easy to control anymore cause of how stopping changed while riding and also yeah naturally training horses to become stronger and faster is good and okay, have you ever heard of destriers? aka real life bullhorses of war. Other thing they can do is to increase stamina usage by stronger horses so as they go faster they use much more stamina than usual their hp is fine at 125 which ppl won't be able to get that easily in MO2 early on at least. But like I said one small change in all damage types allowed to dismount horse itself would make foot fighters easily fight mounteds and I've played mounted and foot for years. But I know one thing for sure and it's a fact 98% of people crying about mounteds are people that never played mounted and if you don't play and know how something works you won't be able to fight against it. Its proven and I've seen many times that mounted main players who played on their foot fighters often carried dismounters and know how to fight a mounted when to start parrying where to go how to hit etc. I know from myself I never had any problem with any mounted. Problem is people like to bitch about stuff they lose against and not work on themselves instead they like to say oh I died to this so its OP plz nerf but not to say oh I died to this mounted let me watch my recordings and see my mistakes and maybe bring a dismounter weapon along or take better decisions next time lets improve myself and becoming a better fighter. but sadly most people won't do the latter and find it way easier to just bitch about something they lose to.

Destriers werent the strongest AND fastest horses tho, they bred other horses for travel or light cavalry. They would be closer to the normal bullhorses spawned near MK.

There was never any substantial nerf to horse hp, theres a video in this thread where it takes 10 people like 20 seconds to kill a mount when dismounted, I wouldnt say thats balanced lol

I honestly dont think the answer is more dismounts. You think its fun getting stund for like 10 seconds each time your dismounted? Id prefer just removing stuns altogether and balancing mounts properly, it would probably end up with a more fun combat for both mounted and foot.

 

[Kavu]

Destriers werent the strongest AND fastest horses tho, they bred other horses for travel or light cavalry. They would be closer to the normal bullhorses spawned near MK.

There was never any substantial nerf to horse hp, theres a video in this thread where it takes 10 people like 20 seconds to kill a mount when dismounted, I wouldnt say thats balanced lol

I honestly dont think the answer is more dismounts. You think its fun getting stund for like 10 seconds each time your dismounted? Id prefer just removing stuns altogether and balancing mounts properly, it would probably end up with a more fun combat for both mounted and foot.

More dismounts, less dismount stun sounds like a lot more fun. Less time where nobody can do anything overall always feels better. Also creates that moment of "Ah now you stand between me and my horse" and both people have to make some interesting choices in that moment.

 

[Maxstor]

There was never any substantial nerf to horse hp, theres a video in this thread where it takes 10 people like 20 seconds to kill a mount when dismounted, I wouldnt say thats balanced lol

Sorry but if it takes 10 people 20 seconds to kill 1 horse they are garbage tier.. and here is how MO works and it's a fact be it foot fighter or mounted the more numbers the less efficiency. Meaning there will be more misses more friendly fire and so on. Honestly it only and only takes 2 good foot fighters to kill a dismounted players horse where they don't handle hit a standing horse nor miss and can clean hit it in the body and head. and you know it better than everyone else. Last patch 125 bull horses iirc had 425 HP which is 5 proper swings which can be even done solo if done properly to horse head which is massive. Getting that horse to 0 is not also the challenge if you get a horse to low hp the mounted won't be able to perform anymore cause he will lose it. But yeah saying it took 10 ppl 20 secs to kill a horse is a bit you know lame coming from someone skilled like el perro. I think if all dmg types that can do high damage to horse should dismount will make it much easier for foot fighter to fight against mounteds and it will be both logical to get dismounted with a clean hit and also balance wise. I played mostly mounted and I was the first one to welcome the EQ change back in the day that gave mages a tool to combat mounteds I think this change I mentioned is also good to give something to foot fighters. Because I'm not blindly support mounted I loved it when they nerfed mounted handle hits cause it used to do more damage than normal swings and it took away skills from mounted but after the change many mounteds were garbage tier cause they couldn't land normal hits they would get near mages and get EQed etc. I like how that change forced mounteds to be shock troops rather than main assault units. People should adapt and change train themselves and get better rather than complain all the time about someone using a crit dagger or someone using a mounted combat or someone is a foot archer with no stam bow. Because they put time and effort into becoming that and mastering that class lets say and now reaping the reward of that. So most people go cry to devs to nerf them. while real chads and pvpers adapt and think through and train and eventually they can combat it and make it work.

 

[Slammington Unchained]

Sorry but if it takes 10 people 20 seconds to kill 1 horse they are garbage tier.. and here is how MO works and it's a fact be it foot fighter or mounted the more numbers the less efficiency. Meaning there will be more misses more friendly fire and so on. Honestly it only and only takes 2 good foot fighters to kill a dismounted players horse where they don't handle hit a standing horse nor miss and can clean hit it in the body and head. and you know it better than everyone else. Last patch 125 bull horses iirc had 425 HP which is 5 proper swings which can be even done solo if done properly to horse head which is massive. Getting that horse to 0 is not also the challenge if you get a horse to low hp the mounted won't be able to perform anymore cause he will lose it. But yeah saying it took 10 ppl 20 secs to kill a horse is a bit you know lame coming from someone skilled like el perro. I think if all dmg types that can do high damage to horse should dismount will make it much easier for foot fighter to fight against mounteds and it will be both logical to get dismounted with a clean hit and also balance wise. I played mostly mounted and I was the first one to welcome the EQ change back in the day that gave mages a tool to combat mounteds I think this change I mentioned is also good to give something to foot fighters. Because I'm not blindly support mounted I loved it when they nerfed mounted handle hits cause it used to do more damage than normal swings and it took away skills from mounted but after the change many mounteds were garbage tier cause they couldn't land normal hits they would get near mages and get EQed etc. I like how that change forced mounteds to be shock troops rather than main assault units. People should adapt and change train themselves and get better rather than complain all the time about someone using a crit dagger or someone using a mounted combat or someone is a foot archer with no stam bow. Because they put time and effort into becoming that and mastering that class lets say and now reaping the reward of that. So most people go cry to devs to nerf them. while real chads and pvpers adapt and think through and train and eventually they can combat it and make it work.

^ That's basically what I saw. Seriously, if you guys wana rant walls of text go write for the New York Times. This forum is too hardcore for you.

 

[Speznat]

i just hopw that they dont make content for mounted archer only like sarducca. farming with any other build on sarducca is just idiotic mounted archer is the only one woth it thats sad.

 

[Maxstor]

i just hopw that they dont make content for mounted archer only like sarducca. farming with any other build on sarducca is just idiotic mounted archer is the only one woth it thats sad.

yeah I agree there should be a way for all forms to be able to farm efficiently but I think Mounted Archery is just naturally easier because of the kite and kill method