The Problem with Mounted Combat, and How to Improve It.
- Thread starter Viknuss
- Start date
No they need to be buffed and nerfed at the same time.
The Problem with Mounted Combat, and How to Improve It.
I think everyone can agree that the Mounted Combat play style in Mortal Online 2 is awful. It's cumbersome, slow, unenjoyable, and unrewarding. If you think the Mounted Combat class is fine as it is, then I imagine you haven't tried it yet. Educate yourself. The Mounted Combat in Mortal Online...
mortalonline2.com
This is your problem, you want to play a tank in a medieval game xD
They could add thresholds for speed or stamina on the horses based on how much health those horses have. If there horse goes down to 3/4s health then they cant 4th gear and or have a 4th of the stam gray bared on the horse as a example.
If they game horses threshholds I would be ok with more health on horses. Something like a 400 health horse taking 4-5 arrows, A fulm and MP, or 3-4 melee hits would but it at like 2/3s health. At 2/3s I would as for no 3rd gear and 1/3 of their stamina greybarred.
For healing I think horses should be healed while ridden but you can have it to where the horses cant be healed some seconds after taking damage. You keep the convenience of not getting off while preventing healing during fights. Like 5-8 seconds like your horse has been corrupted. A healing spell takes that long to channel so its not a hard stop to healing in fights.
These might help fix the issues of low risk with mounted as you extend the time that FFs can affect mounted as they try to go reset.
Tanks have 5 people controlling them. So when someone says that mounted is counterable you just need 5 people v 1 mounted the really do seem to comparing a tank to medieval Calvary.
If they game horses threshholds I would be ok with more health on horses. Something like a 400 health horse taking 4-5 arrows, A fulm and MP, or 3-4 melee hits would but it at like 2/3s health. At 2/3s I would as for no 3rd gear and 1/3 of their stamina greybarred.
For healing I think horses should be healed while ridden but you can have it to where the horses cant be healed some seconds after taking damage. You keep the convenience of not getting off while preventing healing during fights. Like 5-8 seconds like your horse has been corrupted. A healing spell takes that long to channel so its not a hard stop to healing in fights.
These might help fix the issues of low risk with mounted as you extend the time that FFs can affect mounted as they try to go reset.
Tanks have 5 people controlling them. So when someone says that mounted is counterable you just need 5 people v 1 mounted the really do seem to comparing a tank to medieval Calvary.
I don't even know where to begin. I see a lot of mindless shit talk, and uninformed opinions.
Let me break it down even further for the fuckin idiots on the thread.
I don't want MC to be the god class. It wasn't in MO 1, it isn't in MO 2.
Just because you are on a horse, does not mean you should do half of the damage you are capable of doing on foot.
My Foot Fighter can hit someone in Bone Armor for 90+ with a Tungsteel Sword.
I take that same sword, and hit the same person, while riding a horse, and I hit them for 40 or less. Balance?
I take a Tungsteel Spear, an END GAME weapon, and I hit someone in bone armor PERFECTLY in the head, and I hit them for less that 50.
With my Foot Fighter, I can swing on someone in bone armor, with my tungsteel sword, and kill them in less than 4 hits, and around 6 seconds.
With my MC, I get to piddle around and miss with clunky dumb animations, and get perfect parried, until my one attack gets through for 20 damage because I was only going 2nd speed. Then I get frustrated and dismount, to just kill the fucker on foot, or I ride off.
The MC is not even on the same level of ability as a Foot Fighter. You don't want mounted online? Congratulations, there's no reason to play an MC. The class is obsolete.
If anyone is playing MC in it's current state now, they are wasting their time. You have MA's and FM's running all over the place dropping huge damage from mount, and you
have MC's barely scratching people in the worst fuckin armor in the game.
An MC is supposed to be dominant in the flat area's. That's how it's always worked with Cavalry. Historically, Objectively, Mechanically, any fuckin way you smooth brains need
to rationalize it. An MC is SUPPOSED to have advantage over footies in the flats.
Now here's the good news for footies. Majority of the map is littered with shit you can play on to avoid an MC. Forests, Hills, Choke Points, Rocks, Mountains, Rivers, Cities, Camps, Valleys, whatever you can see, you can likely use to your advantage to escape an MC.
Here's some more good news for footies. You can perfect block every fuckin thing that MC can throw at you. With almost no effort. It's painfully slow to attack from horseback in MO 2, and even you fuckin idiots could manage to perfect block every attack. Don't even have to waste your stam doing. Doesn't matter if he charges you 600+ speed with the best lance you can make in game, you block down, you parry it for zero damage.
Doesn't matter that FOOT FIGHTERS get chip damage based off strength. That doesn't matter. An MC shouldn't be able to do it right?
Wrong. That isn't balance, that's you pissing and shitting yourself that your OP foot fighter class might have to work to fight against mounteds. Rather than this baby tier shit you're complaining about already.
MC is currently a fucking joke, a waste of primary points. It needs to be fixed.
Let me break it down even further for the fuckin idiots on the thread.
I don't want MC to be the god class. It wasn't in MO 1, it isn't in MO 2.
Just because you are on a horse, does not mean you should do half of the damage you are capable of doing on foot.
My Foot Fighter can hit someone in Bone Armor for 90+ with a Tungsteel Sword.
I take that same sword, and hit the same person, while riding a horse, and I hit them for 40 or less. Balance?
I take a Tungsteel Spear, an END GAME weapon, and I hit someone in bone armor PERFECTLY in the head, and I hit them for less that 50.
With my Foot Fighter, I can swing on someone in bone armor, with my tungsteel sword, and kill them in less than 4 hits, and around 6 seconds.
With my MC, I get to piddle around and miss with clunky dumb animations, and get perfect parried, until my one attack gets through for 20 damage because I was only going 2nd speed. Then I get frustrated and dismount, to just kill the fucker on foot, or I ride off.
The MC is not even on the same level of ability as a Foot Fighter. You don't want mounted online? Congratulations, there's no reason to play an MC. The class is obsolete.
If anyone is playing MC in it's current state now, they are wasting their time. You have MA's and FM's running all over the place dropping huge damage from mount, and you
have MC's barely scratching people in the worst fuckin armor in the game.
An MC is supposed to be dominant in the flat area's. That's how it's always worked with Cavalry. Historically, Objectively, Mechanically, any fuckin way you smooth brains need
to rationalize it. An MC is SUPPOSED to have advantage over footies in the flats.
Now here's the good news for footies. Majority of the map is littered with shit you can play on to avoid an MC. Forests, Hills, Choke Points, Rocks, Mountains, Rivers, Cities, Camps, Valleys, whatever you can see, you can likely use to your advantage to escape an MC.
Here's some more good news for footies. You can perfect block every fuckin thing that MC can throw at you. With almost no effort. It's painfully slow to attack from horseback in MO 2, and even you fuckin idiots could manage to perfect block every attack. Don't even have to waste your stam doing. Doesn't matter if he charges you 600+ speed with the best lance you can make in game, you block down, you parry it for zero damage.
Doesn't matter that FOOT FIGHTERS get chip damage based off strength. That doesn't matter. An MC shouldn't be able to do it right?
Wrong. That isn't balance, that's you pissing and shitting yourself that your OP foot fighter class might have to work to fight against mounteds. Rather than this baby tier shit you're complaining about already.
MC is currently a fucking joke, a waste of primary points. It needs to be fixed.
"My Foot Fighter can hit someone in Bone Armor for 90+ with a Tungsteel Sword. I take that same sword, and hit the same person, while riding a horse, and I hit them for 40 or less. Balance?"
Yes. You have mobility, you also (in a way) have a separate HP bar that prevents you from losing that mobility (Until its depleted / killed, i.e. the horse).
MC did hit that kind of damage in MO1, and even at one point in the games lifespan it hit more then that; there was even a video linked of the balance when people were getting one-shot with mauls. If you argue realism then sure your point stands, but this is luckily a game.
"With my Foot Fighter, I can swing on someone in bone armor, with my tungsteel sword, and kill them in less than 4 hits, and around 6 seconds."
This isn't a true sense of how that works. We both know that if someone just stood still and let you hit them, then sure; but this kind of logic is the same as hitting training dummies and saying a weapon is good then using it in a fight and realizing it has flaws.
"An MC is supposed to be dominant in the flat area's. That's how it's always worked with Cavalry. Historically, Objectively, Mechanically, any fuckin way you smooth brains need to rationalize it. An MC is SUPPOSED to have advantage over footies in the flats."
Yes, and we've seen it in MO1. It was horrible to play against, and it was incredibly easy to play.
"Here's some more good news for footies. You can perfect block every fuckin thing that MC can throw at you. With almost no effort. It's painfully slow to attack from horseback in MO 2, and even you fuckin idiots could manage to perfect block every attack. Don't even have to waste your stam doing. Doesn't matter if he charges you 600+ speed with the best lance you can make in game, you block down, you parry it for zero damage."
I'd counter this by saying - then why does any parry / block matter? If you're going to do damage through someone who timed their block to parry / block you, what's the point in doing it then? To take less damage? It was like that in MO1 and mounteds -still- dominated, whether they didn't have eyes on them or not. This isn't about making the game more realistic, but more balanced. You trade off damage for your mobility.
I 100% believe there should be chip-through damage when a player hits another player on foot, depending on the weapon type and strength; but if you did that for mounteds we'd be right back to the "original" system.
"Wrong. That isn't balance, that's you pissing and shitting yourself that your OP foot fighter class might have to work to fight against mounteds. Rather than this baby tier shit you're complaining about already."
A majority of players already did work against mounteds in MO1. I think it's ridiculous that players who wanted to PvP even had to take multiple measures to lessen the likely hood of an MC being successful. Earthquakes, bows, and some people even went as far as to have fist weapons to guarantee dismounts.
I haven't touched MC in MO2, but if what you say is true about the animations being terrible then my all means I agree that they need to be better - but I find there is a repeating pattern in MO2 when it comes to combat & animations. They're all slow and clunky, and just a mess to engage with.
I also think weapons are hilariously imbalanced given the fact there is even less weapon choices then in MO1 (and I mean weapons that actually can perform, not the 'number of choices' you have.)
One handed weapons need a significant buff across the board in damage and speed, Star Vault has always had this weird fixation that two handed weapons must dominate one handed weapons. Do people even remember a majority of people in MO1 running around with a one handed sword, mace, or axe? Of course you don't - they were awful, just like they are awful in MO2.
To me this sounds more like a problem with the actual fluidity of the gameplay not so much the ""balance"" of it. If it played smoother, responded better, and wasn't so clunky like everything else in the game it would probably feel a lot better - and I believe 100% MC should be a support role then a "tank". You are to attack those splintered off or not paying attention, not just run over everyone as you like.
Not to mention if you have at least one MC in a group consisting of both MC and Foot fighters. A group of foot fighters that are forced to run away is where MC will shine even more. Even if his hits are getting parried, the other foot fighters on your side will catch up every time the enemy foot fighters have to stop to parry or walk backwards to keep eyes on the MC. If they blindly run away without blocking they'll die real quick. Once friendly foot fighters are engaged MC also shines as they can catch people already engaged. Weave in and out and between targets much much faster than the speediest foot fighter can, with a giant hitbox that can soak up extra hits, too. And if by some chance you or your mount gets hit more than you are comfortable with you have a much easier time retreating. Not to mention mounts are pretty easy to fling heals at, if you have mages or hybrids in your group.
Its really hard to balance mounts in a game like this. If they are extra health pools, with added mobility AND increasing your damage. Then they are clearly op. And as much as people say that they are meant to be strong in flat terrain, well they are strong in pretty much any terrain other than really tall slopes/mountains. Forests are easy to navigate in, even without practice. I have suggested in the past that mounted combat should be stronger than it is currently but it should have active deterrent to using them in any other scenario than open fields or forested areas with few trees. Anywhere mountainy, hilly or densely brushed area should be outright avoided. If mounted people run into an enemy in an area where they are disadvantage they have a lot easier time to get away than someone on foot being caught in terrain where the mounted combat professions are strong. If they really want to fight an enemy in such an area. They can dismount. Oh you built your character entirely around being a wheelchair build? well thats really all on you isnt it?
With out the melee skill of that weapon, With only 100 in MC I could hit for 80s with a maul or sword from horse. IDK where the whole I hit for less damage as a MC comes from. All you need to do is stay in 2 gear to keep damage that is high. 3 speed is more then FF damage.
Snasen who is very good said the animations for MC were like MO1 and very bad. I dont personally see that. Never touched mounted in MO1. In this game its all about timing with mounted melee once you learn the animations and were to aim when passing a player.
Snasen who is very good said the animations for MC were like MO1 and very bad. I dont personally see that. Never touched mounted in MO1. In this game its all about timing with mounted melee once you learn the animations and were to aim when passing a player.
Needs proper dismount mechanics Both ways.
Everything else is up to debate but i am sure we can all agree on this.
You know Big axe hits horse and the guy goes flying off hitting the dirt and laying there for up to 7 seconds depending on his current armor weight.
Everything else is up to debate but i am sure we can all agree on this.
You know Big axe hits horse and the guy goes flying off hitting the dirt and laying there for up to 7 seconds depending on his current armor weight.
If you want to talk historically.
Historically heavy cavalry were used in a shock capacity, they were essentially used as a burst of weight to penetrate and try break the enemy line. The weight of both the rider and horse armor really tired horses out quick, even specifically bred war horses. So they were left for an opportune time to penetrate an opening whether that was a gap in the enemy line or targeting the rear or flank. If heavy cavalry didn't achieve in their goal of breaking the enemy line and causing a rout, they became bogged down in infantry where they lose majority of their advantages. They generally took a lot of casualties in the extended melee and even more so trying to disengage.
Now light cavalry avoided melee unless it was killing routing enemy. They had limited armor, but the speed to cycle in and out and harass the enemy with javelins and arrows. Their downside is they were quite vulnerable to return fire and melee.
Large two handed swords, axes and super giant clown hammers weren't used either, because one swing would send the rider kissing the dirt due to weight distribution. What also sent a rider kissing the dirt, was horses or the rider being hit/stabbed with weapons while the horse charged at them(momentum goes both ways).
In MO1, Perfect stat horses with near unlimited stamina, the speed of speedy Gonzales, that could turn on a dime - While wearing armor, while having a rider with heavy armor wielding some stupid 2H Axe or clown hammer, that somehow could scale cliffs, while chugging cheap potions. And you reference MO1 in how mounted balance should be? Yeh, nah mate.
You want to be a strong boi, then sacrifice speed and mobility. You want to be fast, then sacrifice health and damage. How it should be, and I hope SV stick to their word and promises to how they plan for mounted and mounts.
Historically heavy Calvary did ride their war horse around to travel. They either had a travel pony or walked. They would also have multiple horses to replace when one of their horses became tired. While they were forming up and waiting to start their operations they wouldn't even be sitting on the horse.
Like 2 patches ago. Havent seen any changes in patchnotes to say other wise.
I understood that damage now scaled with momentum so that you do hardly any damage in second gear. It's only what I was told though, I dumped mc awhile ago for MA and MM as being far more effective.
Last time I messed with it which was after that patch 2nd gear was comparable to FF damage with only 100 in MC not the weapon skill its self. At third gear was higher then FF damage.
I've done quite a bit of lancing at this point and I can say... it feels distinctly underpowered. The hits you get off have some pretty big numbers but even if you successfully strike your target every time you charge the setup time is too long for it to really feel like you're playing a full character that provides the full value of an actual player to their team.
That being said, I've decided my previous stance (It should do way more damage with a single hit) isn't actually the solution.
We know trample is coming in eventually. We know currently desert horses with low-weight armors are the meta for all mounted builds. And I think that's where the real solution can be found.
1. Heavy horse builds need a massive buff. People have massive concerns about loading too much power onto a build that also can cross the map faster than any other build but spirits. Heavy horses don't really fall under this concern as they're not going to be much faster than someone with a 25 PP horse and no controlled riding. Infact I can confirm that I easily keep pace with steppe horses in armor ridden by someone with 100 swift riding if I remove the armor from my desert on my 0 controlled riding character.
2. Mounted combat needs to provide more value to group fights. But making it 1 shot people has it's own drawbacks.
Based on that, I think the role mounted combat should primarily play is the role of inflicting moderate amounts of damage to large numbers of players via trample. But I also think trample damage need heavily favor heavier mounts with heavier armor. In fact, I would say plowing into people with your mount should trigger a mass vs. mass effect that figures in the weight of the mount and it's armor vs. the weight of the target and their armor.
So while a jotun in heavy steel armor plowing a min-height veela mage should wreck their day, a desert horse in silk light armor plowing into a thursar in full steel might actually damage the desert horse as much as it damages the thursar.
If you do that. Jotuns and heavy armor would rise in popularity as MCs now seek to plow into clusters of enemies on heavier mounts, rather than one-shotting squishes... or being darn near useless. As while lances look amazing, they can do little currently that a MA cannot do better. And I say this as someone whose played a very comparable lancer and MA build. The MA build simply felt stronger.
That being said, I've decided my previous stance (It should do way more damage with a single hit) isn't actually the solution.
We know trample is coming in eventually. We know currently desert horses with low-weight armors are the meta for all mounted builds. And I think that's where the real solution can be found.
1. Heavy horse builds need a massive buff. People have massive concerns about loading too much power onto a build that also can cross the map faster than any other build but spirits. Heavy horses don't really fall under this concern as they're not going to be much faster than someone with a 25 PP horse and no controlled riding. Infact I can confirm that I easily keep pace with steppe horses in armor ridden by someone with 100 swift riding if I remove the armor from my desert on my 0 controlled riding character.
2. Mounted combat needs to provide more value to group fights. But making it 1 shot people has it's own drawbacks.
Based on that, I think the role mounted combat should primarily play is the role of inflicting moderate amounts of damage to large numbers of players via trample. But I also think trample damage need heavily favor heavier mounts with heavier armor. In fact, I would say plowing into people with your mount should trigger a mass vs. mass effect that figures in the weight of the mount and it's armor vs. the weight of the target and their armor.
So while a jotun in heavy steel armor plowing a min-height veela mage should wreck their day, a desert horse in silk light armor plowing into a thursar in full steel might actually damage the desert horse as much as it damages the thursar.
If you do that. Jotuns and heavy armor would rise in popularity as MCs now seek to plow into clusters of enemies on heavier mounts, rather than one-shotting squishes... or being darn near useless. As while lances look amazing, they can do little currently that a MA cannot do better. And I say this as someone whose played a very comparable lancer and MA build. The MA build simply felt stronger.
Last edited:
Why should their be more reward for mounted when there is almost no risk from foot players?
If you are holding anything bigger than a spear, in your hands, yes.
- If you're holding something bigger than a spear, and designed to dismount rather than kill, and it's couched against you properly, you should get through a run at someone without a broken anything.
Spears are not lances, though this
is sometimes called a lance, and you can hunt bison / wisent with it.
That is not what a lance in Mortal games looks like, though. In Mortal terms,
"That's not a lance;
This is a lance."
@Najwalaylah What is in game as lances are tournement lances and not what was used in warfare.
Lances in warfare were just 8-10 foot spears sometimes with a hand guard that made couching easier.
Lances in warfare were just 8-10 foot spears sometimes with a hand guard that made couching easier.
Just as I said.
Just as @Emdash said before me. It's a jousting tool.
The lances in-game for Mortal then & now are not what you hunt with, for animals, or use to kill your fellow men.