Saturday-Saint wrote:Right. Some things ought to be banned because they are so powerful that "just counter them" is not a reasonable argument. In Dark Souls this might apply to something like TWoD, but definitely not spears.
I never said that it wasn't reasonable. I literally said that sometimes is just doesn't always work.
Also, where are you getting that banning thing from? Didn't I already say this? :
jaythibodeau wrote:
(That was an example of banning something, I don't literally mean to ban it.)
I literally made that whole Spear argument to explain that some things do indeed need to be banned. I can have the opinion that they should or that I dislike them, but that doesn't mean that they should be banned or that I would actually like to see them banned. They're fine without being banned. It's just that I don't have to like it.
Basically, I think they're OP. But to the extent of being bannable? No.
Saturday-Saint wrote:
This is what I mean when I say fantasy-world argument. In the real world low damage is an actual weakness that is not just magically made irrelevant because you chose to take your time or whatever. Or to put it this way: the longer the fight lasts, the more opportunities your opponent has to hit you. Damage is important because it controls the ratio of mistakes each player has to make in order to lose the match. E.G., spear guy fights Zweihander guy. Spear guy has to poke Zweihander guy a good 6 to 7 times to win probably. Zweihander guy lands one running R1 and BS's spear guy and now Spear guy has 300 HP left and any hit will kill him. Zwei running R1 is harder to land than Spear 2H R1, yes, but you only need to land it like 1 time. Spear guy has to land the 2H R1 several times.
I never said that damage was irrelevant. Nor did i state that it wasn't a weakness. I merely said that you could just prolong the fight to cover that weakness. While yes, the whole Zweihander vs Spear argument makes sense, it didn't exactly show how the Spear isn't all that fantastic. With your reasoning, the two are on near equal grounds with the Zweihander being better slightly because of high damage. If anything, speed makes up for damage by far. Besides, you can't compare the two if you aren't taking all of the factors they have into account.
Let's say for instance that the Spear user is poking behind a Greatshield. How the heck is a Zweihander running R1 gonna stop that?
Saturday-Saint wrote:
If they want to deal damage then at some point they have to attack, and that means they stop walking backwards. Yeah they can just never ever attack and walk backwards forever, but then you're free to pressure them as much as you want and eventually they're going to die. In the real world, the spear doesn't let you pressure for free, and he fights back, and he leaves holes in his game that you can find and exploit.
In the real world, you leave openings too. I think you forgot that there's
no weapon that lets you pressure for free, don't just take the Spear into account when making that statement. As I was saying before, a Spear sure can exploit your tactics as much as you can exploit him.
Honestly, I'd say that your statement is somewhat fantasy based instead. Since this is all under the assumption that a Spear user would be backing up the whole time. Last time I checked, not every Spear user simply just backs up as the enemy is, "free" to pressure them, as you had said.
Saturday-Saint wrote:
Nothing, it just happens to be a particularly effective move against shieldpoke.
Exactly. The Spear user can do that too. Zweihander running R1? roll BS. The roll BS is "particularly effective" against most things anyways.
Saturday-Saint wrote:
Most running attacks will win a trade with spear R1. Like I think everything that isn't dagger will be at an advantage? Also you end up in the spear user's face. They don't want you there, so they're going to try to roll away, which means you can...
Yes. A running attack would win against a Spear R1. I said pokes.
If you were talking about pokes, care to name a few good running attacks then? A good shield and some range with a decent Spear should hold out ok against most things.
Also, wrong on that last sentence there. You're assuming that they're rolling away, which they might. That would indeed be the desired situation for someone fighting a Spear user. But, what's stopping them from BSing you for those running R1s? Nothing. I'm pretty sure running R1s have their flaws too. They aren't the end-all to pokes.
Saturday-Saint wrote:
Baiting and punishing rolls is typically something you use to punish retreating opponents. Spears spend a lot of time retreating, leaving them open to roll-punishing.
Yes, but they can still do this exact same thing to you. Even then, this would be assuming that they're going to roll away a lot. Everyone rolls away at some point. I'm genuinely curious though, why would a Spear user retreat more?
Saturday-Saint wrote:
Again, fantasy-world argument. In the real world a tactic does not need to be indefensible in order for it to be worth using. It only needs to be a good answer to whatever problem you're facing. In fact, if any of these were indefensible, spears would be the worst weapons in the game. Sorry to say, beating people isn't as simple as looking at their weapon and picking the tactic that beats it. Frankly the game would be a lot more boring if it were.
I never said that it wasn't worth using, or that it needed to be indefensible. Sorry to say, but I never stated that it was as simple as looking at someone's weapon and picking the tactic that beats it. I've literally been saying that picking a single tactic to argue about doesn't matter, since you can talk about a counter tactic to that, or that a Spear user could even do the same thing. And so on, and so on.
However, you made it sound that way with your earlier statements. For example, when I said something about poking, you said that you could just use running R1s. I thought it wasn't that simple?
Saturday-Saint wrote:
Yes exactly, if they are as good as you are you don't get to win for free. I am not sure what about this notion perplexes you. If you out-perform them, you win. If you don't, you lose.
I
never said anything about getting a free win. I already said plenty of times that the Spear user has an advantage. Does it heighten his chance at winning if it is a better weapon? Yes. Does it equal a free win? Obviously not.
I'm well aware that the more skilled player wins. You don't have to reinforce that.
Anyways, I'd like to get back on topic before this devolves into, "What's OP and what's not". My main point is still about why things need to be banned to make something competitive. Such as stuff in Dark Souls.
Animaaal wrote:
Is this really turning into a "spear" conversation again?
Oh god, I hope not. I'm afraid that it is though. Looks like my point about Spears really rustled some jimmies. And I guess maybe the fact that I'm adding on to it...
by jaythibodeau Sun Apr 28, 2013 7:16 pm
. Discussing it is a way for me to validate my view of the weapon. For all I know, I could be wrong. But I won't know that until someone proves me wrong. Neither will the person complaining about something being cheap. If you don't think that certain tactic is unfair, prove why. 
