War of the Roses

All discussion on the new game War of the Roses should go here

I'll start, what weapons do you prefer to use?

It's far too laggy for me at the moment. Not sure what's happening.

I tried out the beta some time ago, but it was rather laggy, too, for me. I liked foot knights with halberds best, because the controls were too shaky for me to use ranged weapons. Graphics looked very nice and there was an incredible amount of details invested into the weapons and their characteristics.

I am atrocious at the melee combat on it, I rarely hit. I can hit better with a crossbow than a bow (and even then I only hit about 20% of the time) so i'm finding it very difficult, but enjoyable. It's not too laggy either.

Tubby McChubbles wrote:

It's far too laggy for me at the moment. Not sure what's happening.

This

I've played this and... the learning curve is steep.

At the moment most everyone just sorta runs around swinging. It's very handy for those of us that know how to block. >.>

Chaotic gameplay is the only way to describe my newbie impression.

But, any game that features Warwick the Kingmaker is a good game in my book. /firmnod

I've gradually gotten better at it since I first started, I am now decent with a crossbow and can beat Footmen in melee. Footknights still do me in though

After having the opportunities to play it a bit more, I'm finding it far less broken/chaotic than it appears the first time.

Basically, rushing into crowds of people and swinging is what a lot of people want to do. Don't do this. (duh)

When that doesn't happen, people complain that every weapon is for skill-less noobs. Spears are too powerful, claymores are unbalanced (they are, actually but yeah), people just 'spam' or so the complaints go.

It's very much a game about blocking as opposed to striking. When fighting multiple people, you have to position yourself so that one of the swing-'spammers' is constantly hitting their ally.

The main issue that leads to the complaints beyond the typical 'I lost so it's broken' mentality is the various advantages and disadvantages of reach. Spears and pole arms require you to be a distance away, except for thrust attacks. The reason I say the claymore is unbalanced is mainly due to this... every inch of the reach is capable of normal damage, unlike a polearm that you must hit with the metal head (which makes sense). It gives it a huge advantage over the spears, polearms and shorter weapons. I've yet to be beaten with the claymore in a one-on-one setting, and have only beaten a few people using it... a shield and shorter sword are the way to go to counter it. It probably needs a small damage nerf to bring it into line with being of the same relative effectiveness of every other long weapon.

Lancing isn't as unbalanced as they try to make it sound. If you charge into someone, you'll insta-kill them but 4/5 times you'll also break your lance. If you don't charge them, you'll do great damage and probably not break your lance quickly. It makes it work fairly well.

Ranged weapons are awesome. They're tough to use, but the rewards are amazing.

I agree with everything Ana has said. The 2handed sword is unbalanced but i'm starting to get used to fighting them and can win 50% of the time with them in melee. Also, ranged weapons are indeed amazing.