PDA

View Full Version : Vikings Will Win The Faction Rush Order



Vakris_One
03-01-2018, 08:18 PM
I'm calling it from now. Since the new Faction Rush order will be "balanced" in the same way the Faction War is ... "balanced" ... the smallest faction with the least amount of players will receive a huge bonus weighting to their score. The Vikings are currently the faction with the least amount of players therefore they will be the winners of this order.

Anyone else care to place their bets?

SlashingElbow
03-01-2018, 09:58 PM
Vikings are losing alot lately tho because all the unloyal backstabbers from other factions joined us..

Vakris_One
03-02-2018, 12:08 AM
Vikings are losing alot lately tho because all the unloyal backstabbers from other factions joined us..
Well the Vikings just won the first Campaign of the Faction War - I'm totally shocked and surprised by this unexpected turn of events! - so looks like the bonus weighting is still working just fine for the scandies.

Kelson27
03-02-2018, 12:11 AM
To be fair were were losing by a huge margin not 24 hours ago... I thought we didn't stand a chance until the last resolution.

Vakris_One
03-02-2018, 12:16 AM
As long as just half of the active Vikings log in and contribute 2-3 hours playtime worth of assets the Vikings can conquer any territory no matter how well defended it is. The active Samurai by contrast have to work the Faction War like it's their second job just to keep up.

Or as the devs would call it, "balanced".

SlashingElbow
03-02-2018, 01:09 AM
In all fairness in reality vikings would win also. Knights would be a challenge but the scrawny samurais with their breakable katanas would get eaten up by vikings

Hormly
03-02-2018, 02:48 AM
In all fairness in reality vikings would win also. Knights would be a challenge but the scrawny samurais with their breakable katanas would get eaten up by vikings

I endorse this message

Sissy weeb swords bend and break under the heft of the beardly man weapons wielded by the vikings

SlashingElbow
03-02-2018, 02:55 AM
Yep. The katana is nice for a fast little sucker slash but against real swords they break instantly

Devils-_-legacy
03-02-2018, 03:13 AM
Maybe but arnt Katanas designed to bend when force is applied it would be hard to get enough force necessary to do it vs a European sword the katana is pretty effective

Tundra 793
03-02-2018, 03:30 AM
Yep. The katana is nice for a fast little sucker slash but against real swords they break instantly


Maybe but arnt Katanas designed to bend when force is applied it would be hard to get enough force necessary to do it vs a European sword the katana is pretty effective

Historically speaking, Katanas in Feudal Japan would have been made with a special sort of iron native to Japan, which was of such a quality it earned the nickname "pig iron". They were objectively worse weapons than comperable European ones. Generally, they'd be considerably more brittle than other swords, and more prone to breaking or shattering. Hence why it takes such practice and discipline to wield them.

They could still slash and stab though, but against a European sword, the Katana and it's likes could shatter either when hitting an opponent's blade, or contact with armor or shields where a European sword could have enough flex to absorb such blows.

Fun fact; Movies often portray Katanas as being the pinnacle of sword making, in part because of the folding technique used, but in real life, you don't have to fold good steel. The Japanese swordmakers had to fold their steel to work out as many impurities as possible just to make the sword usable.

EvoX.
03-02-2018, 03:41 AM
Hopefully that's not the case, pretty sure we're all tired of the most unpopular faction winning everything because the system is designed that way.


In all fairness in reality vikings would win also. Knights would be a challenge but the scrawny samurais with their breakable katanas would get eaten up by vikings

Not even close to being true. Vikings, at least how they're portrayed in For Honor, would get absolutely slaughtered by the Knights. Neither they nor the Samurai can really compete with them in reality.

The_B0G_
03-02-2018, 03:45 AM
Historically speaking, Katanas in Feudal Japan would have been made with a special sort of iron native to Japan, which was of such a quality it earned the nickname "pig iron". They were objectively worse weapons than comperable European ones. Generally, they'd be considerably more brittle than other swords, and more prone to breaking or shattering. Hence why it takes such practice and discipline to wield them.

They could still slash and stab though, but against a European sword, the Katana and it's likes could shatter either when hitting an opponent's blade, or contact with armor or shields where a European sword could have enough flex to absorb such blows.

Fun fact; Movies often portray Katanas as being the pinnacle of sword making, in part because of the folding technique used, but in real life, you don't have to fold good steel. The Japanese swordmakers had to fold their steel to work out as many impurities as possible just to make the sword usable.

I did not know all this, thank you for your knowledge sir. I knew about European swords flexing/bending, did not know katanas were so brittle though, I thought they were the better sword.

SlashingElbow
03-02-2018, 03:49 AM
Thanks Tundra.. So tired of ppl thinking a brittle katana is the ultimate sword. They look great and feel good in your hands though

SlashingElbow
03-02-2018, 03:52 AM
Exo thats not true. The vikings were bigger stronger more ferocious and had nothing to lose. Knights would get smashed praying to their weak abrahamic god:) traitors of europe the knights..

Tundra 793
03-02-2018, 04:01 AM
I did not know all this, thank you for your knowledge sir. I knew about European swords flexing/bending, did not know katanas were so brittle though, I thought they were the better sword.

Glad to be of help. It's obviously never entirely black and white though, but Katanas are far from the magic super-swords Quentin Tarentino wants us to believe they are.


Thanks Tundra.. So tired of ppl thinking a brittle katana is the ultimate sword. They look great and feel good in your hands though

No problem, and they sure do.


The vikings were bigger stronger more ferocious and had nothing to lose. Knights would get smashed praying to their weak abrahamic god

Actually, the average height of a historical Viking was around 5'7ft, or 1'75 ish meters. Decent height sure, but hardly the fearless hairy giants of Skyrim fame. I kinda sorta recall having read a story or two wherein a European (possible English) commander did indeed insist on finishing prayers before engaging in battle with Viking invaders. Of course in the time he took to pray, they just attacked relentlessly.


traitors of europe the knights..

An odd thing a lot of For Honor players probably overlook; The plate armor Knight stereotype only developed after the end of the Viking age, at a time wherein the original Viking nations were largely Christianized and integrated into the continental European culture.
Ergo; Knights = Vikings.

EvoX.
03-02-2018, 04:15 AM
Exo thats not true. The vikings were bigger stronger more ferocious and had nothing to lose. Knights would get smashed praying to their weak abrahamic god:) traitors of europe the knights..

Nope. They get annihilated badly. Good luck surviving against a fully armored opponent with superior weaponry, range and defense. Those muscles and totally exposed flesh only makes it even easier for the knights. Also, Vikings were historically pretty average in height.

Warlord is the closest thing to a what a real viking looked like, and he's not really a match for Conq, Warden and especially Lawbringer.

SlashingElbow
03-02-2018, 04:21 AM
Yep i know tundra:) still they were bigger on average than most other ppl. Imagine if they actually made it contemporary to the viking times.. Would be brutal. Oh Lord, please save us from the wrath and fury of the norsemen lol :) happy to see you still on the forums. Need positive ppl like you here since i act like an ******* sometimrd. Im gonna try to be nicer

SlashingElbow
03-02-2018, 04:23 AM
Brother Exo. The vikings actually had chainmail and different types of armor. Nothing coming close to what the later knights had of course. Have a great day

Tundra 793
03-02-2018, 04:26 AM
Imagine if they actually made it contemporary to the viking times..

Who says we didn't...


happy to see you still on the forums. Need positive ppl like you here since i act like an ******* sometimrd. Im gonna try to be nicer

Thanks for the kind words, though I'm hardly here anymore, For Honor takes up less and less time each day the Sea of Thieves launch grows closer, but I'll still check in when I can.
Being nicer's definitely the way to go, but don't feel like you can't express your views mate, be who you are.

SlashingElbow
03-02-2018, 04:30 AM
Sea of thiveslooks fun. Image how much better it would be if it was vikings tho! Have fun bro hope to see you back on FH sometime. U never know maybe they will make some changes that pull u back in:)

Tundra 793
03-02-2018, 04:48 AM
I've been testing it since April last year, and it's an absolute blast, easily game of the year for me. Technically Vikings were just among the first pirates, so they have that in common at least.
Thanks dude, and so do i. Part of the reason I still read the forums every other day or so, is hoping they'll turn it around into something I'll love again.

The_B0G_
03-02-2018, 05:05 AM
Exo thats not true. The vikings were bigger stronger more ferocious and had nothing to lose. Knights would get smashed praying to their weak abrahamic god:) traitors europe the knights..

Knights were from a different era than the vikings in this game though, if they met in real life the knights would rock the vikings world. Technology alone they would just completely out class the vikings, plate armor was basically impenetrable, the knights also had the long bow, which pierced basically any armor at the time and had far better range than viking bows.

Sure the vikings were bigger and on average probably better fighters but they were mostly raiders, knights were typically part of trained standing armies. Their strength was fighting as a unit in large numbers, and let's not forget heavy cavalry. There is a reason why the UK isn't full of viking descendants today.

Tundra 793
03-02-2018, 05:11 AM
There is a reason why the UK isn't full of viking descendants today.

This is joke, yes?

The_B0G_
03-02-2018, 05:30 AM
This is joke, yes?

I said FULL, as in they didn't conquer the UK, because they couldn't.

The vikings found their way to Newfoundland in Canada(before it was Canada) and wiped the entire island of all the native population, because they could..

Tundra 793
03-02-2018, 05:40 AM
I said FULL, as in they didn't conquer the UK, because they couldn't.

The vikings found their way to Newfoundland in Canada and wiped the entire island of all the native population, because they could..

Quite right, though the UK wasn't a thing then, but they did manage to conquer 3 out of the 4 kingdoms that comprised England at the time. They also founded Dublin and other major Irish cities, and retained control of the Orkney's under the Kingdom of Norway well into the Middle Ages, eventually gifting them back to Scotland.
The Norman invasion also was carried out by descendants of Norse settlers from France.
And while they failed to conquer Wessex, England was ruled by Danish king Cnut the Great alongside Denmark and parts of modern day Norway and Sweden for some decades in the 11th century.

You're right in that total Viking conquest of the UK wasn't succesful, but there were many decades, or even a century or two long periods wherein Norse settlers would have, well, settled in parts of England, marrying English women and men.
The UK today, as a result of these varied attempts at both conquest and settlements, are literally full of Viking descendants.

But to the best of my knowledge, they never wiped out any significant part of the Native American populations in Newfoundland. Their intereactions were largely amicable, or they were repulsed by the natives, hence why that settlement did not last for long.

Tundra 793
03-02-2018, 05:43 AM
Also, Vakris I'm terribly sorry for completely derailing your thread, I only meant to post what knowledge I could, not get into lengthy history discussions.

Vikings are totes gonna win that Faction Rush though.
#Odin4lyfe

The_B0G_
03-02-2018, 06:12 AM
Quite right, though the UK wasn't a thing then, but they did manage to conquer 3 out of the 4 kingdoms that comprised England at the time. They also founded Dublin and other major Irish cities, and retained control of the Orkney's under the Kingdom of Norway well into the Middle Ages, eventually gifting them back to Scotland.
The Norman invasion also was carried out by descendants of Norse settlers from France.
And while they failed to conquer Wessex, England was ruled by Danish king Cnut the Great alongside Denmark and parts of modern day Norway and Sweden for some decades in the 11th century.

You're right in that total Viking conquest of the UK wasn't succesful, but there were many decades, or even a century or two long periods wherein Norse settlers would have, well, settled in parts of England, marrying English women and men.
The UK today, as a result of these varied attempts at both conquest and settlements, are literally full of Viking descendants.

But to the best of my knowledge, they never wiped out any significant part of the Native American populations in Newfoundland. Their intereactions were largely amicable, or they were repulsed by the natives, hence why that settlement did not last for long.

Ugh, I wrote a long detailed reply but I got a blank screen and the reply didn't post, not putting that effort in again. It happened twice now, I copied this after the first time though. Since this forum update I keep getting failed posts, annoying.

I was more so talking about the UK era with full plate armor, and trained standing armies, basically once the UK became trained and organized, I know about the viking settlements that were there. By saying full of viking descendants I only meant they didn't conquer the UK, not actual genetics.

You are right about Newfoundland, I researched it, the vikings did go there one two occasions, both were bloody, but they did not wipe out the natives, that was the English and French a few hundred years later.

Tyrjo
03-02-2018, 08:35 AM
I'm calling it from now. Since the new Faction Rush order will be "balanced" in the same way the Faction War is ... "balanced" ... the smallest faction with the least amount of players will receive a huge bonus weighting to their score. The Vikings are currently the faction with the least amount of players therefore they will be the winners of this order.

Anyone else care to place their bets?

What makes you think the Vikings get "a huge weighted bonus"? The faction war is balanced with a relative average so that all factions work as they are the same numbers, there is nothing skewed by it. The Vikings are simply better players. Period.

Vakris_One
03-02-2018, 03:02 PM
Also, Vakris I'm terribly sorry for completely derailing your thread, I only meant to post what knowledge I could, not get into lengthy history discussions.

Vikings are totes gonna win that Faction Rush though.
#Odin4lyfe
No worries, a good history lesson is always interesting. On the subject of Vikings and the UK, aren't the Celts related in some way to Vikings?


What makes you think the Vikings get "a huge weighted bonus"? The faction war is balanced with a relative average so that all factions work as they are the same numbers, there is nothing skewed by it. The Vikings are simply better players. Period.
Good one, lol. Please tell me how it is balanced when a Viking player receives 960 troops for winning a Duel match while a Samurai player receives 480 troops for winning the same kind of Duel match?

I have friends who play the Viking faction and they provided me with that figure during the second week of Season 5. The numbers may have changed since then but to say "The Vikings are simply better players." - yeah, I'm sure the weighting of their assets has nothing to do with it right? The fact that for every 1 Viking win, the Samurai need to get 2 wins to stay even at certain times. Maybe even 3 wins if the unpopular Vikes shed enough players or the Samurai gain some.

Completely "balanced".

Tundra 793
03-02-2018, 03:46 PM
No worries, a good history lesson is always interesting. On the subject of Vikings and the UK, aren't the Celts related in some way to Vikings?

Only insofar as sharing Germanic roots If I remember right. The progenitor tribes migrated in different directions centuries before the Viking age began, so any relations are pretty far removed.


Ugh, I wrote a long detailed reply but I got a blank screen and the reply didn't post, not putting that effort in again. It happened twice now, I copied this after the first time though. Since this forum update I keep getting failed posts, annoying.

I was more so talking about the UK era with full plate armor, and trained standing armies, basically once the UK became trained and organized, I know about the viking settlements that were there. By saying full of viking descendants I only meant they didn't conquer the UK, not actual genetics.

You are right about Newfoundland, I researched it, the vikings did go there one two occasions, both were bloody, but they did not wipe out the natives, that was the English and French a few hundred years later.

Understandable, hopefully your point is still conveyed in full though.

Your usage of the UK to refer to England confuses me a bit though; The UK in a recognizable form wasn't founded until centuries after the Viking age, the Vikings "only" had to contend with the divided kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland, and had enough success in their endeavours that England, Denmark and Norway were ruled as 1 kingdom for a few years.
You are right that any Viking conquest attempts failed to the point that the UK today isn't named "East Denmark" though.

The UK era when they had standing armies and organized itself happened after the Viking nations had also organized themselves and adopted the same level of technology, and, If i remember right, the UK and the former Viking nations weren't even at odds for many centuries post Viking-age.
Basically; There wasn't any historical overlap between the UK and Knights, and Vikings.


Not to go back off topic bit didnt The celts establish dublin then the vikings expanded it (There is archaeological debate regarding precisely where Dublin was established by Celtic-speaking people in the 7th century.Later expanded as a Viking settlement, the Kingdom of Dublin became Ireland's principal city following the Norman invasion)

As you say, there's still debate around. The area where Dublin lies had been inhabited for a long time before the Vikings arrived, it's just that most evidence points to the Viking settlement being the solid foundation upon which the city was then built.
Dublin itself celebrates 988 as its birthday, so the Irish government at least considers the Viking settlement their founding.

Devils-_-legacy
03-02-2018, 03:50 PM
Not to go back off topic bit didnt The celts establish dublin then the vikings expanded it (There is archaeological debate regarding precisely where Dublin was established by Celtic-speaking people in the 7th century.Later expanded as a Viking settlement, the Kingdom of Dublin became Ireland's principal city following the Norman invasion)

The_B0G_
03-02-2018, 03:53 PM
No worries, a good history lesson is always interesting. On the subject of Vikings and the UK, aren't the Celts related in some way to Vikings?


Good one, lol. Please tell me how it is balanced when a Viking player receives 960 troops for winning a Duel match while a Samurai player receives 480 troops for winning the same kind of Duel match?

I have friends who play the Viking faction and they provided me with that figure during the second week of Season 5. The numbers may have changed since then but to say "The Vikings are simply better players." - yeah, I'm sure the weighting of their assets has nothing to do with it right? The fact that for every 1 Viking win, the Samurai need to get 2 wins to stay even at certain times. Maybe even 3 wins if the unpopular Vikes shed enough players or the Samurai gain some.

Completely "balanced".

Yeah this is what I brought up post season 4, it feels like having less players is too big of an advantage, the balancing system doesn't seem to be working like they say it is, good luck getting Bio to admit that though, she just brags how good her faction (viking) is doing in the post season break down.

Vakris_One
03-02-2018, 04:01 PM
Yeah this is what I brought up post season 4, it feels like having less players is too big of an advantage, the balancing system doesn't seem to be working like they say it is, good luck getting Bio to admit that though, she just brags how good her faction (viking) is doing in every post season break down.
Indeed. Regardless of which faction has the better individual players it really feels like being the smaller faction is too big of an advantage. But good luck getting Bio to explain or address anything that might be wonky about the Faction War balancing.

Bio only has two modes: "Yay Vikings! Bestest faction everest!" and "Oh it's all rigged anyway and I am totes the chief rigger, lol, yolo, roflmfao."

Tundra 793
03-02-2018, 04:10 PM
Bio only has two modes: "Yay Vikings! Bestest faction everest!" and "Oh it's all rigged anyway and I am totes the chief rigger, lol, yolo, roflmfao."

I quit, and suddenly everyone starts posting about the stuff that made me leave. There's a whole hell of a lot of truth being tossed around the forums today.

Also, B0g, Vakris and Devil; I edited my last post on the 3rd page with replies to each of your posts.

Veerdin-Wraith
03-02-2018, 04:16 PM
Of course the Vikings will win. The Vikings always win. Although we all know for sure that, no matter what happens, the knights will undoubtedly come last.

The_B0G_
03-02-2018, 04:26 PM
Understandable, hopefully your point is still conveyed in full though.

Your usage of the UK to refer to England confuses me a bit though; The UK in a recognizable form wasn't founded until centuries after the Viking age, the Vikings "only" had to contend with the divided kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland, and had enough success in their endeavours that England, Denmark and Norway were ruled as 1 kingdom for a few years.
You are right that any Viking conquest attempts failed to the point that the UK today isn't named "East Denmark" though.

The UK era when they had standing armies and organized itself happened after the Viking nations had also organized themselves and adopted the same level of technology, and, If i remember right, the UK and the former Viking nations weren't even at odds for many centuries post Viking-age.
Basically; There wasn't any historical overlap between the UK and Knights, and Vikings

I used UK just to include the entire area, rather than having to look up the many small kingdoms, and that's depending on how far you want to go back I suppose.

The non overlap was my point in my first post, the vikings and knights in game were not in the same era in real life and the Vikings would be at a disadvantage if they ever met.

Brologna_Xeno
03-02-2018, 06:31 PM
Lack of overlap could be said of Samurai faction too, frankly. The peak of Samurai warfare was in the 16th-17th centuries. Let's add a Mongol faction and to put the debate to rest. Mongol heros 1st Feat unlock: Bubonic plague.

Vakris_One
03-02-2018, 06:38 PM
https://i.imgur.com/cZXco36.png
^ This right here is a perfect example.

The Vikings have 4 territories with 1 million troops and 4 with 2 million. They're holding off both the Knights and Samurai with ease and are owning the top half of the map. The start of every new round since Season 4 has looked exactly like this.

I've seen the Samurai pull this off around two to three times during this Season, the Knights could do this a bit more often considering they frequently put above 2 million on the Vultcano. But the Vikings do this to the map almost every other day during each campaign round since the begining of Season 4. I'm not meaning to take anything away from the Viking players but the fact that they are the smallest population and they have been an overwhelming force ever since Season 4 tells me the FW is far from balanced.

The bonus the smallest faction gets is far too much if they can comfortably hold the 2 other factions at bay without breaking a sweat. 1-2 million on almost every border territory at the beginning of EVERY round since Season 4. And it takes the other two to drop everything else and commit to double teaming them in order to push them back. I mean come on, is anyone really going to tell me that's perfectly fine and "balanced"?

The_B0G_
03-02-2018, 07:13 PM
https://i.imgur.com/cZXco36.png
^ This right here is a perfect example.

The Vikings have 4 territories with 1 million troops and 4 with 2 million. They're holding off both the Knights and Samurai with ease and are owning the top half of the map. The start of every new round since Season 4 has looked exactly like this.

I've seen the Samurai pull this off around two to three times during this Season, the Knights could do this a bit more often considering they frequently put above 2 million on the Vultcano. But the Vikings do this to the map almost every other day during each campaign round since the begining of Season 4. I'm not meaning to take anything away from the Viking players but the fact that they are the smallest population and they have been an overwhelming force ever since Season 4 tells me the FW is far from balanced.

The bonus the smallest faction gets is far too much if they can comfortably hold the 2 other factions at bay without breaking a sweat. 1-2 million on almost every border territory at the beginning of EVERY round since Season 4. And it takes the other two to drop everything else and commit to double teaming them in order to push them back. I mean come on, is anyone really going to tell me that's perfectly fine and "balanced"?

Completely agree, knights need to stop it with the volcano silliness, it's causing us to lose, agree about Vikings steamrolling since the changes in season 4 as well. If they don't change something, we'll have to get the entire community on board and all goto Viking, then we all win.

JadeBosson.
03-02-2018, 07:50 PM
how many people are in the Viking faction?

Devils-_-legacy
03-02-2018, 08:18 PM
Wow that's soon Farr from balanced lol
samurai excess troops:2.47mil
Knight excess troops:10.48mil
Vikings:13.94 mill
From a quick glance I may be wrong but the samurai are at a 4x disadvantage to the vikings lol

Cyriccube
03-02-2018, 09:23 PM
So...knights won faction war season 3 and they paniced because the vikings didn't win so they buffed it and made it super easy for vikings to win again? Man...sounds very 1 sided.

Vakris_One
03-02-2018, 09:59 PM
https://i.imgur.com/BWt5iUK.jpg

^ So much "balance". I'm curious what the devs actually deem "balanced" and how good their maths is? This is so far from being balanced it's almost funny. The Vikes own the Knights and Samurai's mills and the Samurai Castle and looks like they will be taking the Knights Castle as well.

GG. This is what going overboard on the bonus weighting looks like.

Devils-_-legacy
03-02-2018, 10:09 PM
I still think the "balance" will only be a adressed by the same joke as last time on the warriors den

SlashingElbow
03-02-2018, 10:21 PM
This faction rush or whatever is determined by how many executions.. How the hell are vikings with less players gonna win this? Samurais just suck they should just seppuku

Devils-_-legacy
03-02-2018, 10:26 PM
Tbf the op did state if they balance it the same way as fraction war is then they might get a better advantage then showed a perfect example of how unbalanced the fraction war is?

Vakris_One
03-02-2018, 10:36 PM
https://i.imgur.com/BWt5iUK.jpg

And those scores on the bottom matches perfectly with the faction populations but in reverse.

Samurai = the most players > 19 points
Knights = 2nd biggest playerbase > 23 points
Vikings = smallest playerbase > 45 points

Coincidence? I think not.

Vakris_One
03-02-2018, 10:43 PM
This faction rush or whatever is determined by how many executions.. How the hell are vikings with less players gonna win this? Samurais just suck they should just seppuku
The devs stated on the live stream that the executions will be balanced the same way as the faction war because otherwise the biggest populated faction would win outright because they have the majority of the players.

Their version of "balancing" however gives the smallest faction too much of an advantage. The biggest faction has to work twice as hard as the smallest just to keep up or have you not noticed what I've been posting?

Check the in-game Predator and Prey scoreboard right now. The guy in first place, GARhenus, with 257 executions to his name is a Samurai player - I know him from the Samurai Faction War Discord channel. Yet the Samurai are in last place, 10k behind Vikes and Knights.

I can not make it any clearer for you than that.

The_B0G_
03-02-2018, 10:43 PM
And those scores on the bottom matches perfectly with the faction populations but in reverse.

Samurai = the most players > 19 points
Knights = 2nd biggest playerbase > 23 points
Vikings = smallest playerbase > 45 points

Coincidence? I think not.

Yeah, the balancing buff that the lower player base team gets is way too high. It was obvious after the FW patch before season 4. Vikings went from winning 1 round in the 2nd and 3rd season combined, to absolutely destroying the entire season 4, and now won the first round in season 5, you can't tell me the changes made balanced anything.

DKDridin
03-03-2018, 04:14 PM
Historically speaking, Katanas in Feudal Japan would have been made with a special sort of iron native to Japan, which was of such a quality it earned the nickname "pig iron". They were objectively worse weapons than comperable European ones. Generally, they'd be considerably more brittle than other swords, and more prone to breaking or shattering. Hence why it takes such practice and discipline to wield them.

They could still slash and stab though, but against a European sword, the Katana and it's likes could shatter either when hitting an opponent's blade, or contact with armor or shields where a European sword could have enough flex to absorb such blows.

Fun fact; Movies often portray Katanas as being the pinnacle of sword making, in part because of the folding technique used, but in real life, you don't have to fold good steel. The Japanese swordmakers had to fold their steel to work out as many impurities as possible just to make the sword usable.

Hey thatís very interesting! Thanks for the info 😀

Devils-_-legacy
03-03-2018, 04:59 PM
Tundra didnt see you replied lol true some Katana are very poor but i was speaking more about the masamunes way by any chance is the pig iron maru steel? And katanas are traditionally made from a specialized Japanese steel called tamahagane,which is created from a traditional smelting process that results in several, layered steels with different carbon concentrations.This process helps remove impurities and even out the carbon content of the steel(folding) The age of the steel plays a role in the ability to remove impurities, with older steel having a higher oxygen concentration, being more easily stretched and rid of impurities during hammering, resulting in a stronger blade. But it ultimatly Depends on on the style of the smithy used for the katana for eg maru steel resulted in a poor brittle blade were as masamunes way soshu kitae I can't spell it but it's close to this (several layers method) is considered one of the best of his time

Tundra 793
03-03-2018, 06:02 PM
way by any chance is the pig iron maru steel? And katanas are traditionally made from a specialized Japanese steel called tamahagane,which is created from a traditional smelting process that results in several, layered steels with different carbon concentrations.

To be honest I have no idea, the Japanese has tonnes of different terms for their iron, and my knowledge on the subject is based on Western blacksmithing, which today identifies steel types with various grading systems, not necessarily names.
But Tamahagane historically, would have been of pig iron quality, i.e. having a high carbon content. As I've understood it, good Tamahagane for use in swordmaking, shouldn't have a carbon content higher than around 1-1.5%, but in the age of the Samurai, it could have been as high as 4-4.5%, making it quite brittle.
I believe European swords made before the 12th century often had carbon contents lower than 1%, but rarely exceeding 2%.

Obviously modern Japanese swords can be made much more effeciently and with consistently lower carbon contents, but historically, they were far from the greatest of swords.


Hey that’s very interesting! Thanks for the info ��

My pleasure, glad you enjoyed it.

EvoX.
03-03-2018, 06:49 PM
Well, I'm glad you were wrong.

Maybe this is the start of the Knights' era?

Devils-_-legacy
03-03-2018, 06:50 PM
True they held sword making as more of art from then we did but I was raised on swords and bos so is was kinda forced onto me with the knowledge(I do admit i may have goten some of the names wrong i havnt ever bothered re reading up on it lol)but my teacher had a very old & authentic katana and it still hold true but I was tought quite quickly the difference between the maru or pig iron katanas and there counter parts the more brittle ones stay bent and the hamon would get destroyed quite quickly.
I was also more on the technical way it's made from the smithing technique for example using the same type of ore with the same carbon content I would wager the katana would come out a more effective blade Imo (also glad to see your still lurking around the fourms :) )

Tundra 793
03-04-2018, 02:53 AM
True they held sword making as more of art from then we did but I was raised on swords and bos so is was kinda forced onto me with the knowledge(I do admit i may have goten some of the names wrong i havnt ever bothered re reading up on it lol)but my teacher had a very old & authentic katana and it still hold true but I was tought quite quickly the difference between the maru or pig iron katanas and there counter parts the more brittle ones stay bent and the hamon would get destroyed quite quickly.

I'll take your word for it, personally I've always found Japanese swords, Katanas specifically, to be the most overrated weapons of all time.
Not sure I'd say the Japanese people treated is more as an art form though, but they certainly devoted considerable effort and traditions, strict practices and sincere reverence to the crafting and care of them, I imagine the effort and fragility of them made them treasure and care for them with extreme devotion compared to other nations'.

Vikings, for comparison, in spite of their religion were first and foremost a pragmatic people. A sword in the end, was just a sword.


I was also more on the technical way it's made from the smithing technique for example using the same type of ore with the same carbon content I would wager the katana would come out a more effective blade Imo

It would be better for slicing/cutting. The curved blades deliver the kinetic energy from a swing differently to straight edged swords, hence their later use in mounted combat. Straight edged swords, European/Viking swords in particular, had a tapered point that excelled in stabbing, being able to pierce even chainmail in one stroke.
It's hard to compare different sword types to each other, as they were intended for different purposes.


(also glad to see your still lurking around the fourms )

Aye, I've still got plenty of friends and interests here, so I'll still be checking in from to time, but feel free to PM me if you, or anyone else for that matter, wanna talk about something specific and I miss reading the For Honor forums.

Vakris_One
03-04-2018, 03:45 AM
Well, I'm glad you were wrong.

Maybe this is the start of the Knights' era?
I doubt it unless the devs adjusted things to loosen up the "balancing". I still think the balancing is way off the way the FW has been going and This order hasn't really convinced me otherwise. Not to mention the executions were easily farmeable by loading up a PvAI Tribute match with matchmaking turned off and spending a couple hours grinding executions.

I'd be very interested in knowing which faction the top 10 players were from. I know that at least 3 players who were all in first place at different times were Samurai.


I'll take your word for it, personally I've always found Japanese swords, Katanas specifically, to be the most overrated weapons of all time.
Not sure I'd say the Japanese people treated is more as an art form though, but they certainly devoted considerable effort and traditions, strict practices and sincere reverence to the crafting and care of them, I imagine the effort and fragility of them made them treasure and care for them with extreme devotion compared to other nations'.

Vikings, for comparison, in spite of their religion were first and foremost a pragmatic people. A sword in the end, was just a sword.
Worth noting is that the Vikings and Europeans had different kinds of beliefs about the world around them. The Japanese held a belief that inanimate objects such as swords could hold in them the spirit of previous owners or even be attributed to divine entities. The uniquely Japanese religion of Shintoism for example was all about how everything was connected by a kind of spiritual energy that binds everything together. If this sounds familiar it's because George Lucas drew his inspiration for the "Force" in Star Wars from this aspect of Shintoism.



It would be better for slicing/cutting. The curved blades deliver the kinetic energy from a swing differently to straight edged swords, hence their later use in mounted combat. Straight edged swords, European/Viking swords in particular, had a tapered point that excelled in stabbing, being able to pierce even chainmail in one stroke.
It's hard to compare different sword types to each other, as they were intended for different purposes.
Indeed. If I were facing an armoured opponent I would go with a straight edged European sword for its potential to pierce and be used in a half swording technique to deal blunt force damage. If on the other hand I were facing a lightly armoured opponent I would favour the curved egded Katana for its superior cutting and slicing potential.

zcubed
03-04-2018, 04:29 AM
First: 'real' weapon logic doesn't apply in this game. Second: What 'balance', all I see is blatant favoritism towards Vikings. Third: Knights are winning.

zcubed
03-04-2018, 08:00 AM
Knights won 160000 ahead of Samurai.

Xinlyfenne
03-05-2018, 08:02 PM
I'd be very interested in knowing which faction the top 10 players were from. I know that at least 3 players who were all in first place at different times were Samurai.



The rankings were for each faction. So if you're a Samurai, you'd see the top 3 Samurai in the rankings; also that was why there was such a great disparity between the top 3.