Combat Stance

I am sure I am in the minority in this, but I really don't understand the point of combat stance. It feels like we are back in 2000 and you might as well just dual wield your best weapons. Dirt kick seems useless because you can switch stances, now baiting someone into a stance for dirt or hobble seems useless. Maybe I am not understanding this mechanic at all, but I really don't like this change.

I don't like it either. Weapon wield lag was introduced mainly because of warriors and zerkers. Now they both have a mechanic that allows them to bypass it. Zerkers don't have wield-lag when switching while raged(unless that was changed), and warriors now have combat stance to switch to combat advantage effectively bypassing wield lag. It makes it confusing for the opponent. Should I switch weapons to counter their "true stance" and then use combat skills? Or should I switch based on their "combat stance" then try to use combat skills. Is my hobble attempt on the warrior I'm fighting less or more effective if I I'm wielding a polearm and he is dual wielding, but he's showing in defensive style because of combat stance? Naturally I would think the polearm vs dual wield would give me a better chance of landing. but he's in defensive style, so I'm now showing inferior...which would make me think my hobble attempt is less likely to land. It just makes me confused on how I should even fight them. I gained natural advantage in this scenario, but "combat stance" wise I'm inferior. So how should I play it?
Seems like a unnecessary layer was added to warrior that only confuses the opponent on how to fight them.

Berserkers get a lag when they swap weapons. Not a wield lag, but a literal can't do something lag.

Here's my take, in the warrior v warrior matchup its is best to just wield you best weapons against their vuln, or to defend against your vuln. Then just switch stances.
In warrior v caster again vuln first, counter their style because weapon ward does so much that switching doesn't matter.
In warrior v rogue since their skills as so dependant on weapon matchup you will be actually switching a bit. That said, vuln first everytime unless disadvantaged.

Let me know if anyone feels I am way off about any of this. Always wanting to learn more.

That is correct...its like .5 to 1 round of lag. Somewhere in there. but my point is there is no wield lag. So their raged damage is still in full effect after swapping.

The neat thing is now there isnt a "I can script to the right solution"-able answer. You have to make a choice, none of which are completely optimal.

It feels sloppy in combat.

Well this is probably going to sound like I'm defending it, I'm not particularly doing that, and I really don't need to because it isn't my idea. It is a suggestion that came from the community to try to improve the warrior class.

The goal was to make something that would make the warrior class fun for more players, i.e. broader appeal. Quite common sentiment BEFORE is that the class was too difficult, so this means making it easier. It was literally posted into patch threads. We tried it on shadows first, it worked there, no negative fedback. We tried it on bards, with brawl, again no negative feedback. So now we're trying it on warriors. I feel like we moved very slowly and cautiously on all this personally.

If you were somebody who mastered the warrior class mechanics, this was not something anyone would expect you to like.. maybe you think it is too easy. Well, let me ask you this though. Is anyone else currently feeling too afraid to roll a warrior because it looks to hard and/or you might feel like a dumbass? I imagine no. So in that sense, we completed the objectives we had set and I don't see how reverseing it would be a positive change now. If it can be made to feel more responsive and/or streamined, I am all in for that, but to an extent (obviously) this getting easier was an objective.

Here is a counter-thread where a thief player felt pretty out-gunned by warriors and we acknowledge there are issues there too:
https://abandonedrealms.com/players/display.php?name=Bandali

Maybe there could be stuff like just tripping someone out of their stance and the like.

I really think this weapon thing got fucked because of one player scripting to swap properly and it was completely obvious.

Now I have no idea how to play a warrior, and the weapon switching is what separated out people and gave warriors a really great sense of challenge.

You have too many variables in a potentially 20 second fight. Do I switch weapons, do I switch stances, do I use combat skills. Honestly it feels unplayable unless you are using triggers to auto switch stances. Which is still happening, its still obvious and personally I don't think this works on shadows because no one is playing shadows.

does a bow work against a dual wielding defensive warrior or now am I fucked wearing a bow.

Honestly the old mechanism of switch weapons for combat style made the most sense because it followed with weapon skills which made the classes more fun.

As somebody who theorycrafts a lot and has also put some ideas into practice...

We had a Warlord who visibly scripted his way to victory. It was laughable how easy it was to predict his moves, and one time I gained a significant but temporary advantage knowing exactly what he would do and then surprising him with a swap from my optimal weapon to what was arguably one of the worst setups I could have just knowing he would be wearing a shield and bladed weapon to counter my primary weapon. I let him initiate and disarmed his shield then got to use my main weapon for a little while. I had maybe a few rounds (I'd say 3-5) where he was simply eating damage from my main weapon because I fucked up his telegraphed moves. But once he picked up his shield I no longer had the advantage.

I don't like how stance adds a THIRD RPS layer to the mix. Brawl is a poor choice when used incorrectly - I distinctly recall killing a half-drow Legion bard, Dahliya or something like that, who didn't turn off brawl, as Afales. All brawl does is EQUALIZE the triangle - it doesn't allow any superiority or the use of counterbalance. I found it easy to destroy her with my bow when she was brawling. One of Arunore's bards after that did things correctly and kept brawl turned off and stayed in defensive style for counterbalance because that is a much more effective method of fighting rangers.

Stance otoh allows you to adjust beyond the two main RPS modules. Sure, barrage requires offensive stance, but one thing I am seriously wary of is somebody becoming very difficult to kill simply by combining the riposte mechanisms with the defensive stance since that stance gives damage reduction. Overbear the right weapon and this warrior might become a super tank while in reflex mode.

As a returning player, and obviously take this for what it is worth, the stance change has allowed me to have more fun with my warrior. I am one of the people who absolutely cannot stand the combat module rock paper scissors changes from back in the day, though I can see it definitely adding flavor and layers. The stance change allows me, as a newbie dude, to more easily figure out what is going on.

As the pvp elite, I can see how it kind of dumbs down the combat and closes the gap between skill and character class. Some people are just going to kick total ass and they are fighting other people kicking total ass. Both wanting to get every drop out of their classes potential.

A Dav mentioned, maybe some discourse can be had regarding the changes that were made and how there could be some improvement or qol changes that would help.

Actually no the AI warlord hasnt really had anything to do with this change. m1co and other Warlords already exposed the guy, to the point , they just obliterated him by switching a lot. The wear/equip arming timer kinda blew it. If anything, this change gave him a second wind because its just easier to play. So this has nothing to do with this change. There WAS a little tweak put in after launch to address scripters - stancing while arming gives you a chance to stumble.
ozaru I value your opinion and all. Making something that works for everyone is hard.
For your question about bow, it will still work vs a dual wielding warrior.

Let me make it cleat what I don't like about stance (and why I think brawl is fine):

1. Primarily, my issue is the fact that it throws in a third RPS mechanic. One of the main games I played just before getting into AR had double RPS mechanics like AR did before the stance change. Two is complicated enough if you ask me. Sure, it is fairly predictable how people will act under double RPS systems (I played people in the other game who were seemingly newcomers in terms of rank, but they understood the mechanics and somehow managed to choose the correct counter to every move I made - sometimes it was eerie how they seemed to practically read my mind as over and over, they'd choose the correct move against me.)

2. Weapon ward and brawl essentially *equalize* things. With weapon ward, you won't get disarmed (nor will many other skills work against you), but you also won't benefit from exploiting a wild weapon advantage either. So there's a trade-off (though most people choose to keep it up anyway). Neither of them gives an *advantage* once turned on or can be shifted to provide one. And as I just noted, brawling against a ranger is unwise because they can rip you apart with their bow so sometimes you don't *want* to use brawl.

3. With that said, I have not actually made a warrior since the mechanics were implemented so I think it's unfair for me to judge without trying it out.

Well is actually not a 3rd RPS - it replaces one of them. This makes the stance be the source of combat style instead of weapons.


There is a really meaningful thing in the system which was obviously overlooked which is that stances changes cut your momentum in half. So spam switches means you'd just be kneecapping yourself, and that is on top of the stumbles from stance change while arming the weapon.