New ranged change

[CaptainQuantum]

When did I say anything about massive damage? Even getting a bodyshot on any body at long range is incredibly difficult with the current accuracy.

I think he meant that you should have a low chance of actually dealing any damage. Getting a bodyshot at long range should be hard since if I kill an archer he will generally rage and focus me from across the map. This change just forces you into a range where you are reachable, like Dezi said Risk vs Reward, the same applies to every other class in the game, now it applies to ranged too.

[bonekuukkeli]

This is just hilarious. There's few melee players whining about archery and defending nerf with all possible ways and explanations.

So... archers need to adapt to it? Can I ask...

What you did before patch?

No, you didn't adapt. Still you didn't learn to dodge, you didn't buy shield, you didn't move behind shielder. You were whining here at forums about how archery is all mighty and powerful. And it was all good before nerf for those who knew how to deal with them.

Now it's just couple archers doing well, and rest have to adapt?

So... let's nerf melee and buff archery. Chase and companions are doing well anyway, so rest need to deal with it? Fair? No. Stupid? Yes.

Most likely whining will start soon again, as melee idiots really haven't learned anything. Archers are going to adapt in idiotic game system and sure they will do better soon again and that's when you start whining again. But is this new "only headshots count for good damage" really that well planned?

Sure, heavy armour should be able to take punishing and quite much ignore arrows that arent made for penetrating them, but they should also move much slower to compensate that. But when I move around in my pilgrim robe and can take few arrows to my chest while laughing at archers, something isn't right. Sure you wannabe heroes are happy with that, it's better score for you (free kills anyway till they learn to headshot only and most don't with latency issues etc.) but some of us here actually want to have balanced and _fun_ gameplay. And... now if you want to make headshot, you NEED quite high WPF yes? So what about hybrids?

[Joker86]

Perhaps there was a need for infantry to adapt to archers, and sure as hell you are right that many infantry players didn't adapt, but where had archers to adapt to infantry?

Not everyone can afford to invest money, upkeep, item slots, item weight and skill points into wearing a shield, you can't expect every infantryman to be a shielder. (Same applies for pikes against cavalry).

Now you still can't completely ignore archers, as they still inflict damage and they can headshot you, but also archers have to adapt to infantry and the fact that they can't score kills over half the map and over safe distance. Everyone has to adapt to everyone. Sounds fair to me.

[Adamar]

I did my own, I play archery on my alt. I have no looms and hence I have a huge disadvantage since looms have more importance for a ranged char, still I get good scores as an archer, if I am in the right mind-set I can outscore Jambi sometimes. Archery is fine and that's from my testing.

Irrelevant. A noob, armoured melee guy has even more chances of killing, than a seasoned archer does, as the patches keep comming.

I focused my looms in my longbow to specificaly be a heavy hitter in range, now I have to change to a hornbow and start all over again with a headshooting style I dont even like?

 This elitistic crap has to end.

Now you still can't completely ignore archers, as they still inflict damage and they can headshot you, but also archers have to adapt to infantry and the fact that they can't score kills over half the map and over safe distance. Everyone has to adapt to everyone. Sounds fair to me.

So if they nerf ranged damage again we have to adapt again? If they compensated somehow with more accuracy and more arrows then you could talk about adapting, but a nerf is a nerf, people dont adapt, they suffer from it.

[CaptainQuantum]

Irrelevant. A noob, armoured melee guy has even more chances of killing, than a seasoned archer does, as the patches keep comming.

Irrelevant? You asked for someone to try archery and test and you say my opinion is irrelevant, that's called data omission. A "noob armoured melee guy" will not get consistent kills since he will get killed by cavalry, infantry or ranged. A "noob archer" will have little chance to kill consistently but will occasionally get an arrow in which will kill a target, this chance is probably less than that of the swordsman, but the archer will be of slightly more support to a team aswell.

If they compensated somehow with more accuracy and more arrows then you could talk about adapting, but a nerf is a nerf, people dont adapt, they suffer from it.

They did compensate for accuracy from what I can see.

This is just hilarious. There's few melee players whining about archery and defending nerf with all possible ways and explanations.

So... archers need to adapt to it? Can I ask...

What you did before patch?

No, you didn't adapt. Still you didn't learn to dodge, you didn't buy shield, you didn't move behind shielder. You were whining here at forums about how archery is all mighty and powerful. And it was all good before nerf for those who knew how to deal with them.

Now it's just couple archers doing well, and rest have to adapt?

So... let's nerf melee and buff archery. Chase and companions are doing well anyway, so rest need to deal with it? Fair? No. Stupid? Yes.

Most likely whining will start soon again, as melee idiots really haven't learned anything. Archers are going to adapt in idiotic game system and sure they will do better soon again and that's when you start whining again. But is this new "only headshots count for good damage" really that well planned?

Sure, heavy armour should be able to take punishing and quite much ignore arrows that arent made for penetrating them, but they should also move much slower to compensate that. But when I move around in my pilgrim robe and can take few arrows to my chest while laughing at archers, something isn't right. Sure you wannabe heroes are happy with that, it's better score for you (free kills anyway till they learn to headshot only and most don't with latency issues etc.) but some of us here actually want to have balanced and _fun_ gameplay. And... now if you want to make headshot, you NEED quite high WPF yes? So what about hybrids?

The problem is that nerfing melee damage and speed has already been done to the point it's horrible. The only other change would be to health and athletics, health I would support and athletics would nerf archery too.

[Joker86]

So if they nerf ranged damage again we have to adapt again? If they compensated somehow with more accuracy and more arrows then you could talk about adapting, but a nerf is a nerf, people dont adapt, they suffer from it.

I think one of the basic problems of cRPG is, that infantry is a class with a high skill ceiling, probably the highest of all classes, but at the same time it is a really difficult class to play, due to cavalry and archers simply having better starting conditions by default.

(Archers attack from safe distance and can choose whatever target they want, cav has high mobility which brings a lot of adcantages, and they can at least choose which target they want to approach to attack, whereas the life of an infantryman always feels like running the gauntlet: you start, right after spawning until the end of the round you have to watch out for cavalry and archers, when you approach the enemy lines you also have to watch out for infantry, you have to block correctly and have good footwork, while still having to watch out for combat archers and backstabbing cavalry, and once the round apporached its end you have to approach those surviving archers or to fight cavalry which either stabs you if you want to attack or runs you down if you block. Trust me, it's really hard.)

The only way to even things out was either to buff infantry or to nerf cavalry and archers. Unless you can say me how becoming an average infantryman for the average player is as easy as becoming and average archer or cavalryman, the only thing left to do was nerfing the other classes. In my eyes cRPG is close to achieving a final balance, you only need to nerf cavalry a bit (by buffing spearmen, I would say), and there you go.

It is always the question of HOW MUCH you have to adapt. This should of course be to the same degree for all classes. You can also adapt to a pure nerf, for example as soon as heavy horses became unplayable for a longer time with the upkeep patch most cavalry changed to lighter horses and doesn't attack so mindlessly any more. It's adapting to a pure nerf. Doesn't mean they suffer. Because I could say that infantry suffered from the beginning of cRPG.

[Overdriven]

They did compensate for accuracy from what I can see.

How so? There was a +1 accuracy increase on the longbow 

[CaptainQuantum]

How so? There was a +1 accuracy increase on the longbow 

On top of that my bow seems much more accurate post patch. There was no patch notes on this but my crosshair definitely looks tighter.

[Overdriven]

On top of that my bow seems much more accurate post patch. There was no patch notes on this but my crosshair definitely looks tighter.

Mine looks no different with either longbow or horn bow and that's with the +1 increase for longbow 

[Adamar]

Irrelevant? You asked for someone to try archery and test and you say my opinion is irrelevant, that's called data omission. A "noob armoured melee guy" will not get consistent kills since he will get killed by cavalry, infantry or ranged. A "noob archer" will have little chance to kill consistently but will occasionally get an arrow in which will kill a target, this chance is probably less than that of the swordsman, but the archer will be of slightly more support to a team aswell.

There's data omission on your side, since I told you to consider the kill rates. Look at the score boards and consider the average archer vs the average 2hander/pole guy and tell me if that's in any way fair. Telling me that YOU did well with your own style is irrelevant and overused.

[SixThumbs]

Look at the scoreboard and tell me those numbers actually mean anything.

[SquishMitten]

Telling me that YOU did well with your own style is irrelevant and overused.

Yeah man, I want to spam arrows across the map and get lots of kills. Screw how the high scoring archers are playing.

[Adamar]

Look at the scoreboard and tell me those numbers actually mean anything.

Yes? They register the kill ratio of different people with different styles.
And most archers are usualy listed below the average melee guy, but I shouldn't have to tell you that if you play the game.

Yeah man, I want to spam arrows across the map and get lots of kills. Screw how the high scoring archers are playing.

 I for one just want as much a chance of getting kills as anyone else.

[XyNox]

Regarding the ranged discussion, please take a look:

http://forum.c-rpg.net/index.php/topic,24662.0.html

[The_Bloody_Nine]

As I said in the other thread from my point of view (2h, 8 athletics) the change was just a huge ranged nerf hidden behind an attempt to "add more skill" (which doesn't effect my point of view adnd I don't know if this was a succes). Before patch headshot was deadly in 95%, now it is deadly in 300% while headshots happen a bit more but not much due to high ath (difference=0). Every other hits though are drastically weaker.

If a nerf was necessary in my eyes a tiny overall damage reduction would be better, especially because this would effect HA's and throwers not that much. HA's are only to be pitied now, even before patch they did little harm. The fun/challenge in killing one has been drastically reduced.