cRPG
cRPG => Suggestions Corner => Game Balance Discussion => Topic started by: Gisbert_of_Thuringia on October 19, 2011, 01:39:21 pm
-
As we all know it's been heavily discussed for a while now but I don't remember anyone starting a poll so we can see some numbers.
At the moment arrows define the damage type, which means every archer can shoot with pierce damage, even those with little crappy hornbows, that should be made for shooting light armoured targets.
I know it was all done for some realism stuff, but actually it made archery very unbalanced.
I say remove it to the old way of archery that only longbow does pierce damage.
That way it will be more balanced again and the longbow wouldn't be that underpowered compared to other bows.
And please don't forget that I'm an archer myself for almost the whole time I've played the game now so don't call me a poor melee guy whining around ;)
-
Here: http://forum.c-rpg.net/index.php/topic,16652.60.html
140 people voted and we have 50:50 split atm.
-
Here: http://forum.c-rpg.net/index.php/topic,16652.60.html
140 people voted and we have 50:50 split atm.
Actually...
YES (48.3%)
NO (51.7%)
Slight majority to ppl who like the current way (arrows determine damage type)
-
At the moment of posting it was 70:70. 7 archers and 2 non-archers saw the poll after the post.
-
"everyone shooting with pierce damage". I like that almost subtle manipulation effort. Btw, we are not changing it back.
-
Not everyone uses the Bodkins, just like not every two hander uses the German or Danish Greatsword...
Fail poll is fail.
Hell, I don't use bodkins usually.
-
Not everyone uses the Bodkins, just like not every two hander uses the German or Danish Greatsword...
what :lol:
-
what :lol:
Sword of War ftw.
-
As we all know it's been heavily discussed for a while now but I don't remember anyone starting a poll so we can see some numbers.
At the moment arrows define the damage type, which means every archer can shoot with pierce damage, even those with little crappy hornbows, that should be made for shooting light armoured targets.
I know it was all done for some realism stuff, but actually it made archery very unbalanced.
I say remove it to the old way of archery that only longbow does pierce damage.
That way it will be more balanced again and the longbow wouldn't be that underpowered compared to other bows.
And please don't forget that I'm an archer myself for almost the whole time I've played the game now so don't call me a poor melee guy whining around ;)
I've had the same horn bow setup for a long time now. Bodkins for first quiver, Barbed for 2nd quiver. Upkeep cost is the reason I don't always use the most damaging arrow. My assessment? This damage fix has made no change overall in how many kills I get. In general, it still takes about as many arrows to take an armored guy, unless it is a headshot. The reduction in the amount of damage in the bodkin actually allows the lighter armored guys to take more hits from me. I'm not certain I wouldn't be just as happy with my old cut damage from bodkins back again.
The problem here is perception. People were saying beforehand that a LongBow was the only viable build, but they are discovering what I and a few others already knew. That a PD 5 Horn Bow build is viable and fun and pierce damage or not, the overall effect is about the same.
The only reason people are complaining is perception. Horn Bow didn't suddenly become the best build. You just see more of them now that people don't feel trapped into a Long Bow or nothing mentality.
-
As a HA I have essentially given up on using Bodkin arrows, they are so expensive and as Rumblood said against the targets one should ideally engage(cavalry, light infantry and archers) I am not sure it is an advantage to gain some piercing as opposed to overall damage.
Tin cans are still best to headshot or not to shoot at all(unless of course you have plenty of arrows left or to help some teammates out).
~Remy_The_Poor_HA
-
I don't agree with either of the poll options. I'd like for more than just the Long Bow have pierce. Give it to Short Bow and Bow to add a tiny bit of incentive towards using them as well. As it stands now you never see them except on someone leveling up to use a Tatar and up.
-
You never see anyone using sickle, so what?
-
I actually think the new method has brought balance to the game.
The problem is there are soooo many people who are used to the old system, where archers could be safely ignored because they were nearly worthless scrubs. You'd just see teams consisting of sometimes 80% two-handers in heavy armor with no shields, no throwing, no athletics, no method what-so-ever of dealing with archers. They dealt with archers by mainly just ignoring them, and there weren't that many archers anyway because archers sucked so bad.
So now.... archers don't suck. Uh oh. A large portion of the playerbase consists of builds that are basically invalid now. Pure str, no athletics, no throwing, no shield and nobody to hide behind because all your buddies have the exact same build you do.
So far, most people have been "adapting" by playing the "I'll show you! I'll make an archer!" game. I think they are finding that archers have plenty of vulnerabilities. You just have to spec for it a bit. And not EVERYONE needs to respec. It's just that teams of 80% two-handers are arrow fodder for archer heavy teams. (Whereas a team of 80% shielders would laugh heartily while mugging the archer heavy team in a complete one-sided fight.)
There's a much better element of rock-paper-scissors now, instead of the old "rock beats scissors, rock beats paper, rock beats other rocks" we had before.
-
I think that is another problem at least in battle, a large portion of the infantry utilizes polearms or two handed weapons as opposed to shields.
Thus as you say they are quite vulnerable to ranged fire.
Not that there is anything wrong with that, I ran around as with a 1H axe and no shield or 2H(as a Ninja) for most of my time playing cRPG and so forth. However, I accepted that ranged troops would be rather bad for my health.
Ideally one would hope that with balanced weapons and classes we would see rather varied builds and types of players(1H w/shield, 2H, Polearm, Cavalry, etc.).
-
Not everyone uses the Bodkins, just like not every two hander uses the German or Danish Greatsword...
Fail poll is fail.
Hell, I don't use bodkins usually.
you lie like a rest of archers.... all i see on ground are bodkins and bodkins..
-
We are too poor to buy bodkin arrows, honest! :(
-
Btw, we are not changing it back.
Well then close the thread please.
And please do not think about any more archernerfs because archers are, as half the 2h/polearm guys are whining out there, "overpowered" due to that. :rolleyes:
-
vote comes down to :
did you loom a longbow
are you not an archer
Personally I missed the great archer nerf, so sad. I like the idea of only longbows having pierce, thus identifiable as pierce (like melee weapons are - no hidden damage type).
-
you lie like a rest of archers.... all i see on ground are bodkins and bodkins..
Not lying. Most archers probably do use Bodkins though from what I see.
-
IMO if you're going to do this, give pierce to RUS and one of the 1 slot bows too.
-
Nooooooooo keep my rus bow cut! It is the best anti light horse bow, would be ruined if made pierce.
-
I think a good solution for this could be:
Take 10 points of dmg off from bows, and add more dmg points for the arrows.
That way the arrows would be more important for the damage calculation.
-
And what would it change? I think it would more or less be the same^.^
-
It would make archery a lot more accurate because bow base damage lowers precision but arrow extra damage does not.
-
Actually bows are accurate enough or rather hornbow, rusbow and longbow are accurate enough.
No need to buff accuracy. Otherwise every noob will be able to hit everyone after half a day of archerplaying :rolleyes:
-
My view of how archery should
every arrow deals pierce damage
bows accuracy dramatically decreased, aiming circle always stays the same(like xbows) but can be drawn for a certain period only.
general damage of bows tiny bit reduced, arrow soak damage values for plate armours a lot higher
draw speed slightly reduced
arrow speed slightly increased
-
You want to further decrease arrow speed?
-
You want to further decrease arrow speed?
Arrow speed is ok as it is now, everything else he said I agree with.
-
I do not agree with most he said
-
My view of how 2H should be
every attack deals cut damage
general damage of 2H weapons tiny bit reduced, cut soak damage values for plate armours a lot higher
Swing speed hardly reduced - this will divide whiners playerbase from real men playerbase
Running speed hardly reduced - this is a buff to melee characters, because archer can't receive big speed bonus anymore
Every Powerstrike should decrease your WPP for 16 points
Triple chance to break loomed 2H weapon - because this weapon is old and cranky
All 2H weapon with base damage more than 30 must have at least 18 STR requirements
All 2H weapon with base damage more than 35 must have at least 21 STR requirements
All 2H weapon with base damage more than 40 must have at least 24 STR requirements
All 2H weapon with base damage more than 44 must have at least 27 STR requirements
-
Remove 2h from the game
I think einstein would revel in horror reading your suggestions. That would make noone play 2h and go to the already stronger polearms.
-
I think you missed his sarcastic point when he applied all the archery nerfs that happened over the time to 2h.
-
What a wonderful satire, truly Okkam is a great and glorious playwright.
-
Thank you Paul for explaining the joke, what ever would we do without you?