cRPG

cRPG => Suggestions Corner => Game Balance Discussion => Topic started by: Dezilagel on September 19, 2011, 08:15:48 pm

Title: Armor: Effectiveness vs Melee and Ranged
Post by: Dezilagel on September 19, 2011, 08:15:48 pm

So, from my understanding, ranged (apart from throwing, who has only recently been included) has had the extra_penetration flag ever since the new armor values, essentially bypassing the change.

Why?

Seriously, I've been stacking up on armor last month just to try and survive the ranged barrage, only to discover that the only thing it allows me/others to do is sometimes take 5-6 hits in melee (I'm sorry, but I don't think it's that much fun, regardless if I'm the guy taking the hits or delivering them), while ranged still bring me down in 2-3 shots if loomed (Or arbalest).

This has now lead to a metagame where meleeing becomes a tedious process - it used to be the quickest way of eliminating your opponents, now it's one of the slower with lancers and loomed ranged providing the real killing power as average armor increases.

And now with ranged gaining greater access to pierce damage weps, I feel even less inclined to use any type of armor other than for the sake of suviving more hits in melee.

But I can already survive hits in melee, I can block melee attacks!

The primary source of unblockable damage on the other hand, which is the type of damage you need defence against since you can't do much about it, ranged, gets a free pass and makes your armor much less effective.

It doesn't make any sense imho, I want to wear armor so that I can actually get into melee to do my thing.

A lot of people (as you probably have noticed) are currently stacking str/armor just because it allows you to take an incredible amount of melee punishment. This is not fun imo, I'm in their face with a big fucking axe, and they can actually defend against it - I want some killing power!

So suggestion:

Same armor reduction values for both melee and ranged - I'd prefer slightly reduced values overall while keeping soak low.

EDIT: Modified topic name to better display what this is about

EDIT 568: Stats.

armor_soak_factor_against_cut       = 0.65
armor_soak_factor_against_pierce    = 0.5
armor_soak_factor_against_blunt     = 0.4

armor_reduction_factor_against_cut       = 1.6
armor_reduction_factor_against_pierce    = 1.1
armor_reduction_factor_against_blunt     = 1.3

crpg penetration flag(applied modification for bows, crossbows and thrown)

armor_soak_factor_against_cut       = 0.78
armor_soak_factor_against_pierce    = 0.6
armor_soak_factor_against_blunt     = 0.48

armor_reduction_factor_against_cut       = 0.96
armor_reduction_factor_against_pierce    = 0.36 (!) EDIT: This maybe a typo from the guy I copied from, 1.1*0.6=0.66, anyone know about this?
armor_reduction_factor_against_blunt     = 0.78

(click to show/hide)

Before patch ranged did a lot of damage, and melee did a lot of damage. You could choose to wear armor to get decent protection against both. While you could argue that the damage dealt overall was too high, at least it was fair. (btw the random glancing was a bunch of bullcrap, thx for getting rid of that)

If you wear a lot of armor nowadays you still get the same decent protection against ranged, but now it also makes you an incredible melee tank. While in theory "compensated for" by the reduction in glances, increased melee skill (= better blocking, but also a more potent offence meaning that the average player wouldn't have had much of a problem with glancing in the first place!) in combination with more looms (and let's do a recap here, which are the most potent looms...? Ranged and armor right!) makes for an increasing imbalance.

Title: Re: Ranged and armor
Post by: Thucydides on September 19, 2011, 08:33:18 pm

this, i wear armor for teammates and range, not melee

Title: Re: Ranged and armor
Post by: Paul on September 19, 2011, 09:32:15 pm

no

armor protects from ranged well enough. also, for 1hit fun in melee play some native.

Title: Re: Ranged and armor
Post by: Leshma on September 19, 2011, 09:39:40 pm

Make overhead swing faster and I'll be satisfied :D

But on the other hand, that would probably end like this in most cases:

visitors can't see pics , please register or login


 :mrgreen:

Title: Re: Ranged and armor
Post by: Thucydides on September 19, 2011, 09:40:58 pm

Quote from: Paul on September 19, 2011, 09:32:15 pm

no

armor protects from ranged well enough. also, for 1hit fun in melee play some native.

NOT WELL ENOUGH DAMNIT. NERF RANGE.

Title: Re: Ranged and armor
Post by: Lichen on September 19, 2011, 10:56:37 pm

With the changes to archery (once they are working properly) I think things won't be so bad as far as archers go. Reason is if archers want pierce damage all the time they must use bodkins which are expensive and low ammo. Crossbows I think it might be a good idea to make them the same as bows (damage type determined by ammo). Have different bolt types available (cut & pierce) with pierce obviously being much more expensive. Maybe around as much as (or more than) bodkin prices. I think it would add more diversity and interesting gameplay to have crossbows more than just pierce damage. You could have multiple types of pierce and cut bolts each. For example 0cut-3cut-8cut bolts/1pierce-4pierce-8pierce bolts etc.

Title: Re: Ranged and armor
Post by: Leshma on September 19, 2011, 11:00:21 pm

15x2 ain't low ammo and bodkins aren't that expensive. Don't trust dedicated archers, they are lying in most cases. Using 2xbodkins and a Long bow I was making shit ton of money on my archer. Simply put archery is still money making machine, it's just that they were used to almost zero upkeep before...

Title: Re: Ranged and armor
Post by: Dezilagel on September 20, 2011, 03:41:21 pm

lol @ the guy who -1'nd Leshma...

Anyways:

I'm not proposing that armor should become OP or useless, I'm just asking for an armor tweak so that it's actually useful to have armor vs ranged while removing some of the insane melee tankability it now gives.

Currently I myself have stacked armor so high that it's actually decent vs ranged (decent means I still take 1/3'd or more from loomed archers), but it makes me such a tank in melee I think it's OP.

@ Paul - I don't want 1-shot melee galore, I just think that me surviving 6-7 hits at times is a bit much.

Title: Re: Ranged and armor
Post by: Old_Sir_Agor on September 20, 2011, 03:51:17 pm

Quote from: Lichen on September 19, 2011, 10:56:37 pm

With the changes to archery (once they are working properly) I think things won't be so bad as far as archers go. Reason is if archers want pierce damage all the time they must use bodkins which are expensive and low ammo. Crossbows I think it might be a good idea to make them the same as bows (damage type determined by ammo). Have different bolt types available (cut & pierce) with pierce obviously being much more expensive. Maybe around as much as (or more than) bodkin prices. I think it would add more diversity and interesting gameplay to have crossbows more than just pierce damage. You could have multiple types of pierce and cut bolts each. For example 0cut-3cut-8cut bolts/1pierce-4pierce-8pierce bolts etc.

lol you know arbalest price? and you say about making bolts more expesive then bodkins, no way ty, with bow you can shoot 10 times more then with arbalest, thats why it has big dmg.

and also, if i shoot tincans from big distance some of they need 3 shoots from mw arbalest, and sometimes it is rain -.-

Title: Re: Ranged and armor
Post by: MrShine on September 20, 2011, 04:09:05 pm

Quote from: Leshma on September 19, 2011, 11:00:21 pm

15x2 ain't low ammo and bodkins aren't that expensive. Don't trust dedicated archers, they are lying in most cases. Using 2xbodkins and a Long bow I was making shit ton of money on my archer. Simply put archery is still money making machine, it's just that they were used to almost zero upkeep before...

When I went archer after the upkeep patch that made arrows more expensive I lost 40k gold leveling to ~29 until I decided to start alternating them with cheaper arrows.  I've played a lot of other classes and can say that was one of the few times I found myself struggling with cash flow; most of the time as a 2h or 1h/shield I end up making a substantial sum of cash, and that's with a much more expensive loadout.  So I don't know what you're smoking when you say you made a shit ton of money as an archer.

Still though, with the recent changes to bodkins offering pierce I think it's a fair tradeoff.  There is now a legitimate difference between bodkins and other arrows that warrants the increased upkeep cost.

Title: Re: Ranged and armor
Post by: Dezilagel on September 20, 2011, 11:21:24 pm

Quote from: Lichen on September 19, 2011, 10:56:37 pm

Off topic

Quote from: Leshma on September 19, 2011, 11:00:21 pm

Off topic

Quote from: Antonagor on September 20, 2011, 03:51:17 pm

All I care about is my arbalest. Arbalest. Arbalest mmmm... (Def off topic)

Quote from: MrShine on September 20, 2011, 04:09:05 pm

Off topic

Troll Jokes aside - sure it's nice to see some "+" and "-", but if it's not too much to ask I'd like some more detailed input on the suggestion at hand.

Agree/Disagree? Why? Any additional ideas?

I dunno, maybe this post is in vain but I'm trying to see here what people actually think of this, or if they care at all.

Title: Re: Armor: Effectiveness vs Melee and Ranged
Post by: Bjord on September 20, 2011, 11:53:13 pm

Fucking devs, man.

I think some archers reached office in the senate, because there's some schmerious lobbying going on.

Title: Re: Armor: Effectiveness vs Melee and Ranged
Post by: Xant on September 21, 2011, 12:08:08 am

Yeah, at first I was like yo and then I was like black dude what? Finally I was pretty much like y'know...

Fuck'm. Fucking senators, man. Backstabbers like Brutus.

Title: Re: Armor: Effectiveness vs Melee and Ranged
Post by: _JoG_ on September 21, 2011, 01:59:49 am

That's funny... In last Strategus most battles were won by cav and ranged (even though chadz said he wanted to make melee > ranged). Balancing team decision: let's buff archers (by making every bow do pierce damage and increase xbow reloading speed) and cavalry (by increasing horsebump damage), while nerfing melee with by making group and formation fighting pretty complicated with this teamhit thingy.

Title: Re: Ranged and armor
Post by: Fips on September 21, 2011, 03:00:16 am

Quote from: Leshma on September 19, 2011, 11:00:21 pm

15x2 ain't low ammo and bodkins aren't that expensive. Don't trust dedicated archers, they are lying in most cases. Using 2xbodkins and a Long bow I was making shit ton of money on my archer. Simply put archery is still money making machine, it's just that they were used to almost zero upkeep before...

Trololol...i am losing way more money as an archer than when i was melee. Even if i don't carry my mw langes messer around and instead of it the 0slot-hammer i am still losing alot of money with mw horn and mw bodkins (2 of them ofc). And i do have a lot of x4 or x5-multis.

@topic: Problem, meleemy old friends?

Title: Re: Armor: Effectiveness vs Melee and Ranged
Post by: Tzar on September 21, 2011, 07:46:48 am

This change will ruin cRPG just wait until everyone has respeced to archers or are only playing on duel servers..

Enjoy you medieval call of duty cRPG it wont last long....

As soon people take notice that they can do more dmg with a ranged weapon and get more kills and avoid blocking and footwork to pad their kdr we gonna get fully ranged 5 min battles....  :rolleyes:

Archery was fine before the patch why the hell buff it  :?:

Either revert the buff or make the bodkins cost a shitload of gold its basically makes the Rus bow a Bec de Corbin with 213235438592345 range

NOTE: Im not 2h or Polearm user on foot but cant see any reason for em to stick around much longer hell most of the guys i know who is still 2h/pole play on duel or some of the very small servers...

It shouldnt be this way imo...

Title: Re: Armor: Effectiveness vs Melee and Ranged
Post by: Thucydides on September 21, 2011, 07:50:06 am

i'm worried now, HAs can now carry armor penetrating bodkins :(

Title: Re: Armor: Effectiveness vs Melee and Ranged
Post by: justme on September 21, 2011, 08:04:40 am

there would be only archers and shielders left...

Title: Re: Armor: Effectiveness vs Melee and Ranged
Post by: Cepeshi on September 21, 2011, 08:24:29 am

Having to hit guy 3-5 times ?  :shock:

Have played just shortly after new patch (like, regular 6hour session), and i did not notice much difference. I still get raped by archers, and i have to hit 2-3 times at most while using Bec. I dont use anything else these days, as shortness and speed is what i find appealing. With some of them new collisions and stuff, sporting too long weapon is quite hard due to all them TH and TKs, i tried with long hafted and man, that sucked.

IF the bow dmg is counted as pierce with bodkins, i guess ill go archer for few gens to see how it feels.

But on topic: try to add some more spice to your attacks with speed bonuses, with a 38c weapon you can twohit kill a guy if you got good bonus and you place your hits well. I like that i am able to survive quite some hits if the guys are static or hitting with bad bonuses, that is fine. And it should be, try to adjust playstyle to rotate to hits more and such and you will see its not that bad at all.

(played 2her for like 8gens, pole for 4, so i got some overview how things are)

Title: Re: Armor: Effectiveness vs Melee and Ranged
Post by: MrShine on September 21, 2011, 03:05:57 pm

Yes, it's the end of the world for c-RPG with this change.   :rolleyes:



Arrow damage will likely be the same as it was before, maybe even a little less.  Prepatch cut damage arrows were shit except against light armor.  Therefore the majority of archers picked up the long bow for the pierce damage.

With the recent changes longbow users will actually do very similar damage as to what they did before.  Horn bow users and other bow users taking bodkins will do less damage per shot than you are used to, although they will be able to shoot more. 

It was a much needed change for the class that opens up a lot of flexibility whereas before it was either you had a longbow or you couldn't touch people with any semi-decent armor without a hail of arrows.

Having said that more internal balance is probably needed (horn bow is in a very strong place right now, probably needs a bit of a tweak) but we are on the right path.



E: More on topic: If you remember how throwing was before this recent patch (ie: pathetic) then you know why range needs the extra penetration flag.  Distance traveled can really decrease damage dealt from ranged weapons, afaik there is a very big difference from the base damage values and the actual value when compared to a melee swing.

Title: Re: Armor: Effectiveness vs Melee and Ranged
Post by: Dezilagel on October 04, 2011, 09:30:09 am

Bump of great justice - still taking more damage from ranged than melee...

Title: Re: Armor: Effectiveness vs Melee and Ranged
Post by: Paul on October 04, 2011, 09:58:35 am

deal with it

(click to show/hide)

:|

(click to show/hide)

:)

(click to show/hide)

8-)

Title: Re: Armor: Effectiveness vs Melee and Ranged
Post by: Vibe on October 04, 2011, 10:04:19 am

The problem I have with armor is the RNG actually, I'm talking about melee to be clear. Sometimes I get 2 shot by the same guy, next it takes him 6 swings to kill me. I doubt speed bonus can do that. (no headshots)

Title: Re: Armor: Effectiveness vs Melee and Ranged
Post by: Gisbert_of_Thuringia on October 04, 2011, 10:35:46 am

Where are our nice admins posting the stats how many kills are done by which class?

I've seen those once and the highest amount of kills go to 2h/polearm and 1h/shield :rolleyes:

Title: Re: Armor: Effectiveness vs Melee and Ranged
Post by: Paul on October 04, 2011, 10:47:37 am

[17:29] <@cmp> time to do na stats
[17:31] <@cmp> NA
[17:31] <@cmp> OneHanded 27707 18.40%
[17:31] <@cmp> TwoHanded 47132 31.29%
[17:31] <@cmp> Polearm   41007 27.23%
[17:31] <@cmp> Archery   10142 06.73%
[17:31] <@cmp> Crossbow  4485  02.98%
[17:31] <@cmp> Throwing  3716  02.47%
[17:31] <@cmp> Headshot  9827  06.52%
[17:31] <@cmp> Naked     86    00.06%
[17:31] <@cmp> Horsebump 3344  02.22%
[17:31] <@cmp> Couch     3164  02.10%
[17:31] <@cmp> this week


[17:35] <@cmp> EU
[17:35] <@cmp> OneHanded 36530 20.64%
[17:35] <@cmp> TwoHanded 47598 26.89%
[17:35] <@cmp> Polearm   50203 28.36%
[17:35] <@cmp> Archery   13331 07.53%
[17:35] <@cmp> Crossbow  6703  03.79%
[17:35] <@cmp> Throwing  2548  01.44%
[17:35] <@cmp> Headshot  12102 06.84%
[17:35] <@cmp> Naked     61    00.03%
[17:35] <@cmp> Horsebump 3549  02.00%
[17:35] <@cmp> Couch     4395  02.48%
[17:35] <@cmp> EU more skilled kthx



Ranged is already weak compared to Native. (At least) my approach is as long the ranged kill sum is below 20%(Native was about 40%), it's fine. Commence whine.

Title: Re: Armor: Effectiveness vs Melee and Ranged
Post by: Vibe on October 04, 2011, 10:53:31 am

[17:35] <@cmp> TwoHanded 47598 26.89%
[17:35] <@cmp> Polearm   50203 28.36%

NERF POLES

Title: Re: Armor: Effectiveness vs Melee and Ranged
Post by: Slamz on October 04, 2011, 11:05:20 am

Quote from: Tzar on September 21, 2011, 07:46:48 am

As soon people take notice that they can do more dmg with a ranged weapon and get more kills and avoid blocking and footwork to pad their kdr we gonna get fully ranged 5 min battles....  :rolleyes:

And another frantic 2H-user prediction fails to come to pass.

I have yet to see an archer rank as #1 on the kill list.  I'm sure someone is going to jump up and say how it happened once, back in their grandfather's day, the legend of the great archer who one time ranked #1 on the scoreboard, at 4am on a Russian server with 9 people online, 4 of which were elderly grandmothers, but I have never personally witnessed this.  Top scorers are always 2H, polearm or cav.



Actually I wish the scoreboard would show damage dealt.  That might make archers look more respectable.  My experience with archery is that it's easy to hit a lot of people 1 time each but hard to ever finish someone off (after one hit, they get really dodgy).

Title: Re: Armor: Effectiveness vs Melee and Ranged
Post by: Xant on October 04, 2011, 11:29:50 am

Quote from: Paul on October 04, 2011, 10:47:37 am

[17:35] <@cmp> EU more skilled kthx

Title: Re: Armor: Effectiveness vs Melee and Ranged
Post by: Herkkutatti on October 04, 2011, 11:42:01 am

crpg is gonna be like  wfas, infantry  is useless cos u die before u can even get 10meters close to enemy.

Title: Re: Armor: Effectiveness vs Melee and Ranged
Post by: Ylca on October 04, 2011, 11:43:36 am

DEAR GOD ARCHERS ARE NEARING 10% of kills ON NA AND EU

But wait, if everyone respecced archers like the complainers said and yet archers are still sub 10%...

But wait, I thought arrows killed everyone in 2 shots now?

But wait,  I thought melee had no chance of killing archers who would simply murder them from range effortlessly? Hell one thread was even claiming archers were the counter to shielders

Oh dear.


This is why a majority of the CRPG community should not be allowed to comment on balance in any way whatsoever. Hell, it's like the last patch where they put pierce on bodkins but it wasn't actually in yet (so bodkins did cut and less cut than before), yet a wave of people suddenly started complaining that archery was OP and they were getting two shot.

Title: Re: Armor: Effectiveness vs Melee and Ranged
Post by: Xant on October 04, 2011, 01:03:07 pm

Quote from: Ylca on October 04, 2011, 11:43:36 am

Hell, it's like the last patch where they put pierce on bodkins but it wasn't actually in yet (so bodkins did cut and less cut than before), yet a wave of people suddenly started complaining that archery was OP and they were getting two shot.

That shit's always the most amusing. Similar thing happened when someone said that they felt like they're running faster, then everyone was sure athletics was buffed. Or that hitboxes were changed, or..

Title: Re: Armor: Effectiveness vs Melee and Ranged
Post by: Gisbert_of_Thuringia on October 04, 2011, 01:44:37 pm

Quote from: Ylca on October 04, 2011, 11:43:36 am

DEAR GOD ARCHERS ARE NEARING 10% of kills ON NA AND EU

But wait, if everyone respecced archers like the complainers said and yet archers are still sub 10%...

But wait, I thought arrows killed everyone in 2 shots now?

But wait,  I thought melee had no chance of killing archers who would simply murder them from range effortlessly? Hell one thread was even claiming archers were the counter to shielders

Oh dear.


This is why a majority of the CRPG community should not be allowed to comment on balance in any way whatsoever. Hell, it's like the last patch where they put pierce on bodkins but it wasn't actually in yet (so bodkins did cut and less cut than before), yet a wave of people suddenly started complaining that archery was OP and they were getting two shot.

+1


And thanks for posting that Paul.
But I bet most player will skip the numbers and continue with what they've done before :rolleyes:

Archery killed 40% on native? o.O
OMG that must be fucking annoying

Title: Re: Armor: Effectiveness vs Melee and Ranged
Post by: Christo on October 04, 2011, 03:46:40 pm

Quote from: Gisbert_of_Thuringia on October 04, 2011, 01:44:37 pm

Archery killed 40% on native? o.O
OMG that must be fucking annoying

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b465gAg0O4I&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b465gAg0O4I&feature=related)

Multiply that by x2 because of crossbows.

Title: Re: Armor: Effectiveness vs Melee and Ranged
Post by: Corwin on October 04, 2011, 03:50:22 pm

Quote from: Slamz on October 04, 2011, 11:05:20 am

Actually I wish the scoreboard would show damage dealt.  That might make archers look more respectable.  My experience with archery is that it's easy to hit a lot of people 1 time each but hard to ever finish someone off (after one hit, they get really dodgy).

+1, if possible.

Title: Re: Armor: Effectiveness vs Melee and Ranged
Post by: Herkkutatti on October 04, 2011, 03:59:14 pm

Quote from: Christo on October 04, 2011, 03:46:40 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b465gAg0O4I&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b465gAg0O4I&feature=related)

Multiply that by x2 because of crossbows.

this happens to me all time in eu 1 and i dont even have a shield :D

Title: Re: Armor: Effectiveness vs Melee and Ranged
Post by: Teeth on October 04, 2011, 04:15:23 pm

I feel the same as the OP. Combined with the increasing skill of the playerbase and loomed armours, the melee armour soak makes killing in melee a pretty slow process, giving the archers loads more time to shoot us, which go through your armour like its paper.

Title: Re: Armor: Effectiveness vs Melee and Ranged
Post by: MrShine on October 04, 2011, 04:50:14 pm

Quote from: Paul on October 04, 2011, 10:47:37 am

[17:29] <@cmp> time to do na stats
[17:31] <@cmp> NA
[17:31] <@cmp> OneHanded 27707 18.40%
[17:31] <@cmp> TwoHanded 47132 31.29%
[17:31] <@cmp> Polearm   41007 27.23%
[17:31] <@cmp> Archery   10142 06.73%
[17:31] <@cmp> Crossbow  4485  02.98%
[17:31] <@cmp> Throwing  3716  02.47%
[17:31] <@cmp> Headshot  9827  06.52%
[17:31] <@cmp> Naked     86    00.06%
[17:31] <@cmp> Horsebump 3344  02.22%
[17:31] <@cmp> Couch     3164  02.10%
[17:31] <@cmp> this week


[17:35] <@cmp> EU
[17:35] <@cmp> OneHanded 36530 20.64%
[17:35] <@cmp> TwoHanded 47598 26.89%
[17:35] <@cmp> Polearm   50203 28.36%
[17:35] <@cmp> Archery   13331 07.53%
[17:35] <@cmp> Crossbow  6703  03.79%
[17:35] <@cmp> Throwing  2548  01.44%
[17:35] <@cmp> Headshot  12102 06.84%
[17:35] <@cmp> Naked     61    00.03%
[17:35] <@cmp> Horsebump 3549  02.00%
[17:35] <@cmp> Couch     4395  02.48%
[17:35] <@cmp> EU more skilled kthx



Ranged is already weak compared to Native. (At least) my approach is as long the ranged kill sum is below 20%(Native was about 40%), it's fine. Commence whine.

I would love to see if there is a way to determine the quantity of archers etc that make up these different groups (something like if pd>3 & archery wpf >100 for archers, if ps>3 2h & 2H wpf >100 for 2handers, etc).  The stats tell a rough picture, but without totals it's hard to say what really needs to be nerfed/buffed.

For example, who knows how many of those kills from a 2h/pole involved one shotting a target softened up by 2 or three arrows.  Or similarly is the great quantity of archers in EU partly to blame for the slightly higher killed %, or are EU archers just better, or something else?

Back on topic:
All you people care about is multipiers and making money off of archers. Archers are human! Leave Britney Archers alone!

Title: Re: Armor: Effectiveness vs Melee and Ranged
Post by: Leshma on October 04, 2011, 04:56:01 pm

So, balance is done based on kill statistics :shock: :lol:

And for a moment I thought we're dealing with smart people here (devs).

I would so like to be muted permanently on these forums if you don't mind so I don't have to waste my precious time on the likes of you, dear so called devs.

Title: Re: Armor: Effectiveness vs Melee and Ranged
Post by: Gisbert_of_Thuringia on October 04, 2011, 04:58:31 pm

I never said nor did anyone else that balance is done on kills.

But soooo many peopel are whining, because sooooo many people get killed by archers --> statistics say you people have a weird perception^^


MrShine if you want to know anything more about these statistics go ask Paul. I just copied them

Title: Re: Armor: Effectiveness vs Melee and Ranged
Post by: Dezilagel on October 04, 2011, 05:31:04 pm

...thread derailed, how unexpected.

This thread was intended to be about armor and it's implications; when the devs changed the armor values they practically left out ranged.

Before patch ranged did a lot of damage, and melee did a lot of damage. You could choose to wear armor to get decent protection against both. While you could argue that the damage dealt overall was too high, at least it was fair. (btw the random glancing was a bunch of bullcrap, thx for getting rid of that)

If you wear a lot of armor nowadays you still get the same decent protection against ranged, but now it also makes you an incredible melee tank. While in theory "compensated for" by the reduction in glances, increased melee skill (= better blocking, but also a more potent offence meaning that the average player wouldn't have had much of a problem with glancing in the first place!) in combination with more looms (and let's do a recap here, which are the most potent looms...? Ranged and armor right!) makes for an increasing imbalance.

Just how effective armor should be is another thing to balance, but right now it's just too good in melee at least. (And hence too ineffective vs ranged in comparison.)



EDIT: Sorry to those of you who did not post irrelevant stuff, I had the comp running for a long time afk and thus most of this was directed to earlier posters.

(click to show/hide)

To add to the derailment:

@ Paul, Gisbert...: Those stats are useless without usage stats, and even then damage done stats would be much better. Also stats such how many of those melee kills are mounted, how many of the "headshots" are from falling etc. would imo be needed before you could draw any kind of conclusions regarding class-to-class balance based on the data.

Title: Re: Armor: Effectiveness vs Melee and Ranged
Post by: Tears of Destiny on October 04, 2011, 09:45:06 pm

Suckers...

Title: Re: Armor: Effectiveness vs Melee and Ranged
Post by: GreatKali on October 04, 2011, 09:56:53 pm

Armor to effective in melee?? i run around in a +8 plate armor set with at least 11 or 12 if and i can say that u not right!
79 head 82 body and 66 leg

The nerfd soak of the armor makes it impossible for me to flee out of a mob say 3 or more ppl maybe its my foult because i dont put any point in ath but in this case im dead in 90% because 3 ppl hitting u even in this loomd plate und are down in a few sec. (not to talk about how fast u down when they hack with dirty steel pricks in ur face!)  Befor the nerf i could run away because some of the hits always glanced but now u feel like a slow fat ass in a paper armor! in 1 vs 1 situation its the only thing where armor helps a lot.

What i want is to GIVE BACK THE OLD SOAK VALUES!!!!! because i pay fucking 3k+ upkeep and i want to get something from that!! damn i put 8 loom points in my armor!! and fucking archers with no loom points beat the shit put of me!!! WTF

Title: Re: Armor: Effectiveness vs Melee and Ranged
Post by: Xant on October 04, 2011, 10:05:17 pm

Quote from: GreatKali on October 04, 2011, 09:56:53 pm

its my foult because i dont put any point in ath

Title: Re: Armor: Effectiveness vs Melee and Ranged
Post by: Paul on October 04, 2011, 11:12:49 pm

loomless "fucking archer" (15 str, 5 PD, 140 active wpf) with hornbow(24) against 82 body armor pointblank

bodkin(24+2 p):
average damage = 6
average amount of bodkins needed for 75? hp = about 12 to 13

tartar(24 + 5 c):
average damage = 2.5
average amount of tatar arrows needed for 75? hp = about 30

Title: Re: Armor: Effectiveness vs Melee and Ranged
Post by: Corwin on October 04, 2011, 11:17:22 pm

It's not "taRtar", stop calling it like that, tartar is sauce, Tatar is name of the people and of the bow. Go look at c-rpg.net, if you don't believe me.

Title: Re: Armor: Effectiveness vs Melee and Ranged
Post by: Xant on October 05, 2011, 12:52:03 am

Quote from: Corwin on October 04, 2011, 11:17:22 pm

It's not "taRtar", stop calling it like that, tartar is sauce, Tatar is name of the people and of the bow. Go look at c-rpg.net, if you don't believe me.

Very good Corwin, you have just disproven Paul's entire point.

Title: Re: Armor: Effectiveness vs Melee and Ranged
Post by: RandomDude on October 05, 2011, 12:57:10 am

Quote from: Leshma on October 04, 2011, 04:56:01 pm

So, balance is done based on kill statistics :shock: :lol:

And for a moment I thought we're dealing with smart people here (devs).

I would so like to be muted permanently on these forums if you don't mind so I don't have to waste my precious time on the likes of you, dear so called devs.

but who will whisper sweet nothings in my ear once you're gone? :s

(click to show/hide)

Quote from: Dezilagel on October 04, 2011, 05:31:04 pm

...thread derailed, how unexpected.

This thread was intended to be about armor and it's implications; when the devs changed the armor values they practically left out ranged.

Before patch ranged did a lot of damage, and melee did a lot of damage. You could choose to wear armor to get decent protection against both. While you could argue that the damage dealt overall was too high, at least it was fair. (btw the random glancing was a bunch of bullcrap, thx for getting rid of that)

If you wear a lot of armor nowadays you still get the same decent protection against ranged, but now it also makes you an incredible melee tank. While in theory "compensated for" by the reduction in glances, increased melee skill (= better blocking, but also a more potent offence meaning that the average player wouldn't have had much of a problem with glancing in the first place!) in combination with more looms (and let's do a recap here, which are the most potent looms...? Ranged and armor right!) makes for an increasing imbalance.

Just how effective armor should be is another thing to balance, but right now it's just too good in melee at least. (And hence too ineffective vs ranged in comparison.)



EDIT: Sorry to those of you who did not post irrelevant stuff, I had the comp running for a long time afk and thus most of this was directed to earlier posters.

(click to show/hide)

To add to the derailment:

@ Paul, Gisbert...: Those stats are useless without usage stats, and even then damage done stats would be much better. Also stats such how many of those melee kills are mounted, how many of the "headshots" are from falling etc. would imo be needed before you could draw any kind of conclusions regarding class-to-class balance based on the data.

yeah if u only fight slashing weapons then armour is great

use the pierce attack of the weapon or a blunt one and people die fast

Title: Re: Armor: Effectiveness vs Melee and Ranged
Post by: Herkkutatti on October 05, 2011, 01:01:21 am

i have 7 if and +3 black armour  and archers kill me with 4 hits ffs no idea in this game anymore.

Title: Re: Armor: Effectiveness vs Melee and Ranged
Post by: Dezilagel on October 05, 2011, 01:09:27 am

Quote from: Paul on October 04, 2011, 11:12:49 pm

loomless "fucking archer" (15 str, 5 PD, 140 active wpf) with hornbow(24) against 82 body armor pointblank

bodkin(24+2 p):
average damage = 6
average amount of bodkins needed for 75? hp = about 12 to 13

tartar(24 + 5 c):
average damage = 2.5
average amount of tatar arrows needed for 75? hp = about 30

Nonloomed hornbow = fairly weak

82 Body Armor = hardcore fully loomed tincan.

5 PD = lol

Let's instead look at the numbers for 7-8 PD MW rus/longbow + MW arrows vs. ~55 armor (lordly medium-heavy armor or standard plate, + standard gloves) @ 10 m (better throw in some speed bonus there aswell since if you're trying to melee an archer you should tentatively run towards him) for a view on what's actually the problem.

No worries, I'll do the calculations for you this time:

(click to show/hide)

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

(Reduce the impact of the RNG already)

Seriously though, why post these statistics anyway? They're displaying a very rare event that is extreme; a light bow fired from a low-str char vs the heaviest of heavy armor. Unless you got comparable statistics for melee weapons that somehow throw off my point then I see no reason why anyone should care about these numbers.

Title: Re: Armor: Effectiveness vs Melee and Ranged
Post by: Xant on October 05, 2011, 01:31:11 am

Yep. But at least it shows that you can't kill the hardcorest of loomed tincans with 5 PD unloomed bow...

But well, I have 63 armor atm and some dude with a Rus Bow just two shot me.

Title: Re: Armor: Effectiveness vs Melee and Ranged
Post by: cmp on October 05, 2011, 01:40:02 am

Quote from: Corwin on October 04, 2011, 11:17:22 pm

It's not "taRtar", stop calling it like that, tartar is sauce, Tatar is name of the people and of the bow. Go look at c-rpg.net, if you don't believe me.

Tar·tar  (tärtr)
n.
1. also Ta·tar (tätr) A member of any of the Turkic and Mongolian peoples of central Asia who invaded western Asia and eastern Europe in the Middle Ages.

Title: Re: Armor: Effectiveness vs Melee and Ranged
Post by: Paul on October 05, 2011, 02:08:08 am

Quote from: GreatKali on October 04, 2011, 09:56:53 pm

Armor to effective in melee?? i run around in a +8 plate armor set with at least 11 or 12 if and i can say that u not right!
79 head 82 body and 66 leg

...

What i want is to GIVE BACK THE OLD SOAK VALUES!!!!! because i pay fucking 3k+ upkeep and i want to get something from that!! damn i put 8 loom points in my armor!! and fucking archers with no loom points beat the shit put of me!!! WTF

I posted the 82 armor example because of this. I also got a PD5 hornbow archer so i took him for the example. I got a PD6 Longbow archer too but I like the other one more.

Nice job with the tatar typo ridicule. Especially with having in mind that wrote the word a second time in the same post without the extra r. Both is correct though as cmp showed.

Title: Re: Armor: Effectiveness vs Melee and Ranged
Post by: Xant on October 05, 2011, 02:12:04 am

well yes but i don't think anyone took greatkali seriously

dude's complaining about not being able to escape three people when he doesn't put a single point in athletic and uses plate armor

Title: Re: Armor: Effectiveness vs Melee and Ranged
Post by: justme on October 05, 2011, 08:18:46 am

Quote from: Paul on October 04, 2011, 10:47:37 am

[17:35] <@cmp> EU
[17:35] <@cmp> OneHanded 36530 20.64%
[17:35] <@cmp> TwoHanded 47598 26.89%
[17:35] <@cmp> Polearm   50203 28.36%
[17:35] <@cmp> Archery   13331 07.53%
[17:35] <@cmp> Crossbow  6703  03.79%
[17:35] <@cmp> Throwing  2548  01.44%
[17:35] <@cmp> Headshot  12102 06.84%
[17:35] <@cmp> Naked     61    00.03%
[17:35] <@cmp> Horsebump 3549  02.00%
[17:35] <@cmp> Couch     4395  02.48%
[17:35] <@cmp> EU more skilled kthx

almost always i die from the ranged, how the hell is only 15 %?
and its easy to kill someone, because rangefest make everyone 1/3 of hp when they arrive to melee..

Title: Re: Armor: Effectiveness vs Melee and Ranged
Post by: Paul on October 05, 2011, 11:06:10 am

Selective perception. You probably don't use a shield and as a shieldless 2h/polearm guy you feel insulted when being shot/thrown at. But cRPG is not a ranged fest. On the contrary, ranged is pretty weak here - at least compared to Native.

People forgot how strong ranged has been is past patches but because the majority of players is 2h or polearm, they want it weakened no matter what. Their hysteria is cumulative. They make up hidden ranged buffs and perceived ranged growing rates of several hundert percent. All this while the ranged kill sum hasn't been growing for month. Yes, it is an indicator for ranged performance and we are working on better ones.

Giving ranged the new armor parameters fucks it up too much. This is different to melee which has a high cadence and a couple of hits more against a heavily armored target isn't that bad in my opinion. It's better than random glances. But a longbow archers needing his whole quiver to take down a loomed kujak doesn't feel right to me while glancing with weak bows seems ok.

Title: Re: Armor: Effectiveness vs Melee and Ranged
Post by: Corwin on October 05, 2011, 11:29:17 am

Quote from: Paul on October 05, 2011, 11:06:10 am

Selective perception. You probably don't use a shield and as a shieldless 2h/polearm guy you feel insulted when being shot/thrown at. But cRPG is not a ranged fest. On the contrary, ranged is pretty weak here - at least compared to Native.

People forgot how strong ranged has been is past patches but because the majority of players is 2h or polearm, they want it weakened no matter what. Their hysteria is cumulative. They make up hidden ranged buffs and perceived ranged growing rates of several hundert percent. All this while the ranged kill sum hasn't been growing for month. Yes, it is an indicator for ranged performance and we are working on better ones.

Giving ranged the new armor parameters fucks it up too much. This is different to melee which has a high cadence and a couple of hits more against a heavily armored target isn't that bad in my opinion. It's better than random glances. But a longbow archers needing his whole quiver to take down a loomed kujak doesn't feel right to me while glancing with weak bows seems ok.

I understand the argument about selective perception, but there are still few things missing when talking about statistics. First of all, relation between a number of players playing certain class pure or hybrid (and I know this would be a bitch to calculate) and percentage of kills. For example, crossbows kill 3.79% and maybe half of headshots being the most accurate ranged weapon, which brings us to maybe 7%. However, if number of players playing crossbowmen is around 2%, that leads to conclusion that crossbows are overpowered. Or, if there are 20% of players playing crossbow, that would mean that this weapon is seriously underpowered. Also, if I were you, I would do my best to compare this statistic with the one showing damage, as someone already suggested.
Second, I don't think that there was ever a situation when longbowmen needed more than 3 arrows to kill person in loomed kuyak. And that is with negative bonus.
Thirdly, you should definitely take in consideration and carefully read what Jambi, Gisbert and Tenne, being among the most experienced bowmen at least on EU say about this whole issue.

I apologize for quoting from another thread, but this is practically the same discussion, taking place at two separate topics.

Quote from: Jambi on September 25, 2011, 03:38:02 am

The Hornbow definatly needs a nerf, and so does the Tatar bow now. If these bows fire Bodkin arrows, the speed/damage ratio is just insane.

Level 30
    15/24 / 18/21  Hornbow Bow
or 21/18 Tatar bow build are just way too OP.

At the end I would say that, at least to me, comparisons with Native don't mean anything. I thought you were trying (and succeeding so far) to make something much better than Native.

Title: Re: Armor: Effectiveness vs Melee and Ranged
Post by: Hrafn on October 05, 2011, 12:01:10 pm

Some people just dont understand that 2h/pole gives big melee advantage compare to 1h. Not giving to them posibility easily reach melee and kill  hordes of people is one of the ranged goals. Thats how balance work, live with it. Many peope got used to play with giant 3H sword and get easy killes, they will always whine.

Title: Re: Ranged and armor
Post by: Camaris on October 05, 2011, 12:08:47 pm

Quote from: Antonagor on September 20, 2011, 03:51:17 pm

lol you know arbalest price? and you say about making bolts more expesive then bodkins, no way ty, with bow you can shoot 10 times more then with arbalest, thats why it has big dmg.

and also, if i shoot tincans from big distance some of they need 3 shoots from mw arbalest, and sometimes it is rain -.-

If i hit tincans with my danish they sometimes need 3-6 hits and sometimes they even do block. Dont cry with your stupid x-bow its op enough since ages.

Title: Re: Ranged and armor
Post by: RandomDude on October 05, 2011, 12:43:05 pm

Quote from: Camaris on October 05, 2011, 12:08:47 pm

If i hit tincans with my danish they sometimes need 3-6 hits and sometimes they even do block. Dont cry with your stupid x-bow its op enough since ages.

Please use thrust attack and then see how many hits it takes.

I have been one hit from thrust attacks many times with full hp, obv there was speed bonus too.

Title: Re: Armor: Effectiveness vs Melee and Ranged
Post by: v/onMega on October 05, 2011, 12:57:37 pm

Funny,

I frequently end up eating 3 - 4 projectiles a round, 2- 4 hits in melee and still survive.

I can also perfectly recall a time, dying to 2 maybe 3 arrows shot ACROSS the map @ a 27/27 full IF build...

Wait till Paul fixes the random soak of armors....(thats whats sometimes causing shocking dmg effects)....and it will be perfect :-).


I am totally for balancing ranged out for 1 year....was always whining loud....

Weird I say this, but ranged seems balanced :-)

Title: Re: Armor: Effectiveness vs Melee and Ranged
Post by: RandomDude on October 05, 2011, 02:15:46 pm

Quote from: v/onMega on October 05, 2011, 12:57:37 pm

Funny,

I frequently end up eating 3 - 4 projectiles a round, 2- 4 hits in melee and still survive.

I can also perfectly recall a time, dying to 2 maybe 3 arrows shot ACROSS the map @ a 27/27 full IF build...

Wait till Paul fixes the random soak of armors....(thats whats sometimes causing shocking dmg effects)....and it will be perfect :-).


I am totally for balancing ranged out for 1 year....was always whining loud....

Weird I say this, but ranged seems balanced :-)

most ranged isnt too bad until you get pretty close in finding

Title: Re: Armor: Effectiveness vs Melee and Ranged
Post by: cmp on October 05, 2011, 02:48:39 pm

If you don't have a shield maybe you should avoid getting close...

Title: Re: Armor: Effectiveness vs Melee and Ranged
Post by: Siiem on October 05, 2011, 02:55:03 pm

Quote from: cmpxchg8b on October 05, 2011, 02:48:39 pm

If you don't have a shield maybe you should avoid getting close...

There are people like Hetman who can do some sort of wizardry and hit you even if you have your shield up... damn haxor. He is my nemesis!

Title: Re: Armor: Effectiveness vs Melee and Ranged
Post by: Leshma on October 05, 2011, 03:17:29 pm

Quote from: Paul on October 05, 2011, 11:06:10 am

People forgot how strong ranged has been is past patches but because the majority of players is 2h or polearm.

This just shows how much you know about this mod.

Majority isn't 2H or polearms, but they kill the most. People like Phase and Chase have more kills per map than the rest of their team. It's not their fault that majority is less skilled. Players like them can score just as well using any other class...

And ranged wasn't strong a year ago, it was ridiculous.

And I can kill a tincan using mundane Rus bow and mundane arrows (that's 29 cut damage), it takes 4-5 shots but it's not that hard to hit someone using a bow...

Title: Re: Armor: Effectiveness vs Melee and Ranged
Post by: Vibe on October 05, 2011, 03:21:03 pm

Quote from: Leshma on October 05, 2011, 03:17:29 pm

Majority isn't 2H or polearms, but they kill the most. People like Phase and Chase have more kills per map than the rest of their team. It's not their fault that majority is less skilled. Players like them can score just as well using any other class...

No, no they can't. I've seen Chase play on his shielder and his KD was completely human (no offense, Chase). Simply because 2h/pole have more damage and KDR is all about getting the last hit - more range and damage = more chance to get the last hit. Also a reason why long spear is a very good weapon for KDR.

Title: Re: Armor: Effectiveness vs Melee and Ranged
Post by: Gisbert_of_Thuringia on October 05, 2011, 03:56:29 pm

Quote from: Corwin on October 05, 2011, 11:29:17 am

I For example, crossbows kill 3.79% and maybe half of headshots being the most accurate ranged weapon, which brings us to maybe 7%. However, if number of players playing crossbowmen is around 2%, that leads to conclusion that crossbows are overpowered. Or, if there are 20% of players playing crossbow, that would mean that this weapon is seriously underpowered.

Hhmm..most people say it is rangefest out there and that half the server is archer/crossbow.

Looking at the numbers and at your sentence I think we can come to the conclusion that archery is reeeaaalllyyy underpowered. So why does everyone want a nerf?^^

conflict huh? :D

Title: Re: Armor: Effectiveness vs Melee and Ranged
Post by: Xant on October 05, 2011, 05:34:29 pm

Quote from: Vibe on October 05, 2011, 03:21:03 pm

No, no they can't. I've seen Chase play on his shielder and his KD was completely human (no offense, Chase). Simply because 2h/pole have more damage and KDR is all about getting the last hit - more range and damage = more chance to get the last hit. Also a reason why long spear is a very good weapon for KDR.

Yes, but that doesn't mean they're not helping their team as much as before. And this is just in general.. most of the kills from someone with a really good score are peasants and other easy 1hit kills. It's just a race to who gets those free kills first, and the winners of that race are 2h and cavalry.

However, taking those kills isn't exactly helping the team..

Title: Re: Armor: Effectiveness vs Melee and Ranged
Post by: Corwin on October 05, 2011, 05:45:45 pm

Quote from: Gisbert_of_Thuringia on October 05, 2011, 03:56:29 pm

Hhmm..most people say it is rangefest out there and that half the server is archer/crossbow.

Looking at the numbers and at your sentence I think we can come to the conclusion that archery is reeeaaalllyyy underpowered. So why does everyone want a nerf?^^

conflict huh? :D

Statistics is like a bikini, shows everything but the important parts.  :mrgreen: And we don't even have whole statistics here, only bits and peaces.

Title: Re: Armor: Effectiveness vs Melee and Ranged
Post by: Siiem on October 05, 2011, 05:45:55 pm

Quote from: Xant on October 05, 2011, 05:34:29 pm

However, taking those kills isn't exactly helping the team..

Yeah, you would know!

Title: Re: Armor: Effectiveness vs Melee and Ranged
Post by: Xant on October 05, 2011, 05:50:40 pm

Quote from: Siiem on October 05, 2011, 05:45:55 pm

Yeah, you would know!

Said the man who is dead scared of playing vs me in NTW.

Title: Re: Armor: Effectiveness vs Melee and Ranged
Post by: Siiem on October 05, 2011, 07:40:07 pm

What you blabberin' bout?

Title: Re: Armor: Effectiveness vs Melee and Ranged
Post by: Xant on October 05, 2011, 07:51:24 pm

Quote from: Siiem on October 05, 2011, 07:40:07 pm

What you blabberin' bout?

It's ok siiem, my tactical genius knows no bounds, anyone would be scared.

Title: Re: Armor: Effectiveness vs Melee and Ranged
Post by: Vibe on October 05, 2011, 11:04:02 pm

Quote from: Xant on October 05, 2011, 05:34:29 pm

Yes, but that doesn't mean they're not helping their team as much as before. And this is just in general.. most of the kills from someone with a really good score are peasants and other easy 1hit kills. It's just a race to who gets those free kills first, and the winners of that race are 2h and cavalry.

However, taking those kills isn't exactly helping the team..

True, but the talk was about score, so...

Title: Re: Armor: Effectiveness vs Melee and Ranged
Post by: RandomDude on October 07, 2011, 02:43:43 pm

Quote from: cmpxchg8b on October 05, 2011, 02:48:39 pm

If you don't have a shield maybe you should avoid getting close...

maybe the dev team can make flamberges sheathable again (i promise i have some hidden compartment for it in my under garments)

then i'll use mah trusty board shield again, yay!

Title: Re: Armor: Effectiveness vs Melee and Ranged
Post by: cmp on October 07, 2011, 02:45:26 pm

Quote from: RandomDude on October 07, 2011, 02:43:43 pm

maybe the dev team can make flamberges sheathable again

Ok. Sheathable, 5 slots.

Title: Re: Armor: Effectiveness vs Melee and Ranged
Post by: RandomDude on October 07, 2011, 02:46:02 pm

Quote from: cmpxchg8b on October 07, 2011, 02:45:26 pm

Ok. Sheathable, 5 slots.

can i have 7 slots in my eq screen then?

Title: Re: Armor: Effectiveness vs Melee and Ranged
Post by: Vingnir the Wanderer on October 11, 2011, 03:18:43 am

Game balance, 'what your used to' aside,

The fact that anything other than a crossbow, or maybe a longbow, can actually do ANY damage to someone in plate/full helm/articulated gloves/metal encased greaves is, rediculous.

EA knows this, its why you cant blow up a tank with a rifle, in call of duty.




And call me a historic accuracy chocolate chip cookie or whatever, but as long as thats the case, this game is kinda silly.   

I dunno, I know someones gonna come in here, and say 'historical accuracy has nothing to do with gaming or crpg blah blah blah blah blah...'

Its not true. Sure the game has limitations, and concessions to them, but, the more ways you fit in simulated accuracy while honing balance, while its still fun, the better ANY game like this becomes.

So, if some math was added in the archery mechanics, that both made plate invulnerable to anything other than a cross or longbow, simulated semi-realistic penatration values on other armors, AND was balanced at the same time, well thats where things should be pointed towards.  As long as its still fun.

My 2 cents

 






 

Title: Re: Armor: Effectiveness vs Melee and Ranged
Post by: Dezilagel on October 12, 2011, 07:11:43 pm

Regular values:

armor_soak_factor_against_cut       = 0.65
armor_soak_factor_against_pierce    = 0.5
armor_soak_factor_against_blunt     = 0.4

armor_reduction_factor_against_cut       = 1.6
armor_reduction_factor_against_pierce    = 1.1
armor_reduction_factor_against_blunt     = 1.3

extra_penetration flag:

armor_soak_factor_against_cut       = 0.78
armor_soak_factor_against_pierce    = 0.6
armor_soak_factor_against_blunt     = 0.48

armor_reduction_factor_against_cut       = 0.96
armor_reduction_factor_against_pierce    = 0.36 EDIT: Possible typo? [1.1*0.6=0.66]
armor_reduction_factor_against_blunt     = 0.78

Aah, there's the problem!

While the fact that armor is less effective against ranged is bs imho, ranged pierce damage seems to be absolutely lethal compared to its melee counterpart (much more so than the other dmg types).

But ranged pierce damage is fairly uncommon right? Restricted to the most expensive/extreme loadouts with compensating drawbacks that will drain your cash like.... Owait.

I pity the archers who traded away their bodkins.

(Stats snatched from marco1391's thread)

(click to show/hide)

SHAMELESS bump

Title: Re: Armor: Effectiveness vs Melee and Ranged
Post by: Leshma on October 12, 2011, 08:42:58 pm

Make bodkins cut and problem solved :D

But no, 3000 ranged players killed 6000 people and half of those people were actually killed by 50 people so archery is considered underpowered...

Title: Re: Armor: Effectiveness vs Melee and Ranged
Post by: Duke on October 24, 2011, 10:34:13 pm

Quote from: Dezilagel on September 19, 2011, 08:15:48 pm

Seriously, I've been stacking up on armor ... it allows me/others to sometimes take 5-6 hits in melee ... while ranged still bring me down in 2-3 shots if loomed (Or arbalest).

(edited your quote a bit for structure)

You're complaining about Arbalest killing you in 3 shots?.... Really?!

Most ranged hitting you is probably pierce damage, which has bonuses vs armor.
Most melee hitting you is probably cut damage, which does not have any bonuses vs armor.
If you survive 2 Arbalest shots, you should be thanking your lucky stars, not bitching about it.

Title: Re: Armor: Effectiveness vs Melee and Ranged
Post by: Dezilagel on October 25, 2011, 05:36:07 pm

Quote from: Duke on October 24, 2011, 10:34:13 pm

(edited your quote a bit for structure)

You're complaining about Arbalest killing you in 3 shots?.... Really?!

Most ranged hitting you is probably pierce damage, which has bonuses vs armor.
Most melee hitting you is probably cut damage, which does not have any bonuses vs armor.
If you survive 2 Arbalest shots, you should be thanking your lucky stars, not bitching about it.

An arbalest brings me down in 1 or 2 shots.

What I'm saying is that heavy, loomed bows 2-3 shot me, and I included the arbalest as a parenthesis since it also has that ability. What I basically wanted to do was to avoid a bow vs xbow discussion.

Title: Re: Armor: Effectiveness vs Melee and Ranged
Post by: Penitent on October 25, 2011, 05:49:07 pm

shield

Title: Re: Armor: Effectiveness vs Melee and Ranged
Post by: Thucydides on October 25, 2011, 08:20:29 pm

Quote from: Garison on October 25, 2011, 05:49:07 pm

shield

ever had 2 archers crossfire you? shield sucks dick in that situation

Title: Re: Armor: Effectiveness vs Melee and Ranged
Post by: ThePoopy on October 25, 2011, 08:28:09 pm

buff helmets, max head armor u can get is 60 while body armor is 72 (without looms), and then theres headshot bonus on that

Title: Re: Armor: Effectiveness vs Melee and Ranged
Post by: Teeth on October 25, 2011, 08:39:20 pm

Quote from: Garison on October 25, 2011, 05:49:07 pm

shield

No, just no. First of all, it costs points, now that would be worth it if a shield would be effective. As a 2h meleer with a shield you will have to put the shield away to fight, which is 80% of the time, after the initial run to the fray.

When youre not fighting missiles are pretty easy to dodge anyway, just spasm with your mouse. I mostly get hit while fighting, when I would have holstered my shield.

Also you can get caught off guard with your shield out at close range, which will grant the enemy a hit when you switch.

Overall a shield for arrows as a 2h is detrimental to your performance. Being a 1h shielder is just plainly boring.

Not even talking about this yet

Quote from: Thucydides on October 25, 2011, 08:20:29 pm

ever had 2 archers crossfire you? shield sucks dick in that situation

Title: Re: Armor: Effectiveness vs Melee and Ranged
Post by: Tzar on October 25, 2011, 08:40:57 pm

Quote from: Garison on October 25, 2011, 05:49:07 pm

shield

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Title: Re: Armor: Effectiveness vs Melee and Ranged
Post by: Digglez on October 25, 2011, 08:47:05 pm

everything was fine until they made bodkins change a bow's damage.  Longbow had a purpose and heavy armor users could could shrug off hits from other rinkedink bows but respected longbow & xbows

Title: Re: Armor: Effectiveness vs Melee and Ranged
Post by: Thucydides on October 25, 2011, 09:25:32 pm

Quote from: Digglez on October 25, 2011, 08:47:05 pm

everything was fine until they made bodkins change a bow's damage.  Longbow had a purpose and you could shrug off hits from other rinkedink bows

this, before the damage change i only feared the heavy crossbows and longbow. Now freaking hornbows can three shot me >.>

Title: Re: Armor: Effectiveness vs Melee and Ranged
Post by: Adamar on October 26, 2011, 01:19:49 am

Quote from: Digglez on October 25, 2011, 08:47:05 pm

everything was fine until they made bodkins change a bow's damage.  Longbow had a purpose and heavy armor users could could shrug off hits from other rinkedink bows but respected longbow & xbows

Everything was fine for you! Ever tried developing an archer? I dont think so.

Title: Re: Armor: Effectiveness vs Melee and Ranged
Post by: Digglez on October 26, 2011, 01:25:25 am

Quote from: Adamar on October 26, 2011, 01:19:49 am

Everything was fine for you! Ever tried developing an archer? I dont think so.

yes I did.  System was very well balanced before they messed it all up

You either went 1 of two routes

Fast accurate lower dmg shots against medium to low armored opponents

Slow but hard hitting armor piercing shots that would mess up heavy armored people


Sure a long bow can kill unarmored people, but its not as good as horn or rus bow at killing thems.  Thats the inherent balance, just like melee version of armor piercing weapons.  A pick is a great weapon to tear up armored opponents, but sword is by far better at slaughtering lightly armored ones.

Now the is completely no point to use a longbow, you can shoot fast AND bypass armor with stupid little bows.

Title: Re: Armor: Effectiveness vs Melee and Ranged
Post by: Patricia on October 26, 2011, 02:46:05 am

Quote from: ThePoopy on October 25, 2011, 08:28:09 pm

buff helmets, max head armor u can get is 60 while body armor is 72 (without looms), and then theres headshot bonus on that

Actually, max head armor is 68 without looms.