cRPG
cRPG => Suggestions Corner => Game Balance Discussion => Topic started by: Thomek on November 28, 2011, 03:08:25 am
-
Here goes rage:
Let's look at the easy one first,
Nerf Archers.
1st Argument is that they are too many, and their numbers need to be kept down, or ruin gameplay as we know it. If not we become native which is an fps with some melee sugar.
2nd Argument is that they are now insanely powerful. They haven't done so much damage since oct last year? Long time ago.. Today I got 1 shotted in my triple loomed lamellar with double loomed lamellar gloves. (53 hp) It was by a MW longbow with MW arrows, but still. My STR STF char loose 70% or more HP with chainmail. Horses get`s one shotted too. Dunno whats going on here.. For sure the armour nerfs became a nice + for Archers and ranged. I do agree that the loomed vs non-loomed armour gap should go down to help new players, but look at arrowdamage. please.
Armor Weights,
or how it influences run speed and wpf
Right now, more armor has very few disadvantages. The increase in run speed happens mostly at the extreme lower end (at least it feels like that) and the advantage in speed quickly dissapate as you go into medium armour. The speed difference u get between medium and very heavy is almost negligible. Possibly because weapon weights are a near constant. I would see a rebalancing of how much the armours weigh, perhaps in stead of following the armour value proportionally, it could be offset by cost. I fear that we are moving quickly towards a heavy armour game, where there's no room for alternative playstyles or new players without the cash, skills and looms to have it themselves.
Cav..
Bonus Whine!
Pre-patch cav was balanced so it wouldn't often one shot medium armour without couching. Since armour values are down, this ability is back with a vengeance. Being one shot is lame, and not good for gameplay. Everyone deserve a chance! I think the lances needs to loose some dmg, and I dream about lances being less effective without any speed bonus. A horse at full speed should deal awesome damage, but not poking around at slow speeds. Example, tonight mostly good players were on EU1. 90% knows how to block decently, none are easy kills. Still Oberyn and Leed rake in insane scores out of proportion to all the other good players. I think cav needs to loose their consistent one shot ability, unless couching and cooperating. Cav is an awesome teamplay class, but very few does it, because it`s simply not necessary.
-
i disagree on armor, there is a very noticeable difference between heavy and light armor, i'd say light-medium is better for dueling than heavy. the armor-"race" (that is, increasing amounts of armor) IMO is driven by the large numbers of twohanders and archers and by the general population increase (at least on NA). your standard hornbow+bodkin archer can twoshot a STR build in medium armor so many people up-armor to combat it, same deal with 2h but at least there there is a reason to keep weight down so you can dance around. IMO fix archers and you'll see armor levels go down
the recent nerf to armor makes no sense anyway, it wasn't an issue in melee and it's a buff to archers (who needed a nerf anyway)
-
was a nerf to armour looms no?
I agree it needed a nerf, must have been a nightmare for new players to meet the STR + loomed armour monsters.
-
It was also nerf to heraldic mail armors, all of them are unplayable at the moment (as you can do just as good with 9.5 that offer 38/12). The loom nerf was totally justified, but something need to be done with cavalry and archers to make the game enjoyable again.
And buff my team, it sucks.
-
please dont rate cav on leed and oberyn, they are good cavs that have been cav so long. its like saying archery is op cuz jambi rocks and 2hd is op cuz phyrex is good.
And teamplay...same thing goes for archers...
-
please dont rate cav on leed and oberyn, they are good cavs that have been cav so long. its like saying archery is op cuz jambi rocks and 2hd is op cuz phyrex is good.
And teamplay...same thing goes for archers...
OBERYN AND lEED ARE BOTH VERY GOOD PLAYERS, BUT THEY ARE NOT *AMAZING*.
BUT THEN, CAV WILL ALWAYS GET A FUCKLOAD OF KILLS DUE TO THEIR MECHANICS (HIGH DAMAGE + MOBILITY) AND I HAVE NO IDEA HOW TO CHANGE THAT.
-
Completely agree on armor weight and it's penalties. High armor is the best possible choice in this mod. I'm still lightning fast when I use my Plate Armor and it shouldn't be like this.
-
Archers not strong u are ninja. Stop crying. Its already nerfed 12 times.
Pls learn game, u cant win game with nerfs, archery already most bad class. Or give free respec after nerfs.
Archery not balanced...
All scores from game, and ratios from best players. (After last patch)
Cav ratio : 40-0 , 45-2, 52-1
Two hand ratio : 30-0, 32-3, 41-1
Shield ratio : 24-0, 24-5, 32-2
Archer ratio : 10-6, 15-7, 19-6
Horse archer ratio : 7-2, 10-6, 13-0
I collect build - ratio some times, best balance method is use this ratio.
Archery not funny, its useless build.
Edit : Ratio : 1) Average 2) Good 3) Best
Edit :
Horses get`s one shotted too.
What ? Im power archer and stumpter horse 2 shot from head, 2-3 shot from body - rouncey 2 shot forom head 3-4 shot from body - steppe 2 shot from head 2-3 shot from body = desert horse - courser 2 shot from head 4 shot from body - destrier 3 shot from head 5-6 shot from body. U can test me on duel server.
-
With 61 body armor against double triple loomed archery equip and a 10 PD longbow archer(cripple archer), you can receive point blank a minimum damage of 25, average of 39 and maximum damage of 57 with not taking wpf reduction into account. You got unlucky.
u mad?
All this 10 PD, 10 athletic, 10 WM archers with their hornlongbows break the game.
-
Here goes rage:
Let's look at the easy one first,
Nerf Archers.
1st Argument is that they are too many, and their numbers need to be kept down, or ruin gameplay as we know it. If not we become native which is an fps with some melee sugar.
2nd Argument is that they are now insanely powerful. They haven't done so much damage since oct last year? Long time ago.. Today I got 1 shotted in my triple loomed lamellar with double loomed lamellar gloves. (53 hp) It was by a MW longbow with MW arrows, but still. My STR STF char loose 70% or more HP with chainmail. Horses get`s one shotted too. Dunno whats going on here.. For sure the armour nerfs became a nice + for Archers and ranged. I do agree that the loomed vs non-loomed armour gap should go down to help new players, but look at arrowdamage. please.
Armor Weights,
or how it influences run speed and wpf
Right now, more armor has very few disadvantages. The increase in run speed happens mostly at the extreme lower end (at least it feels like that) and the advantage in speed quickly dissapate as you go into medium armour. The speed difference u get between medium and very heavy is almost negligible. Possibly because weapon weights are a near constant. I would see a rebalancing of how much the armours weigh, perhaps in stead of following the armour value proportionally, it could be offset by cost. I fear that we are moving quickly towards a heavy armour game, where there's no room for alternative playstyles or new players without the cash, skills and looms to have it themselves.
Cav..
Bonus Whine!
Pre-patch cav was balanced so it wouldn't often one shot medium armour without couching. Since armour values are down, this ability is back with a vengeance. Being one shot is lame, and not good for gameplay. Everyone deserve a chance! I think the lances needs to loose some dmg, and I dream about lances being less effective without any speed bonus. A horse at full speed should deal awesome damage, but not poking around at slow speeds. Example, tonight mostly good players were on EU1. 90% knows how to block decently, none are easy kills. Still Oberyn and Leed rake in insane scores out of proportion to all the other good players. I think cav needs to loose their consistent one shot ability, unless couching and cooperating. Cav is an awesome teamplay class, but very few does it, because it`s simply not necessary.
YES YES YES AND YES
i hope someone with brain read this
-
i hope not
-
Still Oberyn and Leed rake in insane scores out of proportion to all the other good players.
Lol balancing by Oberyn and Leed. Dumb idea.
-
i disagree on armor, there is a very noticeable difference between heavy and light armor,...
Well, i would not call it a noticable difference.
I have made some running tests on the duell server, a longer track along the wall and a short track between the stonegate.
With atlethics 7 and my light armour setup (8.5 stones) i have needed on average 32.85 sec for the long distance and 1.74 sec for the shorter one (1.94 sec with side steps).
The same with my heavy armour (37.5 stones) i have needed on average 36.34 sec for the long track and 1.93 sec for the short one (2.15 sec with side steps).
So with light armour, four times lighter gear and 2.5 less armour value i gain a "few" milliseconds faster movement speed.
-
Well, i would not call it a noticable difference.
I have made some running tests on the duell server, a longer track along the wall and a short track between the stonegate.
With atlethics 7 and my light armour setup (8.5 stones) i have needed on average 32.85 sec for the long distance and 1.74 sec for the shorter one (1.94 sec with side steps).
The same with my heavy armour (37.5 stones) i have needed on average 36.34 sec for the long track and 1.93 sec for the short one (2.15 sec with side steps).
So with light armour, four times lighter gear and 2.5 less armour value i gain a "few" milliseconds faster movement speed.
Nice, this is what I was talking about.
-
Its the same problem with heavy cav: It shouldn't be able for armored horses to outrun non armoured ones.
-
As usual not even 24 hours into the patch there are calls for nerfing archery. I really hope there's a list somewhere of everyone who says "nerf x" before the patch has been out long enough for any real testing to be done so that their balance "contributions" can be ignored in the future.
You're not balancing the game to make your class the best, you're balancing for variety. Yeah it sucks to get killed by other people, what sucks worse is not getting killed by anyone because we end up with a cookie cutter one-build game.
-
K:D is a pretty shitty way to balance classes. If every class has the killing potential of a two-hander or a polearm user, then you don't have balance. There is such a thing as risk vs. reward. Truth is, archers stand back and let everyone else take the risks. You can play a "riskier" game by staying closer to melee, but you're still low risk comparatively. Same with 1h vs two-handers/polearms you have a forcefield, thus less risk.
To go further still, as it's important for people to realize this with ranged; Archers hit the same enemy most, just before a melee clash. This means that over the span of the 10 seconds or so that it takes an enemy to go from max accuracy firing range to melee(not with the archer, but with his team's melee), as long as you don't land the killing blow (which would most likely require 3-5 hits depending on armor), chances are you won't get the killing blow as the guy you were focusing on, is now lost in the initial melee confrontation. Even if you did 1/2-99% of his HP, you still didn't get the killing blow, thus you just scored a lower amount of kills than what you (in one way or another) deserve. And this is every single round and for each melee confrontation within the round, that this happens.
At the end of the day it comes down to this: Kills are determined not by those who do the most damage, but by those who get lucky and land the killing blow. I'd love to see the average amount of damage done per round for each class. I'd bet that archers get twice as much damage, at least, than what the average amount of hp is, yet still get half as many killing blows. Whereas melee is probably closer to a 1:1 3:2 ratio.
-
i hope not
Mainly cuz ur a whimp.
I couldn't agree more with Thomek, nor could anyone with reason.
-
Agree With Thomek about everything.
A while back, you had to choose accuracy OR damage for archery. As it is now, stupid rusbow has both of thoses with even an amazing draw speed. To stop a bit more pewpew, i wouldn't mind limiting ALL to a max of 2 quivers. Thoses hornbow bastards with 3 quivers of bodkins arrows, and 8 Athl, are also just... a real pain.
Cav was always overpowered, providing you had money. New armor made them just more likely to onehit you. Not even speaking of the ridculous armored 1h/shield cav, and is "easy" bump/slash.
I noticed the 2h stab to be also more efficient. But there's still a majority of polearm's user around, so no big deal i guess.
-
K:D is a pretty shitty way to balance classes. If every class has the killing potential of a two-hander or a polearm user, then you don't have balance. There is such a thing as risk vs. reward. Truth is, archers stand back and let everyone else take the risks. You can play a "riskier" game by staying closer to melee, but you're still low risk comparatively. Same with 1h vs two-handers/polearms you have a forcefield, thus less risk.
To go further still, as it's important for people to realize this with ranged; Archers hit the same enemy most, just before a melee clash. This means that over the span of the 10 seconds or so that it takes an enemy to go from max accuracy firing range to melee(not with the archer, but with his team's melee), as long as you don't land the killing blow (which would most likely require 3-5 hits depending on armor), chances are you won't get the killing blow as the guy you were focusing on, is now lost in the initial melee confrontation. Even if you did 1/2-99% of his HP, you still didn't get the killing blow, thus you just scored a lower amount of kills than what you (in one way or another) deserve. And this is every single round and for each melee confrontation within the round, that this happens.
At the end of the day it comes down to this: Kills are determined not by those who do the most damage, but by those who get lucky and land the killing blow. I'd love to see the average amount of damage done per round for each class. I'd bet that archers get twice as much damage, at least, than what the average amount of hp is, yet still get half as many killing blows. Whereas melee is probably closer to a 1:1 3:2 ratio.
The risk comes in never being able to wear armor and having little close combat ability. While everyone else is screaming about "risk" in their 80 points of armor, archers are running about taking potshots, constantly targeted by cav, xbow, and other archers, and get to take about 1.5 hits from anything before they are dead. Yes, risk vs reward when your 2 hander can take 8 hits from another melee opponent and multiple headshots from my bow, but i can only get hit once before i'm completely screwed.
-
The risk comes in never being able to wear armor and having little close combat ability. While everyone else is screaming about "risk" in their 80 points of armor, archers are running about taking potshots, constantly targeted by cav, xbow, and other archers, and get to take about 1.5 hits from anything before they are dead. Yes, risk vs reward when your 2 hander can take 8 hits from another melee opponent and multiple headshots from my bow, but i can only get hit once before i'm completely screwed.
are u serous? christ..... this is for sure an opinion/hate, not facts as most of what tydeus said.
I can take in average 2-3 hits from another melee weapon(with +2 light kuyak), probably 2 mostly with all of the armor nerfs recently. And archer headshots for sure stand a good chance 1 hitting me, same goes with xbow.
Would go more into details normally, but since this looks like an opinion, i dont think it would lead anywhere.
-
Oh heaven forbid if you can actually LAND the damn head shot it should kill people!
NERF NERF NERF....
Grow up and buy a shield.
-
no u grow up and buy a shield
-
Here goes rage:
Let's look at the easy one first,
Nerf Archers.
1st Argument is that they are too many, and their numbers need to be kept down, or ruin gameplay as we know it. If not we become native which is an fps with some melee sugar.
2nd Argument is that they are now insanely powerful. They haven't done so much damage since oct last year? Long time ago.. Today I got 1 shotted in my triple loomed lamellar with double loomed lamellar gloves. (53 hp) It was by a MW longbow with MW arrows, but still. My STR STF char loose 70% or more HP with chainmail. Horses get`s one shotted too. Dunno whats going on here.. For sure the armour nerfs became a nice + for Archers and ranged. I do agree that the loomed vs non-loomed armour gap should go down to help new players, but look at arrowdamage. please.
Honestly it's not a single case of a STR (and extremely useless) archer that would make a whole class OP. The armor loom contribution was nerfed, and so was every single archery item tweaked down.
In fact, it's rare the case when archers top scoreboards, it's always the same 4 or 5 specimens that stand out. Archery becomes strong in numbers, and it's not by nerfing it to the ground that will change the amount of people using it, and it always makes the difference, we have witnessed this over and over again with our solid item balancing team.
All these changes, including the removal of the retarded jump shoot only led to more camping and athletic relying running archers.
And this applies to every class, when there are 20+ shielders vs a team it's hell on earth, same for cav, same for blood hungry 2h, etc.
But guess what, you can always get a shield, archers "can't", and with all the gear/build restrictions upon them, they're as soft as butter in summer time.
Cheerio
edit: forgot to add that now archer gear is even heavier, so hitting one its not cutting butter on summertime, it's simply trampling an insect and not realizing.
-
One thing, has the armour reduction caused cavalry bump to become more effective? I've found I take more damage now due to it which is very frustrating, cav goes in for kill, misses, prevents me from striking by turning slightly to the side. He missed his hit, why should he then be able to prevent me from hitting with mine, while also doing damage?
-
And this applies to every class, when there are 20+ shielders vs a team it's hell on earth, same for cav, same for blood hungry 2h, etc.
I don't get this, since when did a team full of shielders stand out as extra dangerous? Even less so with 2h. Cavstacking can be a bit annoying I admit, but then cav is so easily countered by a bit of (lame) camping.
Archers have range, damage, map control and the ability to take out extremely good players with minimal effort.
When you have 20 shielders on the enemy team they force you to stay extra concentrated in the melee fights, 20 2h requires you to put forth some duelling skills and 20 cav means you'll have to be very aware of your surroundings.
20 archers force you to hide the whole round, hoping that your team's ranged can do enough damage to them so that you won't get instantly shot to pieces as soon as you poke your head out.
Shielders should be more effective at dealing with archers than they currently are.
-
The only solution is to buff 2h cavalry significantly
-
Don't worry deli, I wasn't expecting you to get it anyway.
PS: you can always get a shield (...)
-
Don't worry deli, I wasn't expecting you to get it anyway.
PS: you can always get a shield (...)
Nice dodge, but archerteams are still the no.1 annoyance
PS: I have a shield (...)
-
Tbh I don't mind archers IF and only IF they do not roofcamp. Seriously, roofcamping = cheat. No danger from infantry and cav there, and no danger from enemy archers either, since they prefer to shoot melee anyway (like Dezi said).
Roofcamping should be removed, infantry and cavalry should work as a team to protect their archers on the ground and not just killhunt.
-
With 61 body armor against double triple loomed archery equip and a 10 PD longbow archer(cripple archer), you can receive point blank a minimum damage of 25, average of 39 and maximum damage of 57 with not taking wpf reduction into account. You got unlucky.
u mad?
All this 10 PD, 10 athletic, 10 WM archers with their hornlongbows break the game.
And now 10 of these, on a roof. Yeah good luck.
I thought archery got nerfed, but I'm getting shot to pieces. I do have less armour now, but still, seems like they deal lots more damage now.
I agree with that there is not much holding you back from getting heavy ass armour. It has too few disadvantages. Make armour slow you a lot more. I find heavy armour quite lame, I'm always a bigger fan of speed en finesse than brute force. But I ended up in heavy armour anyway, cause there are no reasons not to.
-
umm my sharp bodkins are only +1 now, was that a nerf?
-
umm my sharp bodkins are only +1 now, was that a nerf?
Yes it was
-
Nice dodge, but archerteams are still the no.1 annoyance
PS: I have a shield (...)
Awww you are being killed by 5+ people shooting you with bows. How sad. Archers are basically the only class who can't go 1 on 1 with anyone. 2 handers are the only ones you stand a chance at killing. Quit bitching and crying nerf every time you die. This forum is filled with a bunch of cry babies.
-
You included.
-
herpa derpa derp derp....
-
Awww you are being killed by 5+ people shooting you with bows. How sad. Archers are basically the only class who can't go 1 on 1 with anyone. 2 handers are the only ones you stand a chance at killing. Quit bitching and crying nerf every time you die. This forum is filled with a bunch of cry babies.
clearly you were not on tonight when in a 30vs30 game we were getting shot into pieces without any chance of counter
-
OBERYN AND lEED ARE BOTH VERY GOOD PLAYERS, BUT THEY ARE NOT *AMAZING*.
BUT THEN, CAV WILL ALWAYS GET A FUCKLOAD OF KILLS DUE TO THEIR MECHANICS (HIGH DAMAGE + MOBILITY) AND I HAVE NO IDEA HOW TO CHANGE THAT.
Then who's the Phyrex-like cav ?
Leed, Oberyn and Tommy are all doing more or less the same, with different flavors.
You guys don't seem to get that cav are probably the hardest class for hitting anything aware of you. As cav, if you don't kill with your first hit, then that was pretty much an useless move. You have extremely thin hopes of hitting twice the same player in a round.
If anyone wants to try the heaviest armor there is, I have a +3 black armor. And I can say, it slows you down an awful lot, compared to medium and the more common medium-high (cuir bouilli) armors. I find myself surviving longer and doing better with unloomed surcoat over mail. Even without my shield, having to survive an arrowstorm, I do better with the medium armor as I can dodge something. With the black armor there's no way I can dodge.
The main problem with armor weight isn't top speed, which isn't hurted a lot. It's acceleration. And that's absolutely vital against footwork agi whores, cav, or ranged.
First thing that needs to be fixed is the roofcamping. No class should be safe from others.
-
I agree with the OP and other posters about armor values; to a very high degree mod balance seem to favour medium-heavy armors, and that heavily-armored people are able to withstand several hits with high damage output weapons messes in my opinion with the skill-build/equipment balance.
Running speed and armor value aside, I think that (metal) armor could need a slightly higher penalty on weapon swing speeds.
-
Heraldic Mail with Tabard is useless against arrows and bolts, yet it have quite high movement penalty. Do it need even further nerf ? I don't think so.
-
Archery could be nerfed to 1/10th of its current damage and people would still be complaining about archers in groups. Archers are best in tandem with their teammates because enemy movement patterns become much easier to trace when they are focusing on melee combat. Saying archery needs nerfing because they excel using teamwork is a poor argument and one I pray the devs will never seriously consider.
Same issues come up with cavalry and pikemen: Alone they are easily counterable, but they shine with teammates to distract the enemy.
Here's my suggestion: buff your battle awareness. Keeping your head on a swivel ( '~' key spam), avoiding areas where you'll become easy archer/cav food and knowing how far to push into enemy lines are absolute essentials for survival. I pride myself in my battle awareness, and throughout all my playtime I've never once truly feared cavalry. The only time I've ever truly feared archery is when I was an archer myself, because two archers targeting you can effectively lock your shooting down completely.
TLDR people continue to ask to nerf archery, when in reality they want to nerf teamwork (which won't happen). Therefore instead of complaining about archery players need to adapt and fine tune their battle sense to avoid situations that put them in harms way.
-
Archery could be nerfed to 1/10th of its current damage and people would still be complaining about archers in groups. Archers are best in tandem with their teammates because enemy movement patterns become much easier to trace when they are focusing on melee combat. Saying archery needs nerfing because they excel using teamwork is a poor argument and one I pray the devs will never seriously consider.
Same issues come up with cavalry and pikemen: Alone they are easily counterable, but they shine with teammates to distract the enemy.
Here's my suggestion: buff your battle awareness. Keeping your head on a swivel ( '~' key spam), avoiding areas where you'll become easy archer/cav food and knowing how far to push into enemy lines are absolute essentials for survival. I pride myself in my battle awareness, and throughout all my playtime I've never once truly feared cavalry. The only time I've ever truly feared archery is when I was an archer myself, because two archers targeting you can effectively lock your shooting down completely.
TLDR people continue to ask to nerf archery, when in reality they want to nerf teamwork (which won't happen). Therefore instead of complaining about archery players need to adapt and fine tune their battle sense to avoid situations that put them in harms way.
good post.
-
I'm frequently getting 2 shotted by archers in my +3 lamellar.. They do more damage than most melee weapons.
As long as Archery stays this powerful we WILL have an influx of pew pew. It has happened before and will happen again..
Archery needs nerfing, naow.
-
Why are you calling for an archer nerf?
Archers get nerfed every second patch. My arrows that have been loomed twice only do +1 damage. I'm sick of people calling for more and more nerfs. We were just nerfed again, let it be.
I remember over a year ago archers bows were all pierce, and all did good damage and we only needed one stack of arrows and we could carry 2h swords, and we could jump and shoot, and there was no delay in shot, and the arrows flew faster. I know a lot of the 2h players out there would like to nerf us to a point where they no longer have to dodge arrows.
-
Why are you calling for an archer nerf?
Archers get nerfed every second patch. My arrows that have been loomed twice only do +1 damage. I'm sick of people calling for more and more nerfs. We were just nerfed again, let it be.
I remember over a year ago archers bows were all pierce, and all did good damage and we only needed one stack of arrows and we could carry 2h swords, and we could jump and shoot, and there was no delay in shot, and the arrows flew faster. I know a lot of the 2h players out there would like to nerf us to a point where they no longer have to dodge arrows.
People wants archery nerfed because the mass influx of archers are ruining the gameplay.
When they gave machinegun bows pierce dmg it was just a matter of time before we would end up with half the team being archers an have too much ranged bundle of sticksry flying around the air because people can deal the same if not more dmg then melee being ranged thx to bodkin arrows.
People enjoy easy kills an they gain that by going archers. Their is no blocking involved no feinting just spraying deadly shots fishing for kills at the crowd of remaining inf still playing.
Once we reach having 25 players on each team being ranged it ruins the gameplay for all the other classes.
Of course its hard to see this if your one of those archers with +3 rus bow an bodkin arrows and 7 PD running around an playing legolass but for Cav 2h polearms shielders its horrible to play battle now because u can hardly take a look around a every corner an not get your chest full of arrows within matter of seconds....
Its really just a matter of risk vs reward that is the problem with archers an i think many people hate archers only for the fact that they can deal the same if not more dmg then themself from range an run all day to avoid melee.
-
...Of course its hard to see this if your one of those archers with +3 rus bow an bodkin arrows and 7 PD running around an playing legolass but for Cav 2h polearms shielders its horrible to play battle now because u can hardly take a look around a every corner an not get your chest full of arrows within matter of seconds....
Its really just a matter of risk vs reward that is the problem with archers an i think many people hate archers only for the fact that they can deal the same if not more dmg then themself from range an run all day to avoid melee.
cRPG needs ranged, and it needs cav. Without those classes battles become a big melee orgy where map doesn't matter and both sides collide in the middle every single time. While its fun for a little bit it gets old VERY fast and I would be willing to put hard money down that if this mod had archery/cavalry removed (which some people on these servers seem dedicated to) the whole 'At fifteen, I had the will to learn ; at thirty, I could stand ; at forty, I had no doubts ; at fifty, I understood the heavenly Bidding ; at sixty, my ears were opened ; at seventy, I could do as my heart lusted without trespassing from the square.' thing would become more of a reality than it is now a reality.
I play NA so I'm not familiar with how things are on EU right now, but NA has a bunch of archers too and while there may not be quite as much there are still plenty every round that force good decision making that I think I'm on pretty solid ground to make a rebuttal.
Archery isn't anywhere close to being a 'no risk' class. It has plenty of risk that balances the reward.
a) you typically have worse melee skills
b) you typically have less hp
c) you typically have a smaller selection of available melee weaponry
d) you typically wear the lightest armor
e) you become target numero uno for cavalry, other ranged units, archer-hungry shielders, and ninjas. Couple this with...
f) it becomes more of a challenge to position yourself correctly and aim correctly while being aware of your surroundings at the same time
= in order to be a successful archer you have to be on your toes at all times, because it only takes one slip up in your awareness and one extra second of inattentiveness to your surroundings and you can be killed by cavalry or jumped by infantry or sniped by an enemy xbowmen that was scoping you out. Archers are complete fodder when they are caught unawares, much more than ANY other class in the game because an archer typically won't be able to absorb enough blows from the surprise attack to be able to defend themselves.
So I direct you and others who are complaining about archery to my earlier post, but for the lazy I'll summarize some suggestions on how to avoid being shot to death:
-be aware of your surroundings (firing lanes, open spots, etc). If it is covered by archers go somewhere else or find a shielder buddy
-buy a god damn shield (honestly just 1 or 2 points and a board shield is in your future)
-If all else fails, simply find a different target instead of running into the open field alone with 4 archers shooting at you. Shielders, shielder cav, and ranged units are much better equipped at handling a nest of archers than you are, so don't even try it until they've caused the distration.
-
Archers are what suppress the REALLY GOOD MELEE PLAYERS. In Aus, without archers the games would almost always go to one team.
-
Your entire argument screams nerf anything that is not a dedicated 2h. Now, Archers and Cav, next shielders and pikes, then maulers. Etc.
-
Zanze, no my argument is my argument.
in +3 lamellar i can take 3 shots from a HA. (Pawlo)
Every single other archer: Nebun, Radh, KMC etc 2 shot me consistently.
If it keeps going like this light armor 2h is dead in this mod.. Nerf archery now before they become too many.
-
I suggest you wear some better armour if you want to survive more than 2 shots from an archer. remember they are all using MW bows and arrows, its hardly surprising they kill you in two shots...
cant be super fast 2h spam / high power thrower / tin can all at the same time you know mate. maybe give it up it doesn't sound fun.
-
Get hit by a masterwork pierce damage weapon at the same movespeed bonus and PS and you'll probably be two shotted as well.
-
anyhow.. is it right that archers should do more damage than a mw melee weapon? (40c mw katana 6ps)
-
Personally, I'm a Shielder and don't believe archers need a nerf, however the Armor weights and Cav pose a huge problem
-
Archery could be nerfed to 1/10th of its current damage and people would still be complaining about archers in groups. Archers are best in tandem with their teammates because enemy movement patterns become much easier to trace when they are focusing on melee combat. Saying archery needs nerfing because they excel using teamwork is a poor argument and one I pray the devs will never seriously consider.
Same issues come up with cavalry and pikemen: Alone they are easily counterable, but they shine with teammates to distract the enemy.
Here's my suggestion: buff your battle awareness. Keeping your head on a swivel ( '~' key spam), avoiding areas where you'll become easy archer/cav food and knowing how far to push into enemy lines are absolute essentials for survival. I pride myself in my battle awareness, and throughout all my playtime I've never once truly feared cavalry. The only time I've ever truly feared archery is when I was an archer myself, because two archers targeting you can effectively lock your shooting down completely.
TLDR people continue to ask to nerf archery, when in reality they want to nerf teamwork (which won't happen). Therefore instead of complaining about archery players need to adapt and fine tune their battle sense to avoid situations that put them in harms way.
I think you're making a lot of exaggerations to make a point.
First of all, it's a stretch to call that teamwork. Attacking an enemy that is busy attacking another ally of yours is basic to any class, otherwise the game would just be a bunch of duels. It's hardly great teamwork for archers to fire into enemies that are trying to fight allies in front of them. Who else would they be shooting if it wasn't the enemy melee troops that are engaged with their allies? They shoot what they see, and the easier the shot the better. That's not some grand strategy to be praised. Their ability to do this isn't the issue. Even weakened archers would be effective doing that since they'd be stunning the enemy and opening them up for free hits.
The issue with archers isn't the same as what other classes are doing. Sure, pikes have long reach and are great to overwhelm other infantry when used in a group, similar in effect to fighting 2 enemies that surround you at once. Sure, cav are effective in attacking from behind the people who are busying fighting what is in front of them (again, similar to most times you fight 2 people at once, assuming they have decent movement speed to surround you). Sure, mauls crush through blocks, great for 1v1 situations, but not without drawbacks or counters. But all of these things are pretty balanced and have simple counters that involve a combination of teamwork and skill. The best team will generally still win.
But with the archers, there isn't very reasonable counters. Archers do well with or without teamwork, and their numbers weigh more heavily on the outcome than any other class. The teamwork required to counter archers would require very organized team-wide tactics involving hiding behind cover to force them to move to less advantageous positions, or some incredible shield wall work (which really only had a chance in strat, because the shield barely protects the user without that force-field effect). In fact, just about all the tactical discussions to try to rally a team to victory that I see anymore are attempts to find a way to avoid being slaughtered by the enemy archers. Maybe it's a certain path, maybe it's to camp and wait for them to come to us... It's still all about archers. When I play and see a ton of archers on a team, it generally takes incredible effort for the other team to be able to overcome that and win.
Now, before the latest patch, archers were absolutely unbearable. After the patch, they seem to have improved to borderline unbearable. The main problem with archers I think is still related to their combination of deadliness and accuracy from most anywhere on the battlefield that they can see you. They still gather in places quite far away from the action, being just about as deadly and accurate as they would be if they were closer, and still being very tough to approach without just plain old sneaking up on them. In other words, they are still long range deadly snipers.
I think possibly there should be more tradeoff between damage and accuracy at a distance. Perhaps one bow should be weak, but accurate, useful for those distant, hill-camping, kiting, low-risk archers, so they become more of just a nuisance if they are just firing at whatever the easiest target is (easy-mode archer), but can be very effective if they pick and choose targets where the stun effect will get the target killed or save an ally, or they go for accurate headshots. And then another bow can be strong while being quite inaccurate, so that you'd only be effective at relatively short range (a sort of hard-mode archer). This will make it viable for a shielder to easily neutralize that powerful archer by traveling a short distance, rather than having to trek a long distance across the map to stop them. And the archer will need his melee allies to keep the enemy away, if he wants to keep shooting without stopping.
Alternatively, the damage drop-off over distance can be increased so that long range shots do a lot less damage (and reward being closer by making it more effective), but I think I prefer having the choice between different bows just for variety.
Either way, I think the main problem is the fact that simply having a line of sight is enough for an archer to be so deadly as to be unbalanced, so they can sit practically off the map in no-man's land or on some high rooftop and shoot across the map effectively. There's not much point for them to try to get closer since it'll just make them more vulnerable, which is why archers seem to surround every map, raining down on people from long distances.
-
The armour weight increase was unnecessary what was really needed is an increase in the requirements of some weapons and ALL medium+ armour.
It's stupid that most plate pieces have 15 str requirements...
Want tincans to run slower? UP the requirements....
-
The armour weight increase was unnecessary what was really needed is an increase in the requirements of some weapons and ALL medium+ armour.
It's stupid that most plate pieces have 15 str requirements...
Want tincans to run slower? UP the requirements....
Problem is that even STR builds are too fast in tincan mode
-
Most STR builds are 24/15 or 27/12 (The later is too slow for battle imo) but you are right.
Weapon/armour/shields/whatever should all have stats requirements so that we won't see lightning fast characters in heavy armour while still being highly destructive.
-
I made a long reply Kay that I erased by mistake so I'll try to summarize.
Archer (singular) isn't all that effective.
Archers against smaller groups of infantry/cav is quite effective (and IMO the reason people continuously call for nerfs).
Archers shooting at larger sized groups of infantry engaged in combat is fairly effective.
Archers shooting at equally sized groups of infantry/cav actively advancing isn't all that effective.
The advantage of the archer's range is that it is easy to 'team up' on anyone provided you have a clear shot. The problem is that this means that people will always cry for nerf because they see themselves dying to 'an archer' when in reality it could have been 3 or 4 separate players who gunned him down. Taken alone an archer is a very fragile class that requires a lot of concentration to be strong.
I encourage anyone who dislikes the archer class to play a gen as one (skip the fun is easier but doesn't give you the full picture because your 'blooming' stage comes much later when compared to infantry). I think I'll post some videos of random battle rounds as an archer to maybe give a clearer picture how effective a single archer truly is when I have time.
-
I made a long reply Kay that I erased by mistake so I'll try to summarize.
Archer (singular) isn't all that effective.
Archers against smaller groups of infantry/cav is quite effective (and IMO the reason people continuously call for nerfs).
Archers shooting at larger sized groups of infantry engaged in combat is fairly effective.
Archers shooting at equally sized groups of infantry/cav actively advancing isn't all that effective.
The advantage of the archer's range is that it is easy to 'team up' on anyone provided you have a clear shot. The problem is that this means that people will always cry for nerf because they see themselves dying to 'an archer' when in reality it could have been 3 or 4 separate players who gunned him down. Taken alone an archer is a very fragile class that requires a lot of concentration to be strong.
I encourage anyone who dislikes the archer class to play a gen as one (skip the fun is easier but doesn't give you the full picture because your 'blooming' stage comes much later when compared to infantry). I think I'll post some videos of random battle rounds as an archer to maybe give a clearer picture how effective a single archer truly is when I have time.
Sure, a single archer isn't going to determine the outcome of the battle. Even one person abusing the 1st gen zero-upkeep thing to be able to ride around in a plated charger in plate armor won't determine the outcome. Even if it only becomes unbearably game-breaking if a bunch of people do it, that doesn't mean it's not OP on an individual basis as well.
I'm saying each archer is slightly overpowered in their ability to do more than hold their own, regardless of the skill of the archer.
A bad melee infantry is going to be close to useless, let alone being able to break even (give as much damage as they take). And any potential they have to do well is something that can be countered by opposing players being better skilled and smarter. Plus the majority of the people who they manage to hurt or kill are going to be less skilled players who weren't going to be as big of a factor in the outcome anyway.
A bad archer, however, is much more effective. Find a safe place to point and shoot with the rest the archers, and even a bad archer is damaging opponents rather easily to at least break even in terms holding their own, especially if you consider that they are hitting the skilled players just as easily as they hit some useless players. This is why the teams' archer counts dominates the outcome of the battles more than anything. Because every archer is slightly overpowered in ability deal plenty of damage without much effort.
The issue I have is the archer's ability to deal this kind of damage without much thought, risk, or skill. Like I said earlier, I have a problem with the "easy mode" archer. I wouldn't mind archers that are deadly by being close to the battle, but become ineffective from a distance. The reason is because this gives options to counter, either by being able to close down on them a short distance to force them to run/fight, or by getting away from them and putting some distance between you and them so they become much less effective. We should be able to force archers to pursue the battles in order to get into an effective range, not just stand and shoot at any range that they can see us.
But because archers are so accurate and deadly from all but pretty extreme ranges, they're hanging out away from or above the battle in any place that has a view, and there's very little people can do about it. Force them to choose between a much weaker bow with good accuracy, or a strong bow with less accuracy, and it'll reduce the effectiveness of the "easy mode" archer, while still allowing smart, aware, good archers to be very effective (and to be counter-able).
-
anyhow.. is it right that archers should do more damage than a mw melee weapon? (40c mw katana 6ps)
They dont. You are forgetting the longer the distance of the shot the more archer has his damage reduced so youa r elooking at maximum point-blank damage. WHile athletics (moving faster toward someone), wpf speed swing bonus, holding attack bonus, much easier to get head hits (especailly 1-handers) to get higher damage - all increase the damage multiplier.
-
They dont. You are forgetting the longer the distance of the shot the more archer has his damage reduced so youa r elooking at maximum point-blank damage. WHile athletics (moving faster toward someone), wpf speed swing bonus, holding attack bonus, much easier to get head hits (especailly 1-handers) to get higher damage - all increase the damage multiplier.
Herp di derp.
Let's see here:
Which class gets speed bonus all the time since you need to constantly run towards them in order to have a chance to catch up? Archers.
Which class tends to stand and attack from camp elevated positions yielding damage bonus? Archers.
Which class has a stupid extra_penetration flag that makes enemy armor so much less effective? Archers.
Which class has the ability to deal this high unblockable damage from a hundered meters? Chuck Norris Archers.
And then we could go all about how attaining speed bonus in melee actually requires some footwork and skill, how ranged pierce damage seems to have bugged penetration values and yadayada; but the point is that trying to argue that melee does more damage than ranged cause of damage bonuses is stupid.
-
The damage increase from movement speed of a footman running towards an archer is small because the movement speed is relatively small compared to the projectile speed. Same for the gravity damage gain. Speed bonus from movement has a lot bigger impact on melee damage.
At 100m an archers does about 60% damage against a naked and significantly less against a well armored target because ranged basicly uses unnerfed (Native) soak armor values.
-
But because archers are so accurate and deadly from all but pretty extreme ranges, they're hanging out away from or above the battle in any place that has a view, and there's very little people can do about it. Force them to choose between a much weaker bow with good accuracy, or a strong bow with less accuracy, and it'll reduce the effectiveness of the "easy mode" archer, while still allowing smart, aware, good archers to be very effective (and to be counter-able).
I think that's where we're just going to have to disagree, because I don't think that archers are very accurate or deadly from extreme ranges. Archers that are shooting from a hilltop a mile away are going to burn through their quiver very fast and probably won't get much to show for it. Getting yourself in the correct location in battle that gives you a good shooting location while also keeping out of harms way is very difficult. Unless you roof camp!
-
A bad melee infantry is going to be close to useless, let alone being able to break even.
A bad archer, however, is much more effective. Find a safe place to point and shoot with the rest the archers, and even a bad archer is damaging opponents rather easily to at least break even in terms holding their own, especially if you consider that they are hitting the skilled players just as easily as they hit some useless players.
Uhhhhhhhh.... In my mind, a 'bad' archer would be missing their targets or even hitting their own teammates, the same as a 'bad' infantry. Your take on the subject is incredibly skewed.
-
Play a gen as an archer, then complain. You'll see how fun it is to face off against throwers or plate. The same plate that just ate 8 of your bodkins, 2 to the face, and is still alive. Also, shooting from long range is too much on the chance of your prediction being correct.
-
made an archer stf once..
It was ridiculously easy to get an even KD ratio even though I had zero experience in Archery in MP.
The worst was that I felt a little dirty every time i killed someone. My spine rotted away and my dick shrunk with every hit.
-
I think that's where we're just going to have to disagree, because I don't think that archers are very accurate or deadly from extreme ranges. Archers that are shooting from a hilltop a mile away are going to burn through their quiver very fast and probably won't get much to show for it. Getting yourself in the correct location in battle that gives you a good shooting location while also keeping out of harms way is very difficult. Unless you roof camp!
What is "a mile away"? I'm talking about where archers go every map. There's always hills or roofs that archers camp and seem to have no problem with the distance. The maps usually aren't huge. It's usually a central area of battle that is created by a wide circle of buildings with an open plaza in the middle, or a lane, etc. There's very few where there's no hill or something that isn't comfortably in range of most of the targets. Even maps like Nord Town and that similar-looking native map with the boats and the docks have archers shooting at a longer distance than they usually need to in most maps as they sit up in the balconies around the roofs, yet they are picking each other off just fine (when they aren't shooting infantry).
Uhhhhhhhh.... In my mind, a 'bad' archer would be missing their targets or even hitting their own teammates, the same as a 'bad' infantry. Your take on the subject is incredibly skewed.
Call it an average/typical archer then. Obviously, someone who isn't more of a detriment to the team than helpful. Whatever.
Play a gen as an archer, then complain. You'll see how fun it is to face off against throwers or plate. The same plate that just ate 8 of your bodkins, 2 to the face, and is still alive. Also, shooting from long range is too much on the chance of your prediction being correct.
Zanze, Plate is tough to kill whatever class you are, and we can all complain how tough it is and say we all need to be buffed because of it. But that'd be an issue with plate being too powerful.
We're talking about the dominance of archers using such a simple, uneasily countered method.
-
archery is op and the longbow sucks at moment ,rusbow and horn are op machineguns.
-
What is "a mile away"? I'm talking about where archers go every map. There's always hills or roofs that archers camp and seem to have no problem with the distance. The maps usually aren't huge. It's usually a central area of battle that is created by a wide circle of buildings with an open plaza in the middle, or a lane, etc. There's very few where there's no hill or something that isn't comfortably in range of most of the targets. Even maps like Nord Town and that similar-looking native map with the boats and the docks have archers shooting at a longer distance than they usually need to in most maps as they sit up in the balconies around the roofs, yet they are picking each other off just fine (when they aren't shooting infantry).
I think in part it depends on the map. For example in Nord Town the team that starts on the boat runs into a funnel with a fence on the left and the houses on the right, and archers perched in the the roof/house have a straight line easy shot into the crowd. I liked the ATS version of that map much more than the original native map.
Otherwise as an archer here are the targets that will always be relatively easy to hit regardless of range:
-Reloading xbowmen
-Bad archers (archers that stand in one place lining up their shot and firing
-Large clusters of infantry
Infantry/cavalry traveling in a predictable straight line are next in line on the 'ease to hit from longer distances' list. Fast horses are a bit harder because you have to lead them a loooot, but straight lines in general are an archer's close friend.
But from that point you run into the the shots that are almost impossible to correctly predict from long distances, and frankly ones that are a bitch to get right even in closer distances. They are:
-Good archers: I HATE having archer duels against good players, the trick is getting your shot 'ready' at the same time they are just stopping to line up their shot so hopefully you'll be able to get your shot off at their stationary target and then be able to dodge out of the way before their shot connects with you. Otherwise it becomes a guessing game of which way they are going to strafe.
-Squirmy infantry: Some squirms are very effective, some are not. There are tricks for archers to help increase their success rate against these guys, but especially at larger distances (not the point blank/closing type shots) good luck hitting someone focused on dodging like this.
-Squirmy cav. In particular ones that will give you their front/back as a target instead of the broad side of the mount. Just a few slight twists and turns can make cavalry very difficult to shoot, especially at longer distances because you need to give your shot so much lead time. Granted horses are easier to hit than infantry because they are larger targets, but still not a cakewalk.
I should also mention that fighting these smarter players are a greater risk to an archer, because every split second of extra time I spend focusing on my aim and holding my draw is one split second longer that I become that stationary bad archer I talked about earlier that is just begging to be gunned down by another archer, an xbowmen, or a backstabbing cav.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The trend here is just like any other trend in this game: the newbie, predictable, less aware players are archer food (almost) regardless of range. If you are an aware experienced player you probably fall into one of the later categories however, and you might be surprised to realize how many archers focusing you were required to take you down. The next time you get killed try to keep a mental count of how many arrows whizzed by. Kay I know that I hit you the most when you are riding in to lance someone because your approach (naturally) becomes a bit more normalized and predictable, but once you are 'out' my odds of plugging you or your horse go way down.
-
I'm just concerned with how fun the gameplay is. The thing I see making things less fun is the feeling of constantly being surrounded by powerful archers (at least for anywhere the battle is taking place) with no good tactical way to neutralize their threat (not necessarily neutralizing them by killing them, but also by having a tactic to make them less effective or force them to make decisions that may put them at greater risk), and them being more of an annoyance than a fun part of the game.
There's no doubt in my mind that archers are strong. When I come in close to attack one, their non-vital shots will kill my champion courser in 2 to 4 shots. But I'm trying to let that be. I can live with powerful shots like that at close range. If archers need to be close to be that effective, then it puts them at a more risky position where they can be countered, or you can make them ineffective again by getting away from them or by staying away in the first place.
But the problem is that they aren't ineffective at the longer range. Any benefits for archers getting closer are greatly outweighed by the benefits of staying comfortably far away in the most convenient location available. As you say, and from what I see watching archers, the difficulty of shooting long range isn't so much about the inaccuracy of the arrow as it is about the movements of the target. I'd like to see some combination of long range accuracy reduced or long range damage reduced, or different combinations of those 2 things offered by having very different bows available.
The goal here is to make camping archers ineffective if the enemy isn't near them. Just having targets in sight shouldn't be enough. There should be a closer effective range. No snipers. Then they will come off from those surrounding hillsides and somewhat distant rooftops and be part of the battle instead of standing on the sidelines taking deadly potshots like it's a shooting gallery game.
-
I'm just concerned with how fun the gameplay is. The thing I see making things less fun is the feeling of constantly being surrounded by powerful archers (at least for anywhere the battle is taking place) with no good tactical way to neutralize their threat (not necessarily neutralizing them by killing them, but also by having a tactic to make them less effective or force them to make decisions that may put them at greater risk), and them being more of an annoyance than a fun part of the game.
There's no doubt in my mind that archers are strong. When I come in close to attack one, their non-vital shots will kill my champion courser in 2 to 4 shots. But I'm trying to let that be. I can live with powerful shots like that at close range. If archers need to be close to be that effective, then it puts them at a more risky position where they can be countered, or you can make them ineffective again by getting away from them or by staying away in the first place.
But the problem is that they aren't ineffective at the longer range. Any benefits for archers getting closer are greatly outweighed by the benefits of staying comfortably far away in the most convenient location available. As you say, and from what I see watching archers, the difficulty of shooting long range isn't so much about the inaccuracy of the arrow as it is about the movements of the target. I'd like to see some combination of long range accuracy reduced or long range damage reduced, or different combinations of those 2 things offered by having very different bows available.
The goal here is to make camping archers ineffective if the enemy isn't near them. Just having targets in sight shouldn't be enough. There should be a closer effective range. No snipers. Then they will come off from those surrounding hillsides and somewhat distant rooftops and be part of the battle instead of standing on the sidelines taking deadly potshots like it's a shooting gallery game.
This and remove ladders plz
-
cRPG air friction parameter is already 50% higher than in Native and the Native value seems to be taken from the real world. That means ranged do lose damage on distance - especially against armored targets thanks to the (different to melee) high soak value. Unless your idea of the ideal damage gradient is that archers and crossbowmen should only do damage within like a 5m radius. We have to give them (sawed-off) shotgun spread then though.
-
Which class has a stupid extra_penetration flag that makes enemy armor so much less effective? Archers.
The biggest issue I have with all ranged having the extra_penetration flag, is how fast they're able to brutally murder shields. I have a hybrid 2h/1h build specifically for ranged and my shield breaks from just a few arrows, practically making it pointless to even have the thing, not to mention it's fairly easy to shoot around it. I can stare at the ground and block most hits, but if theres even one more enemy near, regardless of who else is with me and despite all my efforts, it's rather common that I get shot around it.
-
Play a gen as an archer, then complain. You'll see how fun it is to face off against throwers or plate. The same plate that just ate 8 of your bodkins, 2 to the face, and is still alive. Also, shooting from long range is too much on the chance of your prediction being correct.
This, and also the plated ballerines, WTF!!
-
This, and also the plated ballerines, WTF!!
You guys don't have looms, do you ?
-
You guys don't have looms, do you ?
+2 longbow and +3 bodkins count as looms?
-
+2 longbow and +3 bodkins count as looms?
Then you're significantly exaggerating.
Also, longbow vs thrower? Obviously you're going to get fucked, you're using the slowest possible bow, the worst ranged weapon to choose to fight a thrower.