cRPG

cRPG => Suggestions Corner => Topic started by: Spawny on January 16, 2012, 03:48:40 pm

Title: Shielders vs ranged
Post by: Spawny on January 16, 2012, 03:48:40 pm
The problem:
Shielders are supposed to be "the counter" vs archers/xbowmen. Currently they aren't. A few rounds last night made me terribly aware of this once again. Up to a point where there were 2 ranged left alive in one team and 3 shielders in the other. All of them were shot around/over their shield without getting close to the ranged guys.

In my oppinion, the only advantage of having a shield is you can block one couched attack with it.
Having an auto-block (as people like to call it) is not very usefull when blocking isn't really needed when you swing a great sword or a glaive. Hell, you can actually kill people when swinging a 2h weapon or polearm without blocking, but I've never seen anyone getting killed by a blocking shielder.
It currently looks to me, everything you can do with a shield, you can do better with a 2h/polearm.
I don't really care about all the rest, that's fine imo, but at least give shielders a use vs ranged.

I have no suggestion myself, as I can't really think of a way how to do this without increasing the forcefield on shields again.

tl;dr
Shields are pretty much useless when focussed by archers/xbowmen. Needs a buff of some sort to become "the ranged counter" once again.
Title: Re: Shielders vs ranged
Post by: Cris on January 16, 2012, 08:48:01 pm
When I play shielder I have no problem with ranged players...

If I wont wanna get shot I use a big shield...If they are playing as a team and they kill me, good for them.

What you say about 3 shielders vs 2 ranged...I find it a bit odd that you lost if none of the ranged where mounted (which gives them speed advantage), maybe the shielders should have played as a team, getting the angle right to avoid the arrows.


Edit: Any kind of buff would mean going back to the magnet we had before. Remember it even got to a point that shields would even protect horses if the rider had good shield skill.
Title: Re: Shielders vs ranged
Post by: Elmokki on January 16, 2012, 08:56:40 pm
Two gens ago I was 24/15 shielder. I couldn't do anything to archers.

Now I have 21 agility and my build at 30, 18/21 isn't THAT low strength build. I can pretty much troll around with a buckler and run down or at least run at about the same speed as an archer. Against more skilled archers I'd pick a bigger shield.

Sure though, 2+ archers and it gets very hazardous, way more so than against 2+ melee, and actually catching someone who runs is often impossible before they find a teammate who ties me down in melee. Still it hardly is a problem.
Title: Re: Shielders vs ranged
Post by: Fluffy_Muffin on January 16, 2012, 09:11:44 pm
I dont have problems with archers when im idling away with rmb pressed, or when in a shieldwall or something. But when you fight, shield or no shield it doesent matter to ranged. I use a huscarl so i dont have the over and under problems, but when i used the lighter shields that are smaller i had these problems. I think its a fair trade in terms of the huscarl: you sacrafice a bit of mobility for better protection from ranged. Ofcourse i get the ocasional headshot, legshot but nothing major
Title: Re: Shielders vs ranged
Post by: Tears of Destiny on January 16, 2012, 09:17:11 pm
Play one gen as an archer, and you will quickly realize what shields plus what shield skill pose difficulty, and what do not.

It is surprisingly easy to make a build that can properly shield against archers, I have even done one with just 3 shield skill by choosing the right shield (I do suggest minimum 5 though for large shields, and 6 or 7 for the smaller ones).
Title: Re: Shielders vs ranged
Post by: XyNox on January 16, 2012, 09:25:42 pm
If anyone seriously thinks that shielders are underpowered against archers, he or she should most certainly seek a doctor, as there is a very high chance that the brain of this person is heavily damaged.
Title: Re: Shielders vs ranged
Post by: Overdriven on January 16, 2012, 09:28:22 pm
No problem with archers. Either with plain round shield or huscarl shield.
Title: Re: Shielders vs ranged
Post by: Renten on January 16, 2012, 10:45:55 pm
The only problem is that their shields weight (actually I think just having a shield slows you down too) makes them run equal or lesser speeds than the archers.  If the archer has any sort of melee back up the shielder is tied down, and if its another archer they just run in two different directions.

In other words, strength build shielders or heavy armor shielders don't run fast enough to pose a major threat.
Title: Re: Shielders vs ranged
Post by: Elmokki on January 17, 2012, 12:18:17 am
The only problem is that their shields weight (actually I think just having a shield slows you down too) makes them run equal or lesser speeds than the archers.  If the archer has any sort of melee back up the shielder is tied down, and if its another archer they just run in two different directions.

In other words, strength build shielders or heavy armor shielders don't run fast enough to pose a major threat.

Having a shield doesn't slow you down because it's a shield unless you have more than one. Also shield + 1h weight exceeds bow + 2x bodkins only if you're using a heavy non-sword and/or a heavy shield (7 to 7.7 weight for some bow + 2x bodkins, plenty of shield + sword combos and some shield + hammer combos are lower than that)

Strength build can't chase an agi build, what's the problem?
Heavy armor can't chase down light armor, what's the problem?

I have no problem with archers at 7 ath, 6 ath was enough to catch many too.
Title: Re: Shielders vs ranged
Post by: Tot. on January 17, 2012, 01:26:43 am
Having a shield doesn't slow you down because it's a shield unless you have more than one. Also shield + 1h weight exceeds bow + 2x bodkins only if you're using a heavy non-sword and/or a heavy shield (7 to 7.7 weight for some bow + 2x bodkins, plenty of shield + sword combos and some shield + hammer combos are lower than that)

Armor.
Title: Re: Shielders vs ranged
Post by: Kafein on January 17, 2012, 01:34:14 am
If anyone seriously thinks that shielders are underpowered against archers, he or she should most certainly seek a doctor, as there is a very high chance that the brain of this person is heavily damaged.

One shielder wins against one archer. Two shielders rarely win against two archers. No matter how you turn the problem, the shielders are always going to take arrows in the back.
Title: Re: Shielders vs ranged
Post by: Tot. on January 17, 2012, 01:39:05 am
Reducing movement speed after using ranged weapon for a bit kinda solves the problem.
Title: Re: Shielders vs ranged
Post by: Vodner on January 17, 2012, 02:55:38 am
Why not just restore ranged damage to where it was, and remove the ability to sprint while a bow is in your inventory?

This way archers are still really dangerous, but an archer will either have to take a sidearm (and make a build that can use it), or rely on his team for protection. Losing sprint won't affect the archer's ability to use his sidearm to defend himself in melee (people rarely run without blocking/strafing/attacking long enough in melee to sprint).
Title: Re: Shielders vs ranged
Post by: Tears of Destiny on January 17, 2012, 03:00:53 am
Why not just restore ranged damage to where it was, and remove the ability to sprint while a bow is in your inventory?

And half the archers get lanced struggling out of spawn because the entire melee team races ahead.
Title: Re: Shielders vs ranged
Post by: Vodner on January 17, 2012, 03:03:28 am
And half the archers get lanced struggling out of spawn because the entire melee team races ahead.
You could have the debuff applied only after firing the first arrow. Even without that, player speeds are so disparate that faster players already need to slow down to keep from outrunning their teammates.
Title: Re: Shielders vs ranged
Post by: Konrax on January 17, 2012, 04:41:25 am
I said it a bunch of times now.

Ranged can out pace shielders because of weight penatlies of shield and the heavier armour most shieders wear.

The solution is to revert the damage back to where it was before, and then add an athletics delay when aiming / firing / drawing a ranged weapon. Something like 3 second delay on/after any of these activities would be a huge balance between melee and range without the need to overnerf the damage till its not even really viable.

Range needs to choose, shoot, or run, but not both back to back which gives us the current kiting situation. 2 archers can easily kite 1 shielder to the point where they can't possible block both firing arcs while easily out pacing them and being safe from harm.
Title: Re: Shielders vs ranged
Post by: Nagasoup on January 17, 2012, 04:44:41 am
The real problem is blocking with a shield slowing you down. Shielders aren't as good as in real life against archers because in warband if you want to block arrows, you'll never be able to catch the person shooting them at you.

In reality, whether holding a shield in front of you or holding a shield by your side, you'd still be able to run just as fast.

As a matter of fact, you'd actually be able to run FASTER holding a shield in front than by your side, because being unbalanced towards the front would force you to run faster to keep your balance, while holding a shield at your side causes you to be unbalanced to the left, and thus unable to run as fast.

In reality, the reason that shields require real effort to use, is the moment of impact.

In order to keep your balance when a force impacts against your shield, the shielder must push BACK with the equal amount of force, or risk being knocked over (Newton's third law). Without anything impacting against against your shield, holding it up is no different than holding a dumbbell in your hand and running with it - pretty easy.

So the best course of action is not to add unrealistic, gimmicky effects to archery, but to change the mechanics of shields.

-----

Now that we got that out of the way, my suggestion is this:

1. Buff shielders' movement speed when blocking to nearly full speed.

2. Significant movement speed decrease for a brief moment after blocking an attack. A good idea would be to make the speed decrease depend on the damage the attack would've done had it not been blocked.

OR for a more realistic but harder to implement idea:

Instead of a movement speed decrease, it would be an acceleration in the direction of the attack.

For example, if you're running directly towards an archer, and you block an incoming arrow from said archer, you would accelerate in the direction of the arrow shot (pointing behind you) and be slowed down.

However, if you're backing away from an archer, and you block an arrow from said archer, you would speed up while walking backwards (acceleration in the direction of attack).

The magnitude of acceleration would depend on the strength of the attack. This would apply for blocking both ranged and melee.
Title: Re: Shielders vs ranged
Post by: Zerran on January 17, 2012, 07:34:15 am
Make having a bow out and ready drastically reduce speed, similar to what a second shield on your back does, and also increase weight penalty from a bow on the back (Though to a lesser extent). If an archer wants to run fast, they then put the bow away (and therefore the shielder wouldn't have to worry about blocking, and could run faster), or they drop the bow altogether (and therefore lose all ranged ability, until they pick it back up)
Title: Re: Shielders vs ranged
Post by: San on January 17, 2012, 07:56:49 am
If you want to increase movement while shield is up, it would be nice to keep all the direction's maximum speeds the same, except increase the maximum velocity for forward movement and that's it. Shield movement to the sides and backpedaling are fast enough.

It would probably be easier to put an acceleration delay on the archers as others have described above, though.
Title: Re: Shielders vs ranged
Post by: Nagasoup on January 17, 2012, 09:16:38 am
If you want to increase movement while shield is up, it would be nice to keep all the direction's maximum speeds the same, except increase the maximum velocity for forward movement and that's it. Shield movement to the sides and backpedaling are fast enough.

It would probably be easier to put an acceleration delay on the archers as others have described above, though.

Actually yea that's a good idea on only forward movement speed increase (which would agree with physics also), however the movement penalty on archers is just unrealistic, gimmicky, and honestly a lazy bandaid fix for a much larger problem.
Title: Re: Shielders vs ranged
Post by: Spawny on January 17, 2012, 09:58:35 am
If you want to increase movement while shield is up, it would be nice to keep all the direction's maximum speeds the same, except increase the maximum velocity for forward movement and that's it. Shield movement to the sides and backpedaling are fast enough.

It would probably be easier to put an acceleration delay on the archers as others have described above, though.

I actually really like this idea. I'm just worried it would make archers run from you sooner. Now they start running when you are within 10m or so, this change would make them run when you get within 15-20m. The added distance would make it harder to shoot over/around shields and I guess that would balance things out.
Title: Re: Shielders vs ranged
Post by: Herkkutatti on January 17, 2012, 10:05:37 am
make bow and arrows weight more , or 1 pd needs 4 str  :)
Title: Re: Shielders vs ranged
Post by: [ptx] on January 17, 2012, 10:36:09 am
Now that we got that out of the way, my suggestion is this:

1. Buff shielders' movement speed when blocking to nearly full speed.

2. Significant movement speed decrease for a brief moment after blocking an attack. A good idea would be to make the speed decrease depend on the damage the attack would've done had it not been blocked.

OR for a more realistic but harder to implement idea:

Instead of a movement speed decrease, it would be an acceleration in the direction of the attack.

For example, if you're running directly towards an archer, and you block an incoming arrow from said archer, you would accelerate in the direction of the arrow shot (pointing behind you) and be slowed down.

However, if you're backing away from an archer, and you block an arrow from said archer, you would speed up while walking backwards (acceleration in the direction of attack).

The magnitude of acceleration would depend on the strength of the attack. This would apply for blocking both ranged and melee.
The first seems okay, the 2nd is godawful - imagine getting pushed off walls in siege by arrow spam - FFFFFFUUUUUUU
Title: Re: Shielders vs ranged
Post by: Nagasoup on January 17, 2012, 10:45:01 am
That effect could be implemented for only slowing down shielders during movement, not acceleration to the point where it would actually move the shielder.

For example, if you move forward you'd be slowed down by backward acceleration, but would never actually start moving backwards...
Title: Re: Shielders vs ranged
Post by: Ylca on January 17, 2012, 10:53:13 am
Not one day after a major ranged nerf and people are already rallying for more nerf. I absolutely love the CRPG community.  :lol:

Wait you mean more than one archer at once makes it hard to shield? Kind of like fighting multiple of any class requires more attention to shield? Do go on. CRPG community best community, let's keep balancing to their whims and we'll have an amazing game!  :lol:
Title: Re: Shielders vs ranged
Post by: Kafein on January 17, 2012, 12:42:59 pm
Not one day after a major ranged nerf and people are already rallying for more nerf. I absolutely love the CRPG community.  :lol:

Wait you mean more than one archer at once makes it hard to shield? Kind of like fighting multiple of any class requires more attention to shield? Do go on. CRPG community best community, let's keep balancing to their whims and we'll have an amazing game!  :lol:

Although difficult, defeating 2-3 melee people alone as shielder is totally possible and happens quite a lot. Defeating 3 archers ? If you are lucky you manage to reach the slowest one and start a block battle with him, while his friends are firing in your back. Hell, even 3 c av are easier to kill.


I say, the very minimal thing that should be done is increasing the side coverage of kite/heather shields. Currently, those two are completely gimped compared to round shields because they only protect in an extremely narrow angle in front of the shielder.
Title: Re: Shielders vs ranged
Post by: Lorenzo_of_Iberia on January 17, 2012, 01:25:04 pm
I really dont have any problem with archers as a shielder :/ I just raise that shield high and dont push into positions where they flank me :/
Title: Re: Shielders vs ranged
Post by: Spawny on January 17, 2012, 01:35:37 pm
Wait you mean more than one archer at once makes it hard to shield? Kind of like fighting multiple of any class requires more attention to shield? Do go on. CRPG community best community, let's keep balancing to their whims and we'll have an amazing game!  :lol:

1v1 against an archer: He runs, can't catch him due to the weight of my shield and armour. No armour means I get killed by 1-2 hits from just about everything and taking massive damage from being run over by a horse.

2 shielders v 1 archer: Same as above.

2 shielderds v 2 archers: Either the same as above or the archers play smart and split up, then shoot the shielders in the back.

X shielders v X archers: Pretty much the same as above.

X Shielders v Y archers where X<Y: Shielders don't have a chance.

I'm not saying I think archery is over powered or too strong in general, I just have the feeling that shielders aren't as effective vs ranged as they should be (shielders are no counter, just an annoyance like every other infantry unit).
Title: Re: Shielders vs ranged
Post by: Lorenzo_of_Iberia on January 17, 2012, 01:38:28 pm
Shielders are a defensive class and the whole mechanic works on them defending, to rush out an archer and chase him is mostly a bad idea :/
Title: Re: Shielders vs ranged
Post by: dodnet on January 17, 2012, 01:52:53 pm
I have seen several shielders who got headshotted over their raised shield from an archer in the front. I'm not sure if its an issue of too low shield skill or them using 1st person view and holding the shield to low. It still is a bit strange.
Title: Re: Shielders vs ranged
Post by: Spawny on January 17, 2012, 02:01:43 pm
Shielders are a defensive class and the whole mechanic works on them defending, to rush out an archer and chase him is mostly a bad idea :/

Just standing there doesn't kill anyone.
Title: Re: Shielders vs ranged
Post by: Lorenzo_of_Iberia on January 17, 2012, 02:03:58 pm
Just standing there doesn't kill anyone.

Not in the short term, but an archer has gotta run out of ammo sometime, providing you can dodge some of his arrows, have a decent shield and this is the end of the battle, hes gotta run out sometime. Then he has to fight you :/
Title: Re: Shielders vs ranged
Post by: dodnet on January 17, 2012, 02:19:02 pm
Not in the short term, but an archer has gotta run out of ammo sometime, providing you can dodge some of his arrows, have a decent shield and this is the end of the battle, hes gotta run out sometime. Then he has to fight you :/

Which can take ages if the archer has a lot of arrows, runs around to collect more and time is running up.
Title: Re: Shielders vs ranged
Post by: Lorenzo_of_Iberia on January 17, 2012, 02:28:08 pm
Which can take ages if the archer has a lot of arrows, runs around to collect more and time is running up.

true but then i think in said situation the infantry can chase down and if the archer kites its the archer that is delaying
Title: Re: Shielders vs ranged
Post by: Spawny on January 17, 2012, 02:44:30 pm
Not in the short term, but an archer has gotta run out of ammo sometime, providing you can dodge some of his arrows, have a decent shield and this is the end of the battle, hes gotta run out sometime. Then he has to fight you :/

Standing there, waiting until the archer has to come to you out of fear of being kicked for delaying.

Just curious, but how often has that strategy proven succeful in battle situations for you in the generations you've played as a shielder?
Title: Re: Shielders vs ranged
Post by: Lorenzo_of_Iberia on January 17, 2012, 03:07:32 pm
Standing there, waiting until the archer has to come to you out of fear of being kicked for delaying.

Just curious, but how often has that strategy proven succeful in battle situations for you in the generations you've played as a shielder?


I dunno never been in said situation myself, but I can tell you I rarely die from arrows with a shield raised high :) But i do know I can stand and take arrows til kingdom come and thats without dodging ;)
Title: Re: Shielders vs ranged
Post by: Dezilagel on January 17, 2012, 04:44:24 pm
I've used a shield for quite some time now, and they're great!

...but not in the way you expect them to.

Their prime effect is that they simply make the archers shoot you less. They simply choose another target.

The actual effectiveness of them vs ranged on the other hand is rather questionable, but having a shield is still way better than not having one should you get shot at.

Title: Re: Shielders vs ranged
Post by: Lech on January 17, 2012, 05:31:22 pm
(click to show/hide)

Just increase weight of bows and arrows, to the level of shield weight each. Solved.
Title: Re: Shielders vs ranged
Post by: Tears of Destiny on January 17, 2012, 05:35:06 pm
(click to show/hide)

Just increase weight of bows and arrows, to the level of shield weight each. Solved.

With the latest damage nerf, I'm certain this is not needed anymore.
Title: Re: Shielders vs ranged
Post by: Lech on January 17, 2012, 05:40:14 pm
With the latest damage nerf, I'm certain this is not needed anymore.

It is needed, alternative could be:

(click to show/hide)

Another can be changing run animation with shield and restoring idle shield hitboxes.
Title: Re: Shielders vs ranged
Post by: Spawny on January 17, 2012, 05:47:26 pm
restoring idle shield hitboxes.

I got hit yesterday in the shield without blocking with it. Unless I got it wrong, idle shields still get hit by ranged, just not by melee.
Title: Re: Shielders vs ranged
Post by: Lech on January 17, 2012, 05:53:13 pm
I got hit yesterday in the shield without blocking with it. Unless I got it wrong, idle shields still get hit by ranged, just not by melee.

But they are smaller than shields, it should be 'restore their size'.
Title: Re: Shielders vs ranged
Post by: Phew on January 17, 2012, 06:57:50 pm
Give archers their damage back, but take away their mobility. Archers should require melee support protecting them to be fully effective. Right now 4 archers is a more formidable team than 2 archers+2 melee, and it shouldn't be that way.

Title: Re: Shielders vs ranged
Post by: dodnet on January 17, 2012, 07:07:16 pm
I got hit yesterday in the shield without blocking with it. Unless I got it wrong, idle shields still get hit by ranged, just not by melee.

Yes they do - but only if the arrow hits them directly (thats as I understood it). I dont think melee will be blocked though.
Title: Re: Shielders vs ranged
Post by: dodnet on January 17, 2012, 07:11:19 pm
Give archers their damage back, but take away their mobility. Archers should require melee support protecting them to be fully effective. Right now 4 archers is a more formidable team than 2 archers+2 melee, and it shouldn't be that way.


They should add some kind of exhaustion. You will have a hard time targeting anything properly if you just ran around for a minute or draw the bow every second. Same for inf who holds a heavy hammer overhead for minutes.
Title: Re: Shielders vs ranged
Post by: Nagasoup on January 17, 2012, 09:01:48 pm
I dunno never been in said situation myself, but I can tell you I rarely die from arrows with a shield raised high :) But i do know I can stand and take arrows til kingdom come and thats without dodging ;)

You've never played shielder have you?  :lol:
Title: Re: Shielders vs ranged
Post by: Ragni_Bross on January 17, 2012, 09:18:42 pm
I'm a shielder and I'd say that our biggest enemy isn't archers and crossbowmen but lame ass AGI-whoring über-buckler- lamers :P Everything we can do they can do better. Block arrows check, block everything else, check. It makes no sense at all. Bucklers were used commonly, yea, but that's because they were easy to carry around not because they were more efficient than real fucking shields.

Vikingr, the only mod with somewhat realistic and fair combat, has the shields all right. If your shield is too smal to cover your entire body, you risk getting hit. If you cover your head you might get hit in your legs and vice versa. MAKES PERFECT SENSE! I'm a shielder (I prefer to use cheaper, better looking shields that actually go with my outfit rather than whatever has the best stats) and I say make it so. Not only does it take quite some skill to be able to block every single incoming blow with a small buckler, especially when you're attacked by multiple opponents, but it takes ninja-like skills to block incoming missiles with a shield the size of a dinner plate. If the shields actually worked this way in cRPG big shields would actually be usefull. Why d'you think crossbowmen carried pavises and not bucklers?

Nerf bucklers.
Title: Re: Shielders vs ranged
Post by: Lorenzo_of_Iberia on January 17, 2012, 09:19:12 pm
You've never played shielder have you?  :lol:

I play hoplite build with a loyal crew of hoplites recently but have played solo for 2 months now :P I keep my shield high and I dont take damage from arrows, at least if I dont push too far :D
Title: Re: Shielders vs ranged
Post by: Nagasoup on January 18, 2012, 04:43:48 am
I play hoplite build with a loyal crew of hoplites

I play hoplite too! Are you on NA? I want to play with you guys  :mrgreen:
Title: Re: Shielders vs ranged
Post by: Konrax on January 18, 2012, 05:18:37 am


They should add some kind of exhaustion. You will have a hard time targeting anything properly if you just ran around for a minute or draw the bow every second. Same for inf who holds a heavy hammer overhead for minutes.

I said it a bunch of times now.

Ranged can out pace shielders because of weight penatlies of shield and the heavier armour most shieders wear.

The solution is to revert the damage back to where it was before, and then add an athletics delay when aiming / firing / drawing a ranged weapon. Something like 3 second delay on/after any of these activities would be a huge balance between melee and range without the need to overnerf the damage till its not even really viable.

Range needs to choose, shoot, or run, but not both back to back which gives us the current kiting situation. 2 archers can easily kite 1 shielder to the point where they can't possible block both firing arcs while easily out pacing them and being safe from harm.

For those who say its a lame fix or unrealistic are not looking at the big picture, and are incorrect.

First off it would promote team play more, by range depending on melee for protection to be able to fire at targets without being harassed in melee.

Second it wouldn't nerf their speed, only when they can utilize it, so yes range specialists will fall back and retreat when they notice a significant threat. However, if you were to successfully ambush them while they are firing they will have a harder time escaping unscathed.

Lastly, shooting a bow, firing an xbow, and throwing a weapon are all rather exhausting activities IRL so if your gripe is that its unrealistic, then your wrong. I wouldn't say you would be exhausted immediately, but each has their own reason why you can't just start sprinting immediately after firing it a few times. Without endurance I think this is the only fair way to keep the classes core utility in tact (range power) while balancing it against a real counter (mobility).

I don't want to see the melee capabilities reduced further either because that will just promote being a pure build instead of allowing room for hybrids either.

EDIT: The athletics delay could only effect certain classes of range weapons as well. Fast but low damage bows may not be effected by the athletics delay, same with the light throwing weapons and maybe the lightest cross bow. This would add an alternative utility to them as mobile infantry range assault type classes instead of being able to do this with ANY range weapon.
Title: Re: Shielders vs ranged
Post by: Overdriven on January 18, 2012, 09:35:20 am
I play hoplite too! Are you on NA? I want to play with you guys  :mrgreen:
EU I'm afraid  :)
http://forum.c-rpg.net/index.php/topic,22631.60.html
Title: Re: Shielders vs ranged
Post by: Ylca on January 18, 2012, 11:52:33 am
Jesus H. Christ, just remove archery already so people can see why all the melee only servers were completely unpopulated a week after they went up.

As a heavy cav player i say nerf all archery (again) and pikes too while you're at it. Anything that can stop my class is OP, in my humble opinion.
Title: Re: Shielders vs ranged
Post by: Mala on January 18, 2012, 02:21:58 pm
...

Vikingr, the only mod with somewhat realistic and fair combat, has the shields all right. ...

Naa, the movements there are so awfull slow.

Anyway, the trick is hand-eye coordination.

PS: We need a shield bash.
Title: Re: Shielders vs ranged
Post by: CrazyCracka420 on January 18, 2012, 05:07:31 pm
I don't see the problem.  Ranged are already basically a support class (not kill whores) for the most part.  You need to hit people usually at least 3-4 times in the body to kill (probably more now after the patch).  So generally I think of ranged like hoplites, they are very useful support class, but not necessarily getting the glory.  I don't think they (or any other class) needs any more nerfs.  All c-rpg has seen is one nerf daisy chained onto another nerf, and another, and another, and another.  I've never had an archer build, but they are not overpowered.

That being said, I don't see a problem with shields vs archers.  Cut off the angles, or if you can't, then wait for MOTF (behind a building or tree or in a shield wall).