cRPG

cRPG => General Discussion => Topic started by: Harpag on January 23, 2012, 03:37:11 pm

Title: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: Harpag on January 23, 2012, 03:37:11 pm
The assumption is that on the battlefield should be present all the basic types of units and their hybrids. The search for the proper balance of the game cause changes in the proportion of amount of each class. This is natural. To see the actual impact of changes in balance, you have to wait a bit, because people need time to observe and adjust.

I fear that the latest balance is bad, because I noticed a sharp decline in the number of certain classes. I think this spoils teamwork.
Practically you can't see throwing units and mounted archers. Additionally, you can't see a dedicated crossbowmen, and the number of archers has decreased to a minimum level.

Time for the observation of chaotic clashes 2h + lance in your back while you can't see. These two classes have any natural enemies now, they don't have to be afraid, don't have to invest points in the shields or hold formation. What for? 2h/pole spam + lance in the ass solves all problems.

Rather than reduce the diversity, it is better to increase it. Add new units, such as camels or elephants. Relax - at the cost of upkeep one elephant should work half the clan. Look at this: http://forum.c-rpg.net/index.php/topic,23133.0.html  This is a joke, but it shows the desire of people for diversify.

This is what I write here isn't complaining and crying. I'm not focused on the K:D ratio. I just see that battles are less interesting than before. It does not matter what the map. It is always the same - charge and end the battle after 2 minutes.

Is that what we all want? If you think otherwise - just give arguments and keep emotions for yourself.
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: bonekuukkeli on January 23, 2012, 03:41:46 pm
Blame melee. They whine loudest about anything they can't kill easily. And are unwilling to learn way around problems.

And yes. Diversity is good, but let's keep elephants away from this game :)
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: Gurnisson on January 23, 2012, 03:50:23 pm
Throwing, 2-slot crossbows and horse archers didn't deserve a nerf at all. Only the foot archers and maybe the 1-slot crossbows deserved the nerf, but it was a tad too harsh. 25 % reduction would've been enough for them, probably, or some serious increase of bow weight or arrows instead of damage nerf.
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: Overdriven on January 23, 2012, 03:50:29 pm
Playing just now I did notice a DRAMATIC decrease in overall ranged and a dramatic increase in cav. Cav actually outnumbered ranged players by quite a long way. And this with 100 people on EU1 and only 1 cav friendly map in the 7 I played.

Wooo go melee whining you just completely broke balance. Time to nerf cav rather than just reverting the change  :rolleyes:

I'm going to stick to Rageball for a while.
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: polkafranzi on January 23, 2012, 04:00:26 pm
Apart from roofcamping, and just before the silly right swing delay patch, wasn't everything just fine?  Or did I miss some epic whine about something or other?  nerfrpg, sigh
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: dodnet on January 23, 2012, 04:02:59 pm
Cav usage has constantly increased during the last weeks. I am a cav/lancer build but I'm playing mostly on foot since the last gen as I love killing cav and Im not so good on horse :mrgreen:

There arent many throwers and xbowers around anymore. Diversity is good! Nerf the nerf!
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: Grumbs on January 23, 2012, 04:07:05 pm
On EU1 I see a lot of horse archers/crossbowmen, and often they are the last people alive in the round. Don't just think of the damage, think of their utility and sustained firepower..They can choose any target at all and reduce their HP and can move around and switch targets whenever they like. Hitting targets from long range on a horse should come at a price like it does now. They shouldn't be mobile snipers, but tactical mobile units that soften up a target of their choice to make it easier for their team. If you spot someone like Chase and can put him at half HP after several shots then that is a huge bonus for your team in the long term

Its similar for non mounted ranged, you need to choose your targets and soften them up, not think you can snipe like its TF2 or some crappy FPS

Its not like ranged were key to taking out horses before either, remeber the amount of times you had tens of archers and they all just wanted to shoot randomly into melee fights. Now its more down to melee to deal with cav which is fine
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: Overdriven on January 23, 2012, 04:09:52 pm
It took me 9 arrow hits to kill oldknight in his heraldic mail with tabard. Sure on an open map I can shoot him off his horse and circle him till kingdom come. But the likelihood is that a team mate will come to help, or several. It also took me 18 arrow hits to kill 2 guys in red tunic over mail. One of them I headshotted in a great helm. Fact is that switching targets isn't all that helpful because the damage output is low. They aren't mobile snipers. They should either have decent damage, but poor accuracy, or good accuracy but lower damage. Right now they have neither and are pretty crap with both.

When cav get an HA on their tail and you shoot arrow after arrow into their body (not horses) and they don't bother to swerve, change direction and get away, you know there's a problem.

Ranged have always been key in taking down horses. When it took 3-4 arrows from a hornbow to down a courser, they were very important as even one arrow had a good effect. Now there's no point in aiming for horses especially with the very buggy head hitboxes. Even worse for HA who used to concentrate on cav but now should just hunt very light inf instead.
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: dodnet on January 23, 2012, 04:17:14 pm
HAs are a special kind, they are annoying as hell. It's almost impossible to catch them when on foot and also on horse. They shouldn't deal much damage. (I dont say there shouldnt be a change!)
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: Grumbs on January 23, 2012, 04:20:46 pm
I wouldn't mind seeing horses getting lower overall HP and armour, if there really is a problem. I don't think there is btw, I think this is all a way for ranged to whine about the balance changes, to make out theres a problem with cav now. Reduce horse HP/armour or do some other tweaks like reduce shield forcefield, but don't buff snipers.
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: Overdriven on January 23, 2012, 04:23:19 pm
I'm part of GK...do you think it would be in my best interests to nerf cav?  :lol: I want ranged fixed...not cav nerfed.

But judging by my 2 hours of playing EU1 today. There is a problem. Incredible lack of ranged, huge increase in cav.

Nerfing cav is not the way to go. As once again you'd just get a circle jerk of nerfs.

The solution is either reverting the changes entirely, changing it to something else, or reducing the nerf.
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: Grumbs on January 23, 2012, 04:28:23 pm
Leave time for it to balance out. Good ranged players will fill the shoes of people who just wanted to sit on a roof and shoot. Its not worth rushing into changes while people are still adapting and people are changing classes. Cav might even become FOTM, but I don't think its an issue at all atm, its just a way to whine about ranged changes
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: Overdriven on January 23, 2012, 04:31:18 pm
But that's the point. What you just said there completely makes the patch an act of hypocrisy.

The patch brought in 2 major nerfs to ranged at once:

- Ladder removal
- Damage nerf

You can't bring in 2 major nerfs and expect to see decent results. Instead the removal of ladders should have been brought in, then the situation reassessed as people would have had to adapt and learn. But by bringing in 2 major nerfs at once, you can't see the effects each nerf had and you can't see how people adapt to each one. It's rushing changes that caused this problem.

The fact is people are obviously 'adapting' by flocking away from ranged builds. Otherwise there would be more ranged on the servers now 'adapting' to the change.
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: Grumbs on January 23, 2012, 04:36:06 pm
You dont need to do that with everything you balance. Ranged needed to get off roofs and their damage was stupid for the effort required, roof or no roof. I wouldn't mind seeing some accuracy increase if thats necessary, but you still do decent damage for what you actually have to do, considering what you have to do for any other class. Being encouraged to aim for the head makes it a bit more in line with other classes, but its still very 1 sided skill wise.

The idea is that ranged have to work for their kills and damage, especially if you're on a freaking horse. Maybe they should slow all the projectiles down so you have to judge distance more, that with higher accuracy might be good
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: Overdriven on January 23, 2012, 04:38:45 pm
You dont need to do that with everything you balance. Ranged needed to get off roofs and their damage was stupid for the effort required, roof or no roof. I wouldn't mind seeing some accuracy increase if thats necessary, but you still do decent damage for what you actually have to do, considering what you have to do for any other class. Being encouraged to aim for the head makes it a bit more in line with other classes, but its still very 1 sided skill wise.

The idea is that ranged have to work for their kills and damage, especially if you're on a freaking horse. Maybe they should slow all the projectiles down so you have to judge distance more, that with higher accuracy might be good

Yes you do. Getting them off roofs allows them to be very very vulnerable to both melee and cav. Whereas when they were on roofs they were practically immune. Such a big change needs to be observed for a time. I doubt a damage nerf would have been needed as archers would have died faster, reducing their overall damage output.

Projectiles already got slowed down. Slowing them down even more would make anything over short-medium range near impossible. Although I think slowing projectiles also increases damage? Have you tried HA? As in high speed HA? Good luck hitting anything and surviving. Then come back and say they don't have to work for kills  :wink:

Anyway just as an example my scores today were:
2-5
4-6
5-5
7-7
6-5
2-3 (I lagged and disconnected)
1-2 (ping started going above 200 so quit).

The 7-7 score was on a very open desert map where HA is in it's element, though I was on the losing team. The number of lancers and the inability to down them made it very difficult. The kills I did get were due to persistence and following people plus finding those two guys in red tunics over mail + great helms and circling them using 18 arrows out of 20 (only missed twice) to kill them. 18 arrows to kill two people is a hellish amount.

Also, my courser bumping does more damaged than my arrows. Yay.
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: Lorenzo_of_Iberia on January 23, 2012, 04:40:03 pm
You dont need to do that with everything you balance. Ranged needed to get off roofs and their damage was stupid for the effort required, roof or no roof. I wouldn't mind seeing some accuracy increase if thats necessary, but you still do decent damage for what you actually have to do, considering what you have to do for any other class. Being encouraged to aim for the head makes it a bit more in line with other classes, but its still very 1 sided skill wise.


sounds like a melee player :P

On the point of nerfs, you cant just nerf one thing, see unbalance and nerf another thing. Before long you will see everything nerfed to the ground and there will be no point in playing the game as every class will have gone from powerful builds with pros and cons to a load of floundering group of players who all play the only surviving class :P

I predict stones will become the new top dog by 2014!
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: Angantyr on January 23, 2012, 04:42:06 pm
The amount of in-group out-group group psychology dynamics on these forums are questionable - please be mindful that not everyone is an archetype, nor can everyone's opinions or feedback be put into one-dimensional, one-colored boxes. This is not aimed at the OP but comments here and elsewhere.

Also, the increase in cav is there but it goes further back than the 0.260 patch.
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: dodnet on January 23, 2012, 04:42:26 pm
I predict stones will become the new top dog by 2014!

Just add poison gas to smoke grenades and we have it  :mrgreen:
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: Mike_of_Kingswell on January 23, 2012, 04:51:14 pm
Leave time for it to balance out. Good ranged players will fill the shoes of people who just wanted to sit on a roof and shoot.

Oh comeon....i am no Jambi or whatthefuck all those "top mega hyper archers" are called and i dont WANT TO...
Its like calling out:"Nerf melee, because Chase/Phase/Cyber/Bazinga kill me whenever we meet in battle!!!"
Nerfkilling a class and then pointing out the 5-10 players who still are good is not a solution!
Banning roofarchery would have been enough to see who "good ranged players will fill the shoes"...its not like every archer always used a roof!

.... considering what you have to do for any other class.....

The idea is that ranged have to work for their kills and damage, especially if you're on a freaking horse.

I as a archer always worked for my kills: mostly by running away from heavyarmored twohanderspammers that were working sooo hard for their kills!
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: Teeth on January 23, 2012, 04:56:38 pm
Rather than reduce the diversity, it is better to increase it. Add new units, such as camels or elephants. Relax - at the cost of upkeep one elephant should work half the clan.
I'm sure you Greys would really like that
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: _Tak_ on January 23, 2012, 05:01:19 pm
Rather than reduce the diversity, it is better to increase it. Add new units, such as camels or elephants. Relax - at the cost of upkeep one elephant should work half the clan. Look at this: http://forum.c-rpg.net/index.php/topic,23133.0.html  This is a joke, but it shows the desire of people for diversify.

+1 for the joke  :), it's funny that all we "Peasants" are having a chat here :P
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: Lactose_the_intolerant on January 23, 2012, 05:23:40 pm
and the amount of 1h using elite spammitar  :rolleyes:

I'm saying this again but I read somewhere that a dev is working hard to do range damage depending on the impact zone. like 100% in the body, 80% shoulders etc....
wouldnt that be nice hey? so cut the whining and wait 'n' see!

I dont like to use this argument but here it goes. I'v started using my crosswow alt again who is dedicated, without looms and I'm doing pretty well ( nice KD scores and a f*** loads of dehorsing even the armoured horses go down if they get near me. and I'm just an average player). so i get the impression the crossbow whine is due to loss of priviligies
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: Tristan on January 23, 2012, 05:25:20 pm
Archer nerf was too hard.
Don't balance cav by costs.
2h/pole brainless charge is all we got now.

- Don't nerf pikes, they have been nerfed a lot already. Only a valid weapon because of the amount of cav.
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: Lactose_the_intolerant on January 23, 2012, 05:28:47 pm

- Don't nerf pikes, they have been nerfed a lot already. Only a valid weapon because of the amount of cav.

the amount of pointy stuff as increased, im not the only one poiting this out...

anyway who talked about nerfing pikes and why the hell would they want that?
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: Harpag on January 23, 2012, 05:33:19 pm
I'm sure you Greys would really like that
I said it was a joke. Glaring example. I asked also to refrain from personal trips. That is not what's going on. Incidentally, for our clan Strategus is the most important . Our faction is mostly melee players, and our specialty is taking spawns. Therefore, for us new balnas is great. Personally, I hate horse archers, because I don't know how to kill them. Foot archers I don't like, because I can't catch them also. The question is whether personal dislike is a good reason to nerf them? I believe not, because it reduces the diversity of units and spoils teamwork in cRPG. I know ... A true warriors uses only 2 h, the rest is lame, who has the audacity disturb them in work  :wink:
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: Penitent on January 23, 2012, 05:39:32 pm
I am of the opinion that the game was pretty much in an ideal balanced state before the most recent patch and archery nerf.  It wasn't perfect but the only adjustments needed were very minor tweaks.  It was pretty much balanced.

I don't know why people felt this change was necessary, but it was a pretty drastic one.  Archers feel underpowered now.  I no longer fear or even respect their damage any more.  I don't care if I charge one and he gets to shoot me a couple times.  I used to have to dodge around. 

Anyways, if this aspect can be reversed, it would be very good.
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: Armpit_Sweat on January 23, 2012, 05:52:57 pm
   
Meah... 
 
Look at it form a different angle:
 
1h+Shield has an obvious advantage of having constant protection against multiple enemies, as well as ranged attacks.
Archers and players who focuses on crossbow, have an obvious advantage of inflicting damage without any risk of being hit themselves. ( Do you remember Birdman and Chimp?.. Or Chris? Sorry, but i don't want to see more players like them again :) )
Cavalry has their speed and maneuverability.
2h/Polearm users are the only class that is exposed to all types of damage, and has a limited means of protection. They have to have some advantages, right? It is THE hardest class to master ( no need to argue with that ), so it is only fair to keep them on top of melee "food chain".
 
As for diversity, it is natural for players to move towards 2h swords - the most challenging and rewarding type of combat in Mount and Blade. Original, top, Grey players - are all 1h+Shield users, and they are still leading scoreboards. Do you really want to buff them?..
 
I rarely play battles, but on siege servers - archers are still very popular. Crossbows and throwing weapons might need a little buff though :)

   
To sum it up - i approve the latest balance changes. It is my personal opinion, so don't burn me with your hate :)
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: Mtemtko on January 23, 2012, 06:03:45 pm

2h/Polearm users are the only class that is exposed to all types of damage, and has a limited means of protection. They have to have some advantages, right? It is THE hardest class to master ( no need to argue with that ), so it is only fair to keep them on top of melee "food chain".

No need to argue with that? Ever played a HA? Lets say 4 in 5 aimed headshots while riding on average is to "master" it. But in the current situation.. I have yet to meet somebody to get 4 out of 5 aimed shots (nonheadshots) as hits on average, dont get me started on headshots... yet in melee I have met quite many people that are close mastering it, and at very least 25-40% of the 2h/polearmers in EU can block/feint advanced moves reliably.
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: Strudog on January 23, 2012, 06:10:48 pm
Ive played archer for all my gens, and i think the nerf has had no overall effect on archery at all, I use a MW longbow and sharp bodkins and i can still 2-3 hit people. To counter cav all you would need to do is a single shot to the head of the horse and then running away. Longbow has now become a great weapon in the field of archery with its new accuracy and the slower pull back is worth the higher damaga and accuracy.

All i can say is leave how it is now, i can get good scores (15-1) sometimes but other times i can get (-2-7). i actually almost find it easier to kill people now with the single headshot.

All though i do agree on the needed buff of 2 slot crossbows.
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: MrShine on January 23, 2012, 06:17:21 pm
2h/Polearm users are the only class that is exposed to all types of damage, and has a limited means of protection. They have to have some advantages, right? It is THE hardest class to master ( no need to argue with that ), so it is only fair to keep them on top of melee "food chain".
 
As for diversity, it is natural for players to move towards 2h swords - the most challenging and rewarding type of combat in Mount and Blade.

I strongly disagree with this. 

I do agree melee is very rewarding as far as combat in the game goes.  I love melee.

But... the hardest class to master?  The most challenging?  Eh...define "master".

Maybe a better way to say it is 2h & Poles have the highest learning curve because the mouse attack/block form of combat is pretty unique.  It's not hard to "learn" how to shoot a bow other than adjusting to arc and missile speed.

But once you get the basics down blocking and attacking isn't too bad.  I would dare to say that it actually is much harder to master a ranged weapon in this game, because your aim will always need to be changed to depend on the enemy's position to you, what direction they are going, what your height is in relation to their height, if it's raining, if friendlies are in the way or may become in the way before the arrow arrives, etc.  With melee you need to keep yourself in range and worry about 1-4 different attack directions, but that becomes second nature/muscle reflex.  Ranged still has muscle reflex but the scenarios where you need to adjust your attack location are infinite.

There. I said it.  And I stand by it.
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: Armpit_Sweat on January 23, 2012, 06:18:33 pm
No need to argue with that? Ever played a HA? Lets say 4 in 5 aimed headshots while riding on average is to "master" it. But in the current situation.. I have yet to meet somebody to get 4 out of 5 aimed shots (nonheadshots) as hits on average, dont get me started on headshots... yet in melee I have met quite some people that are close mastering it, and at very least 25-40% of the 2h/polearmers in EU can block/feint advanced moves reliably.

Well, HA is a very "niche" class, you can just as well take a mounted javeliner as example, and "master" it by landing consecutive headshots with war darts... As a HA, one can circle around a 2h user and shoot as much as needed, landing 4/5 shots on target would be hardly "balanced" :) But yes, i agree, it IS hard to hit an erratically moving target with a ranged weapon. Though, in my personal opinion, it is more a question of luck then skill. Two naked men dueling with Long Swords - there is no luck there :)
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: Overdriven on January 23, 2012, 06:19:45 pm
2h user can dart around all over the place. Makes landing a shot on them luck based. Not really skill based. HA arrows are easy to avoid once you are aware of them. But headshots are near impossible to pull off at any speed.
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: Lactose_the_intolerant on January 23, 2012, 06:21:10 pm
worry about 1-4 different attack directions

you trollin right?

yea if people just held to basic attacks 1 click at the time. last time i checked people were doing feints, hold attacks, spinthrust, hiltslash etc

find it far more easier and safer to lead my xbow to one shot a horse!
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: Overdriven on January 23, 2012, 06:22:53 pm
find it far more easier and safer to lead my xbow to one shot a horse!

Good luck doing that now.
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: Lactose_the_intolerant on January 23, 2012, 06:27:19 pm
I'v been doing it fine :)
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: Dezilagel on January 23, 2012, 06:27:46 pm
I strongly disagree with this. 

I do agree melee is very rewarding as far as combat in the game goes.  I love melee.

But... the hardest class to master?  The most challenging?  Eh...define "master".

Maybe a better way to say it is 2h & Poles have the highest learning curve because the mouse attack/block form of combat is pretty unique.  It's not hard to "learn" how to shoot a bow other than adjusting to arc and missile speed.

But once you get the basics down blocking and attacking isn't too bad.  I would dare to say that it actually is much harder to master a ranged weapon in this game, because your aim will always need to be changed to depend on the enemy's position to you, what direction they are going, what your height is in relation to their height, if it's raining, if friendlies are in the way or may become in the way before the arrow arrives, etc.  With melee you need to keep yourself in range and worry about 1-4 different attack directions, but that becomes second nature/muscle reflex.  Ranged still has muscle reflex but the scenarios where you need to adjust your attack location are infinite.

There. I said it.  And I stand by it.

Well, I don't agree with you since imho, melee has an almost infinite skill ceiling.

As a ranged player you shoot stuff. You can get damn good at shooting stuff, but that's still what you do.

In a melee you play against someone. And as people learn new tricks and skills people adapt to that and develop their own which people adapt to and... It never really stops (although it has slowed down quite a lot lately since combat is so slow).
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: Maximus101 on January 23, 2012, 06:29:25 pm
Although i hate horse archers, i have to admit the nerf was uncalled for, and the same for throwing nd xbows if its apparently got the nerf. Now, the way to go around this is NOT to nerf everything else. Lancer cav can't be nerfed more imo, as a couch should obviously kill people, and manul lance has been nerfed too i thinkz.

Interesing view from a lancer you think? Well, i can't stand other people droppng their xbow and taking up the lance. Horsies are miine.
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: MrShine on January 23, 2012, 06:29:51 pm
you trollin right?

yea if people just held to basic attacks 1 click at the time. last time i checked people were doing feints, hold attacks, spinthrust, hiltslash etc

find it far more easier and safer to lead my xbow to one shot a horse!

I'm not trolling, you only ever have to worry about blocking 4 different directions (and avoid kicks I suppose, close range '5th').  Of course there are different tricks to it, but it comes down to holding your block in one of 4 possible options to defend an attack.

Also all this talk about "melee always put themselves in danger when they fight"... that's not always true.  Pikes, long spears, bigass swords, are all designed to put you in a position where you can hit the enemy but they can't hit you.  High athletics & footwork is all about getting a swing in and baiting the enemy to swing into thin air.  If players get honest with themselves about playstyle they'll realize melee is always trying to take the safe hits... just like ranged users only on a much smaller less-forgiving scale. 

I'm not saying that's a bad thing, in fact it's the smart thing to do.  But it's hypocritical for a pikeman or danish greatswordsman to talk about how ranged lacks skill because they get to attack melee when melee can't attack them back.

Well, I don't agree with you since imho, melee has an almost infinite skill ceiling.

As a ranged player you shoot stuff. You can get damn good at shooting stuff, but that's still what you do.

In a melee you play against someone. And as people learn new tricks and skills people adapt to that and develop their own which people adapt to and... It never really stops (although it has slowed down quite a lot lately since combat is so slow).

Don't they both?  I feel like the infinite skill ceiling for a melee unit = you always chamber/block anything that comes, and are able to feint/hold/kick to ensure that every swing you have connects with the enemy's head using good speed bonus. 

As an archer wouldn't that same infinite skill ceiling = a headshot with every arrow fired?  Both are impossible to reach, yet both can be continuously pursued.

Also you play against someone as an archer... what else could you be shooting at? :P 
It's you verse them; you are trying to hit them/anticipate their jukes, while they will do whatever they can to close the gap and dodge arrows.  I see no difference in the PvP aspect of archer & melee outside of the context of the fight.
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: Overdriven on January 23, 2012, 06:30:42 pm
Well, I don't agree with you since imho, melee has an almost infinite skill ceiling.

As a ranged player you shoot stuff. You can get damn good at shooting stuff, but that's still what you do.

In a melee you play against someone. And as people learn new tricks and skills people adapt to that and develop their own which people adapt to and... It never really stops (although it has slowed down quite a lot lately since combat is so slow).

Ranged play against each other. Example:

I just killed Mtemtko 3 times and he killed me once. Ranged fighting against each other is quite a skill. You try a full speed HA fight in open plains and land 4 out of 4 arrows or just head shot me like Mtemtko did.
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: Dezilagel on January 23, 2012, 06:36:49 pm
Ranged play against each other. Example:

I just killed Mtemtko 3 times and he killed me once. Ranged fighting against each other is quite a skill. You try a full speed HA fight in open plains and land 4 out of 4 arrows or just head shot me like Mtemtko did.

Yes, but that is mostly just thanks to your aim. You are not as all dependent on your opponent and what he's doing.

Face it, the melee system has much, much more depth to it. Ranged is like a 2003 shooter. Like playing Worms with a wide crosshair. Or something like that.
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: rustyspoon on January 23, 2012, 06:37:22 pm
I'm not saying that's a bad thing, in fact it's the smart thing to do.  But it's hypocritical for a pikeman or danish greatswordsman to talk about how ranged lacks skill because they get to attack melee when melee can't attack them back.

Don't they both?  I feel like the infinite skill ceiling for a melee unit = you always chamber/block anything that comes, and are able to feint/hold/kick to ensure that every swing you have connects with the enemy's head using good speed bonus. 

As an archer wouldn't that same infinite skill ceiling = a headshot with every arrow fired?  Both are impossible to reach, yet both can be continuously pursued.

Also you play against someone as an archer... what else could you be shooting at? :P 
It's you verse them; you are trying to hit them/anticipate their jukes, while they will do whatever they can to close the gap and dodge arrows.  I see no difference in the PvP aspect of archer & melee outside of the context of the fight.

Mr. Shine is right, but the 2h lobby will never admit to it. That's always been a big problem in this community how a lot of people feel that 2h is the only REAL way to play this game and is the only challenging way to play it. They always make arguments that only talk about the drawbacks of 2handers and never talk about the benefits.

All play styles take skill. Just because it takes a different skill than the one you use doesn't make it less-skilled.
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: Overdriven on January 23, 2012, 06:39:21 pm
Yes, but that is mostly just thanks to your aim. You are not as all dependent on your opponent and what he's doing.

Face it, the melee system has much, much more depth to it. Ranged is like a 2003 shooter. Like playing Worms with a wide crosshair. Or something like that.

Yes I am. If he shot me, it would stop me firing again with the stun. Against a good HA, once you've been shot, you will struggle because he can keep you stunned. There's the judging of horsemovements, trajectories and a whole host of factors. Manourvreing plays a bigger part than your aim, and that all depends on what the other person is doing. You evidently haven't been in an HA vs HA situation much.

Melee does not have more depth by any standards.
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: Mtemtko on January 23, 2012, 06:41:32 pm
Ranged play against each other. Example:

I just killed Mtemtko 3 times and he killed me once. Ranged fighting against each other is quite a skill. You try a full speed HA fight in open plains and land 4 out of 4 arrows or just head shot me like Mtemtko did.

Screw you man im L25 and I havent been an HA for more than a year (came back last friday and rerolled HA) and you have been playing for atleast half a year, dont compare me with you
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: Overdriven on January 23, 2012, 06:42:32 pm
Screw you man im L25 and I havent been an HA for more than a year  back (came back last friday and rerolled HA) and you have been playing for atleast half a year, dont compare me with you

Actually I haven't played my HA regularly since about August. I've played it about 1h a week or so...if that because I stopped playing crpg entirely for 3 months due to internet issues. Even now I play mostly with my hoplite. Besides, you got a decent headshot on me, mine were all body shots :)

The point still stands anyway. The GK HA can testify to the difficulties of fighting other HA.
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: Kafein on January 23, 2012, 06:46:53 pm
Throwing was fine.
HA were fine, except for the bump & shoot / shoot & bump locking of melee thing that always was a problem but they generally did not need any nerf.
Xbow were mostly fine, yet a little too easy to use.

Especially for xbows, we should not mix up the effects of ladder removal and the damage nerf. I do think most of the reduction in xbowers is due to the absence of safe spots created by ladders.

The same for the increase in cav. Now that people don't have the opportunity to be 100% immune to that class, we actually see those that have the awareness it takes to be on the ground, and those that don't. The body shot nerf has little to do with that IMO.
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: Tears of Destiny on January 23, 2012, 06:49:00 pm
What does this have to do with the original topic?

Retards...
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: Leshma on January 23, 2012, 06:54:55 pm
Retards...

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: Aseldo on January 23, 2012, 06:58:09 pm
It took me 9 arrow hits to kill oldknight in his heraldic mail with tabard. Sure on an open map I can shoot him off his horse and circle him till kingdom come. But the likelihood is that a team mate will come to help, or several. It also took me 18 arrow hits to kill 2 guys in red tunic over mail. One of them I headshotted in a great helm. Fact is that switching targets isn't all that helpful because the damage output is low. They aren't mobile snipers. They should either have decent damage, but poor accuracy, or good accuracy but lower damage. Right now they have neither and are pretty crap with both.

When cav get an HA on their tail and you shoot arrow after arrow into their body (not horses) and they don't bother to swerve, change direction and get away, you know there's a problem.

Ranged have always been key in taking down horses. When it took 3-4 arrows from a hornbow to down a courser, they were very important as even one arrow had a good effect. Now there's no point in aiming for horses especially with the very buggy head hitboxes. Even worse for HA who used to concentrate on cav but now should just hunt very light inf instead.

This and everything about it.
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: Mtemtko on January 23, 2012, 06:58:31 pm
What does this have to do with the original topic?

Retards...

Unit diversity, efficency of a class, how many people playing that class.

I hope its not too hard for you to notice anything related to the original topic.

Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: Tears of Destiny on January 23, 2012, 07:00:05 pm
Unit diversity, efficency of a class, how many people playing that class.

I hope its not too hard for you to notice anything related to the original topic.

It is hard to see how one class requires more skill then another is relevant though, especially considering that arguement has been proven fruitless since the start of warband, and neither changes minds nor goes anywhere.
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: Overdriven on January 23, 2012, 07:02:00 pm
It is hard to see how one class requires more skill then another is relevant though, especially considering that arguement has been proven fruitless since the start of warband, and neither changes minds nor goes anywhere.

Point. But I think it spanned out of 'ranged must be nerfed because it requires less skill'. And so began the argument...again.
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: Mtemtko on January 23, 2012, 07:22:48 pm
It is hard to see how one class requires more skill then another is relevant though, especially considering that arguement has been proven fruitless since the start of warband, and neither changes minds nor goes anywhere.
¸

Well you have a point, but nevertheless im just trying to point out how useless horse-archers are now, no matter how good/bad the HAs luck/skill is.
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: bonekuukkeli on January 23, 2012, 07:27:35 pm
Well, I don't agree with you since imho, melee has an almost infinite skill ceiling.

As a ranged player you shoot stuff. You can get damn good at shooting stuff, but that's still what you do.

In a melee you play against someone. And as people learn new tricks and skills people adapt to that and develop their own which people adapt to and... It never really stops (although it has slowed down quite a lot lately since combat is so slow).

Yes. And it's so infinite that when you learn to dodge arrows and use enviroment, you can challenge archers and then archer has infinite skill ceiling as well. They need to learn melee at that point and are much weaker in it than melee. Happy? Go and try it. Everybody else seems to be doing that against my ranged guy (when I play one) and I do it now daily against others with ease. It's not really that hard.

Melee can challenge any of 3 (cav, melee, ranged) quite easily and deal with any of them at least decently no matter what situation is. Only open fields might be problem and even then there's shielders, cav distrubting archers or luring their fire so melee can go near and start slashing.

If good melee comes to archer, archer can't do much else than run or try to be lucky in melee.

There was nothing else wrong before. Only roofcamping and even that was manageable.

To me. Melee have been easiest of all 3. I have "weapon for every situation" if I don't mindlessly rush and I think before I act. As archer I was attacked by cav or melee all the time and I really didn't have weapons to deal in melee other than run away and hope that cav doesn't pick me off. As cav it's quite decent as well, like melee but I tend to charge too much and die hopelessly.
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: Malaclypse on January 23, 2012, 08:14:57 pm
One thing I liked about Native (where no class had more than 16 strength) was the diversity that each class held. Infantry and most cavalry had the option of using shields, throwing, 1hand, 2hand, polearms. Archers and crossbowman alike were still able to compete in melee while being effective at ranged. Some of the infantry classes even had a few riding thrown in. In cRPG you see more crazy builds, 13 shield, 13 athletics, 10 PS tanks, but less balanced builds with an eye for utility, unfortunately, because the way the mod is set up, utility builds do not pay. It makes more sense to just stack in one direction, go full archer, full 2hand, full throwing, etc. Though at least some of the issue is just player choice. Archers choosing to not invest in any power strike, infantry choosing not to bother with 3-4 power throw.
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: polkafranzi on January 23, 2012, 08:19:24 pm
Love this shit - only time i ever played my old friendcher and i never QQ'd once.

http://www.freeworldgroup.com/games4/gameindex/bowman2.htm
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: Adamar on January 23, 2012, 08:20:43 pm
Melee is by far the easiest class by my experience, thats why I chose to play a more specialized class as an archer, since I have to be good both in range and melee. But then the nerfs started kicking in and I keep getting killed by people with a lot less skill than me in melee, because my archer can't even wound them eficiently before they close in. This makes ranged useless and turns crpg into a melee centred mod. Just like 80%+ of the players want it. And sadly native remains as a winner when it comes to class ballance.
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: Glyph on January 23, 2012, 08:32:24 pm
Melee is by far the easiest class by my experience, thats why I chose to play a more specialized class as an archer, since I have to be good both in range and melee. But then the nerfs started kicking in and I keep getting killed by people with a lot less skill than me in melee, because my archer can't even wound them eficiently before they close in. This makes ranged useless and turns crpg into a melee centred mod. Just like 80%+ of the players want it. And sadly native remains as a winner when it comes to class ballance.
becasue those guys were payed to make a good game, and they'd be doing it all day, with probably(and i hope so) a degree of some sort which shows they can really be good gamemakers, and i think your not giving our dev team enoguh credits for what they're doing for this community, so STFU and GTFO, if you want to have a rangefest go buy wFaS, i know i'll stay here with my cavfest.
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: Adamar on January 23, 2012, 09:58:59 pm
becasue those guys were payed to make a good game, and they'd be doing it all day, with probably(and i hope so) a degree of some sort which shows they can really be good gamemakers, and i think your not giving our dev team enoguh credits for what they're doing for this community, so STFU and GTFO, if you want to have a rangefest go buy wFaS, i know i'll stay here with my cavfest.

I do give credit to the dev team, especialy when it comes to adding unnecessary patches that end up gimping all ranged classes. And I shouldn't have to GTFO just because my longbow sucks now. What if CRPG sudenly had a feature that gimped your class? Would you GTFO?
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: polkafranzi on January 23, 2012, 10:07:32 pm
I do give credit to the dev team, especialy when it comes to adding unnecessary patches that end up gimping all ranged classes. And I shouldn't have to GTFO just because my longbow sucks now. What if CRPG sudenly had a feature that gimped your class? Would you GTFO?

No, cav for example just adapted to the huge lance angle nerf.  Adapt ftw.
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: Adamar on January 23, 2012, 10:46:32 pm
How do I adapt my longbow to less damage? In this case the weapon is the style.
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: Gristle on January 23, 2012, 11:13:33 pm
One thing I liked about Native (where no class had more than 16 strength) was the diversity that each class held. Infantry and most cavalry had the option of using shields, throwing, 1hand, 2hand, polearms. Archers and crossbowman alike were still able to compete in melee while being effective at ranged. Some of the infantry classes even had a few riding thrown in. In cRPG you see more crazy builds, 13 shield, 13 athletics, 10 PS tanks, but less balanced builds with an eye for utility, unfortunately, because the way the mod is set up, utility builds do not pay. It makes more sense to just stack in one direction, go full archer, full 2hand, full throwing, etc. Though at least some of the issue is just player choice. Archers choosing to not invest in any power strike, infantry choosing not to bother with 3-4 power throw.

My build is very much based on Native Crossbowmen, because they could fill almost every role. One of the problems with cRPG is people making very focused, one role builds that have big weaknesses against other roles. Rather than refine their build, they demand nerfs, and so everything in this mod becomes weaker and weaker.
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: MadJackMcMad on January 23, 2012, 11:14:25 pm
RIP Crossbowman.
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: Gnjus on January 23, 2012, 11:17:37 pm
RIP Crossbowman.

Twas about time to get rid of that easy-mod-always-staying-last-on-hardly-reachable-places stuff + zillions of WhineUKR and CampioSandro clones. Hope it stays dead for good.
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: Harpag on January 23, 2012, 11:24:25 pm
I understand the "melee part of the community" and I respect their opinion, but this is not a reason to impose their point of view for everyone else. Do you think that "only melee servers" is an acceptable solution?
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: Gurnisson on January 23, 2012, 11:36:36 pm
Twas about time to get rid of that easy-mod-always-staying-last-on-hardly-reachable-places stuff + zillions of WhineUKR and CampioSandro clones. Hope it stays dead for good.

 :lol:
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: Joker86 on January 23, 2012, 11:41:21 pm
I think some of the statements here about infantry being too braindead are definitely true.

First of all I have to quote myself, to save me some typing work:

I just want to state that in my eyes balance needs to take both into consideration: the average player, who uses his possibilities in by his average level. If the average player of a certain class uses less teamwork than the players of other classes, you have to balance accordingly, or the gameplay on the servers will suffer from it.

But you also have to take into consideration the maximum possible performance of other players. You must not allow some "nerds" to become absolutely dominant and unkillable, and you also have to take care that all classes have about the same skill ceiling and efficiency. Otherwise all good player who want to maximize their performance would change to that one particular class.

You are probably right that most infantry players play less intelligently (?) than they should. But you can't just accept it, shrug and see how only cavalry and archers decide the outcome of a battle and the infantry being downgraded to the "lemming grunts" and "cannonfodder".

That's why I think that the argument "if the class would use more teamplay they wouldn't have that problem" is not valid. And thus there needs to be done something about. In my eyes nerfing/buffing the effectivity of a certain class does not work well, because it also affect the skill ceiling. I rather prefer solutions that change the behaviour of players. For example some kind of command system with rewards, that would make infantry stick together more, allowing them to deal better with archers and cavalry.

This is my basic point of view. Yes, it's definitely the infantry's own fault to a certain degree that playing this class was a pain in the ass for such a long time. But I think it would be wrong to say: "Their own fault, let them deal with it", because the entire gameplay on the servers suffers if a class is underrepresented, and be it only by skill and not by numbers. And I think we agree on this, as this thread is about this matter.

I also agree that for my taste there is too much cav and 2hd/halberd infantry now on the servers, and too few archers, crossbowmen and throwers. And the "quality" of most pikemen/spearmen could be... better...


I think the basic problem is that players get simply thrown into this game and not be taken by the hand. A good community can make up for this, but what we have is the cRPG community, so forget about this solution.

So we need something that helps new players to get into the game, not only concerning the mechanics, but also the behaviour. Currently players are left totally alone and either get wrong impressions (this game is about rushing and spamming) or develop bad habits. There are several possibilities to prevent this:

- more explanations on the character page, especially around the skills, so that we have less crappy builds. Realizing that your build is crappy and having to give up 50% XP or suffering with it until you hit lvl 31 can be demotivating and can force people to GTX.

- having a nice youtube channel with short, entertaining tutorial videos, from downloading the mod file over creating your fist char, logging into the page to choosing your character. Once a video has finished it shows the links to other videos, for example

"Downloading and installing the mod"
||
V
"Creating a character and logging in to the character page"
||
V
"Deciding which class you want to play"
||                                   ||
V                                    V
"Being an archer"         "Being a spearman"

And then you explain not only how you build your character, but also what is expected from you on the battlefield. (Spearmen: stay at the flanks at protect against cavalry. Archers: first priority target at the beginning of each round are the horses of cavalry)

Warning signs on the account creation side could tell new players that they will suck and have no fun at all if they don't watch the videos, as cRPG is totally different from any other module in Warband. I think this could already help.

You also need to offer more videos with some more sophisticated tactics (e.g. bottlenecks, the right hillcamp, etc.) which are entertaining and easy to find, you more or less have to "stumble" upon them on the cRPG pages, instead of having to actively search for them in forums or youtube. You know what I mean? We must catch the "uninterested", the more "casual" players.

- implementing a nice command system, which offers real rewards for following orders. This way you motivate players to follow tactics, even if they don't believe in the advantages it offers. Sooner or later they will realize it, and become valuable team members. Notice that all this doesn't go against the idea of casual players who only play from time to time.

- perhaps you can implement some "tasks" for peasants to give them massive benefits. For example if you put your first WPF into polearms, and you kill a horse, you get 500 gold reward from level 1 to let's say 15 or 20 (Only one task can be fullfilled per character). This idea is very spontaneous and not well thought out, but I hope you know what I mean. Make players get used to the right behaviour from the beginning!


If the developers followed this path, they could perhaps break through that vicious circle of nerfing and nerfing.
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: Angantyr on January 23, 2012, 11:48:28 pm
And sadly native remains as a winner when it comes to class ballance.
Balanced only to someone who wants to play Medieval Counter-Strike. Most Native matches are played with about 80%+ ranged and class limits even have to be imposed in tournaments (like '5vs5') to have other classes represented.
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: Peasant_Woman on January 23, 2012, 11:50:14 pm
I think the basic problem is that players get simply thrown into this game and not be taken by the hand. A good community can make up for this, but what we have is the cRPG community, so forget about this solution.

Instantly reminded of this;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGW3ydlZvrg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGW3ydlZvrg)
Watch and cringe at every common mistake these guys make.
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: Gnjus on January 23, 2012, 11:51:57 pm
I understand the "melee part of the community" and I respect their opinion, but this is not a reason to impose their point of view for everyone else. Do you think that "only melee servers" is an acceptable solution?

If you're asking me the answer is No. Never did and never will, actually when it was online i went on it only once. I agree with you about the diversity stuff, I've been thinking the same from day 1, i think most of the gear should be used instead always the same 5 or 6 weapons, armors, whatever and that all classes should be played. Here we come to the problem: none ever cried for ranged nerfs but those classes were always overplayed, half or even more then half of the server was shooting something and it was unplayable for everyone else. If there is anyone to blame for such state of the "Battles" its the players themselves: you lads either played dedicated rangers from the start or tried out melee but raged about being shot while more and more of you quit it and went ranged yourself and in the end we had Call of Duty 5: Medieval Warfare. Most of those rangers defend their playstyle with a classic "we play the way we like, its fun for us" reasoning but most of it is crap, true reason is that they all want easy mod collecting free kills until the last moment and then go melee if needed because running forward and getting shot before you manage to swing your weapon is very frustrating, just ask Dave, i spectated him while he was pure melee and it was completely different from his usual sharpshooting stuff: he ran forward, sometimes dying very fast, sometimes getting few kills before being ganked, his scores were nothing special compared to when he was hiding and shooting AND cutting down those who came to kill him and thought he was easy prey, so i can understand his frustration and I'm 100% certain that most of the folks think the same: why die early in the front lines when you can stay alive by shooting ? Playing for 5 mins > Playing for 2 mins, dying and then spectating next 3 mins. Nerfs are only here as the only possible way to decrease the number of ranged to a decent size. If people who play the game were normal ranged nerfs would be completely unnecessary and they would never happen.

TL;DR - I never asked for a ranged nerf but i hope devs have more of it in their stocks, since most players are unable to remove the "I wanna be a Robin Hood/Wilhelm Tell in virtual life since I'm shitty & useless in real one" blockade from their heads and play this game in a decent way.

Now i have a question for you: do you find it normal to have more then 50% of the server shooting something ? Is that your idea about how this game should be played ? Are those the battles you want to play ?

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: Tears of Destiny on January 23, 2012, 11:57:10 pm
You know, the reverse holds true, in that at least on NA our top 2Hers and Poles manage to survive the range-spam and get fantastic scores... And yet you keep hearing cries for nerfs. That is pathetic. BkS_Tyrian is living proof that you can beat the living tar out of a team with no shield AND NOT HIDE EITHER, Rhaelys is living proof that carrying a shield and using a poleaxe or equivalent will not gimp your score at all and still be a viable melee who top-scores, and Balbaroth is living proof that shielders can trash people and still come out on top.

So, question is, why do you all suck so much that you can't get on their level?

Oh, shielders can't take out kiting range? Odd, matey or Smiling_Daemon do it all the time...

Light Cav get shot up too much? Huey does just fine and top scores despite TKing a guy for every three kills he gets, not counting others.
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: Osiris on January 23, 2012, 11:59:24 pm
hush ye :D

I agree that the nerf was too hard. All that was needed was the removal of ladders from battle mode.

The whole reason for the range rage was due to 5-10 ranged on a roof that you cant reach.
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: Peasant_Woman on January 24, 2012, 12:01:47 am
^ This.
All melee wanted was to not have to charge up a tiny ladder that could be destroyed by someone breathing on it (killing everyone on it) into the maw of 10 or so assorted archers/crossbowmen firing down into them. Damage was fine otherwise.
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: Tears of Destiny on January 24, 2012, 12:02:30 am
hey now, I'm just saying, if us range are expected to do as well as Jambi and such and be skilled, why are you melee unable to match up to Tyrian and such? Gawd, you all are just lazy, psh...

Pathetic! Disgraceful!

SHAMEFUL DISPLAY!


In all seriousness, removing ladders was good enough to make Range lessen as the roof-crutchers have to adapt or respec, the damage nerf was retarded (And cmp and company are lunatics for thinking buffing HS damage was a good idea)
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: Gnjus on January 24, 2012, 12:06:39 am
blabity bla, bla, bla

And yet again a Yank comes down here to argue with Euro trash bringing his typical non-valid comparisons with him. On NA you never had an abnormal ranged spam like we did here and last time i checked (before recent patches) you didn't even had roof camping while we couldn't move 25 feet without getting rained down with projectiles from some unreachable house. I was there a few times and i saw all i needed to see: you play in a fucking paradise and yet you come here to argue with us who play in hell, why ? Just why ? EU whining threads don't count for NA, as I'm sure it's the other way around as well. We play different games in different worlds (well at least we used to, before the latest patch swarm).
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: Tears of Destiny on January 24, 2012, 12:11:27 am
Na never had range spam roof camping?

Holy shit...

Mind... Blown.

As someone who plays regularly on both servers (including prime time for both), it felt the same, just you had more bows and less crossbows, slightly lower armour, less heavy cav and more light cav, and equal amounts of roof-camping scumbags.
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: Gnjus on January 24, 2012, 12:18:45 am
Na never had range spam roof camping?

As someone who plays regularly on both servers (including prime time for both), it felt the same, just you had more bows and less crossbows, slightly lower armour, less heavy cav and more light cav, and equal amounts of roof-camping scumbags.

Well i know what i saw (way before the ladder removing patch): NA battle server with 60 people on it, some arabian village with lots of nice flat roofs, maybe a dozen ranged and not a single one on the roof. I was sober and i wasn't dreaming.

Anyways - it's past midnight here and I'm going to bed. I hope that (for a change) I'll be counting sheep instead of archers before falling asleep.  :wink:
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: Kafein on January 24, 2012, 12:22:52 am
Instantly reminded of this;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGW3ydlZvrg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGW3ydlZvrg)
Watch and cringe at every common mistake these guys make.


I wish I still had the opportunity of being delighted with my first kill when I'm a peasant. Good times. Good times indeed.

Roleplaying a poor dude trying to survive in the hailstorm was pretty cool and unique :D
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: Leshma on January 24, 2012, 12:23:00 am
And yet again a Yank comes down here to argue with Euro trash bringing his typical non-valid comparisons with him.

He's part Turk if I remember right. Imagine a hybrid of HarunYahya and POOPHAMMER and you got a pretty good picture of ToD :D

PS. You totally deserved that -1 for writing that huge wall of text. Not your style, not at all.
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: Rumblood on January 24, 2012, 12:32:54 am
GrannPappy retired to Lancer Cavalry before the patch, but for drama's sake I'm going to say it was in protest to the ranged nerf  :P (but you can see I'm in no rush to get back to my bow just now)
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: Harpag on January 24, 2012, 12:35:08 am
Hey, Gnjus - it was a rhetorical question. I know that "only melee servers" is not an option, because people prefer to play together. And this is very good. A large server, a lot of people - a lot of fun. That is why we need a compromise. I believe that the best indicator of a good balance is a great diversity of individuals. I agree that very much depends on the players. There is one problem - it is easier to change the game than people. You have to do simultaneously, but in such a way that they are not abandoning the game. You need to have a little more tolerance. Not everyone has a predisposition to being a champion of manual block. Not everyone has the "sniper's eye." For all should be some place. One likes the wine, the other likes beer - is this a big problem?
I think that if the best players of the class changing profession, it means that the problem is real.
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: Sharky on January 24, 2012, 12:51:14 am
I think  continuing on this nerfs and counternerfs to try to balance out server classes ratio just doesn't lead to anything. Balance was ok before those patches, it needed some refinement (removal of ladders first of all) but it was still way better then native.
Only the classes ratios were wrong, there were simply too much people with xbows and bows to make it fun for melee players.
Best solution would be set classes limits that every server can change, but dunno if it's technically doable.
So melee server will have 100% infantry, there will be free servers with no limits and other kinds of servers with custom limits (for example  50% infantry 30% ranged 20% cav)

If not we'll just continue like this endlessy. For example too much Ranged? OP nerfs that destroy their will to play and forces to change classes. In my clan already 5 guys changed from ranged to melee.
And we are talking only about a temporary solution to classes ratios, because the moment you will buff ranged again i'm sure everyone will just come back to their favourite classes.
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: Tears of Destiny on January 24, 2012, 01:10:49 am
He's part Turk if I remember right.

Hmm, not quite right. I spent some of my childhood there, but I don't have a drop of Turkish blood in me.
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: SoA_Sir_ODHarry on January 24, 2012, 01:23:21 am
summary of Patch:

CAV is a Plague NUFF said

Pro:
Nerf of ranged

Contra:
Nerf of ranged

its a dilema....

solution:
buff HOPLITES
buff Teamplay?
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: CrazyCracka420 on January 24, 2012, 02:01:44 am
Apart from roofcamping, and just before the silly right swing delay patch, wasn't everything just fine?  Or did I miss some epic whine about something or other?  nerfrpg, sigh

Glad my name is catching on, sad that it's able to be called nerfrpg..such a great game...but they constantly change it.  Sometimes for the better, but mostly it seems like nerf upon nerf upon nerf.  I think removing ladders was good.  I never thought the damage archers did to the body was overpowered.  If you wanted to effect throwers and crossbows, this wasn't the way to do it.

Not to mention, even if ranged was slightly more powerful than you wanted before the latest nerf, the new change is WAY worse (in the other direction).  I always thought of archers as support classes before the nerf, now they are really pushed even farther into a niche.
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: Adamar on January 24, 2012, 02:16:03 am
Yeah Im stuck to sieges.
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: SoA_Sir_ODHarry on January 24, 2012, 02:35:35 am
well
since patch we got massive melee battels only disturbed by massive Cav plague
Ranged shouldnt be that useless but also WHY THE FUK
should s1 whos STANDING and SHOOTING have easy kills while any meele gotta putt doubel effort (actually gotta move) for 1 kill or even damage the opponet
through cav and only through cav ranged is so importend in normal battel
and this issue never will be fixed if not through improved teamplay

If u play range u play STF
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: DrTaco on January 24, 2012, 02:43:14 am
A decrease in throwing players? (As if there were any anyway). Well i'll just have all the throwing lances all to myself then.

~Help us. We're dieing. Maybe in time you'll learn to love us.
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: Adamar on January 24, 2012, 03:12:00 am
well
since patch we got massive melee battels only disturbed by massive Cav plague
Ranged shouldnt be that useless but also WHY THE FUK
should s1 whos STANDING and SHOOTING have easy kills while any meele gotta putt doubel effort (actually gotta move) for 1 kill or even damage the opponet
through cav and only through cav ranged is so importend in normal battel
and this issue never will be fixed if not through improved teamplay

If u play range u play STF

Or you could try being a ranged centred character and then perhaps rephrase that.
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: SoA_Sir_ODHarry on January 24, 2012, 03:33:42 am
well thats my personal meaning bout range role in crpg
For me meele is the only fun at this game if u wanna 1shotkill  go shoot some moorhuhns
but also i believe range is a important class and probably good fun if u good at shootin
but also my personal view is that ANY range class should play the same Role like Hoplite.
A support role which help ur team like get rid of cav or hit/damage INF so heavy inf can kill them easier and so ur Team wins easier
This view might got his roots of that im an addicted
SHIELDWALL WHORE
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: Zerran on January 24, 2012, 06:32:44 am
(click to show/hide)

This post is full of truth. We need some way to direct newbies (and the just plain stupid) into understanding the mechanics. For starters, explanations of the skills and stats. Secondly, include a calculator as a tab in the main site. Finally have some beginner guides linked in a very visible way for new accounts. There's actually a great example of what we need in a newbie guide in the Chinese part of the forum, here (http://forum.c-rpg.net/index.php/topic,113.0.html) (It's in Chinese of course, but you can just use Google translate) Tear's guide is good, but it needs some more explanation, and needs to be easier for the total-newbie-just-signed-up to find.

Something that would help immensely is if we could get a few veterans of certain classes to make an in-depth thread discussing their build and play-style and lock it so we don't get hordes of idiots clogging it up with "advice".

Currently we have people running with very specialized builds, and hit a build that counters theirs, or one that they simply don't understand how to deal with, and then cry OP. As an example, if a newbie decides to try the Pike as their first character and runs into a Great Maul, it makes the maul seem like the most OP thing in the world (which, of course, it isn't). Or you get newbies who don't understand how to deal with ranged charging straight forward and then crying OP when they get shot to pieces. What we need is a way to teach newbies how to deal with these situations and to show them that they got killed, not because their opponent was OP, but because they did something foolish.

I would also strongly recommend making the suggestion corner only open to people who have been registered for a certain length of time (say, 4 or 5 months MINIMUM).
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: Gnjus on January 24, 2012, 08:52:31 am
PS. You totally deserved that -1 for writing that huge wall of text. Not your style, not at all.

Well i guess i had it coming, i see little shaky hands did their homework on minusing it.  :wink:

After a good nights sleep (i counted 27 archers before falling asleep, quite average for EU) all i can say is this: last night maybe we went a bit off topic but i was only answering to the guys who started to cry about ranged nerf and you lads completely missed my point (as usual), what i wanted to say is this:

We can have quite enough of diversity on the battlefield even without 70% of the people shooting something, wouldn't you agree ? I assure you it's possible. We had 18 months of ranged festival and now when it just started to look like it should have from the beginning another Storm of Ranged Tears rains down upon us.
Yes Harpag, 30% of reachable ranged sounds much better then 70% of mostly unreachable.  :wink:

I'm done here, now feel free to continue your ranged nerf crying fest but don't push it too far cause i might be forced to rename my forum profile into Tears of Laughter.
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: Harpag on January 24, 2012, 11:59:55 am
One guy, who is done here  :wink:  says that at least half (70%?) of the people shooting something. He says that only now, after the patch is better.
Nonsense. For many months I was responsible for preparing the equipment for the army. So well I know the proportions. Here's an old formula:

30% pure shielders, 25% 2h, 15% pole, 15% archers, 5% throwers, 5% xbows and 5% horses. For the siege 5% horses goes to pole or 1h = 70% melee + 25% ranged + 5% melee horseman. I don't see rangedspamfest here. 75% melee / 25% ranged.

At the last battle run out 2h & pole, and left us a lot of bows and crossbows. Supply equipment for the throwers was practically untouched.

I seem to realize that these are the proportions for Strategus, and additionally adjusted for our battles, but how big is this error in relation to the cRPG. 10%? I think no more because the equipment into Strategus is performed for builds from cRPG...

Personally, I think that removing the ladder from the battle mode is really very ok, upkeep for siege eq also, but the rest of the changes is unnecessary and even harmful for balance. For example - no ladders in the "siege" is probably a misunderstanding ... lol

For me, it does not matter, because I'm shielder, a crossbow is only additive, but sorrow to look at the dedicated ...  :rolleyes:

They often invested at 6 genes in the improvement of equipment, and now they are completely useless. Try to sell a bow, crossbow or arrows/ bolts  :wink:
Free respec and free loom points is probably the minimum for these people. As usual, sorry for the terrible english...
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: Gnjus on January 24, 2012, 12:37:14 pm
One guy, who is done here  :wink:  says that at least half (70%?) of the people shooting something. He says that only now, after the patch is better.
Nonsense.

I don't know what you're talking about but i was speaking of battle servers before the patch. That percentage has naturally decreased now but they still whine & cry as loud as ever. :wink:
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: Adamar on January 24, 2012, 06:50:33 pm
I don't know what you're talking about but i was speaking of battle servers before the patch. That percentage has naturally decreased now but they still whine & cry as loud as ever. :wink:

Which is understandable, since "they" had twice as much trouble as you did to get kills even before the patch.
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: Joker86 on January 24, 2012, 08:34:02 pm
Which is understandable, since "they" had twice as much trouble as you did to get kills even before the patch.

You mean they needed to point and click?


I would also like to mention that I already posted a possible solution, but except of Zerran it was completely ignored  :?
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: Adamar on January 24, 2012, 09:03:04 pm
You mean they needed to point and click?

Actually you have to point first, then aim, while the crossair is closing in and then try to calculate the area in which the arrow will fall within a big, unsteady crossair, while taking into consideration the speed of the arrow, the slow release of said arrow, the movement/evasiveness of the target, the fact that even if you magage to hit that target you're not inflicting any significant damage, plus how many arrows you can release before that target is close enought to sword rape you, and the fact that you're only ranged as long as you have arrows + everything else going on around you, so you dont get backstabed/lanced from behind... or make sure you dont hit one of the many allies who persist on getting in front of you while you have to focus on a target if you manage to find a decent one, and every other enemy archer who is looking for light targets like other archers, since their arrows can't kill anything else anyway. On top of that you must have leet melee skill if you hope to survive a close encounter with your average medium armoured 2handed spammer, which has always been the dominant force on the battlefield, because their supposed counter class(ranged) is far from having the hability to put them in their place(behind couver, shields).

Not to mention fog and other details.
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: DrTaco on January 24, 2012, 09:23:27 pm
Actually you have to point first, then aim, while the crossair is closing in and then try to calculate the area in which the arrow will fall within a big, unsteady crossair, while taking into consideration the speed of the arrow, the slow release of said arrow, the movement/evasiveness of the target, the fact that even if you magage to hit that target you're not inflicting any significant damage, plus how many arrows you can release before that target is close enought to sword rape you, and the fact that you're only ranged as long as you have arrows + everything else going on around you, so you dont get backstabed/lanced from behind... or make sure you dont hit one of the many allies who persist on getting in front of you while you have to focus on a target if you manage to find a decent one, and every other enemy archer who is looking for light targets like other archers, since their arrows can't kill anything else anyway. On top of that you must have leet melee skill if you hope to survive a close encounter with your average medium armoured 2handed spammer, which has always been the dominant force on the battlefield, because their supposed counter class(ranged) is far from having the hability to put them in their place(behind couver, shields).

Not to mention fog and other details.

Condensed version/TLDR

Point, judge distance(Fancy phrase for guess and pray), click, hold, release. Repeat

IF CAVALRY: Pull out a fucking weapon and block down.
IF INFANTRY: Run the fuck away if you know what's good for you.
IF RANGED: Shoot them.
IF FOG: Well if you can't see them they probably can't see you.
IF OBSTACLE: Stop shooting the hill dumbass.
IF ON THE MOVE: You're not moving to shoot, you're moving to get to a good place to shoot.
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: Adamar on January 24, 2012, 09:28:20 pm
Meh, running sucks.
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: DrTaco on January 24, 2012, 09:30:54 pm
Why the hell are you ranged?
Title: Re: The decrease of diversity of units on the battlefield.
Post by: Adamar on January 24, 2012, 09:37:57 pm
Why the hell are you ranged?

I like the longbowman look/style, being able to have an effect in the battle, both at range and at close quarters. With all the nerfs, we archers feel like we've been castrated by the devs, in a way that only non archers have a future in this mod.