I was approaching an archer the other day. I would slightly bob and weave just to make hitting my head difficult. He hit me around 7 times in the body, and needed at least 4 more body shots to kill me. He was killed by other melee before he could get those shots off. I was wearing 68 body armor (a lot) at the time, with 50 hit points (not a lot). He told me later that he had PD 6 and was using Bodkins (think he had a Tatar bow, but I forget).
Wearing the same armor while fighting in melee, I mostly get killed in 4 to 6 hits (sometimes less). This, to me, seems unbalanced.
People keep saying they like this change because only good archers should be able to get kills. Why can't the same be said for melee? I'm not the best fighter, but I get more melee kills than crossbow kills, even before this nerf. Getting melee kills is easier. For every Balbaroth there are 10 players that can barely block.
Throwing is way off if you consider the ammo count.I agree, I was considering that throwers have a fast 'draw' speed with their attacks and are generally in close range, so picking up extras off the ground/hitting with a higher % of their attacks would in part compensate for their lower-ish damage. But really I know very little about throwing and clustered a whole bunch of throwing in one line so yeah internal balance there would be needed.
Even if you pack 4 stacks of throwing axes you can kill only 4 people in a round if you pick your ammo back up and hit.
Also the whole example is kinda lacking considering builds.Yeah the numbers are loose, I was hoping people would consider "the average thrower/archer". Basically, if you saw an archer in the distance, you would expect to die in X hits.
You would totally need to add a PD/PT value, crossbows seem fine.
The range nerf seems fine, works extremely great on strategus, if u go on strategus battle, archers usually get top score. but the throwing really needs a buff, no joke.Thats false, ranged doesn't get top score, i've actually fought in a castle battle, and a 1h was topping the list with over 100 kills
For every Balbaroth there are 10 players that can barely block.
Nope throwing needs far more than 2/3 hit to kill a light infantry. i wear padded leather and a guy throw 6 axes to my body and i am still standing. bla bla bla bla
I don't like the bow damage, as it puts it on par with melee weapons. Being able to 2 or 3 shot someone in medium armor from across the map just seems kinda ridiculous to me. It will turn the game back into the shooting gallery that it was before the change.
If you're considering that you aren't risking much of anything by shooting from a distance, 4-5 body hits isn't bad.
Also, shooting is one thing. Throwers sure as shit can't throw from safe distances with any reliability, or much at dangerous distances lately from what I understand.
If you wear chainmail, arrows should only give max 5dmg per hit. Ranged should be optimized with different armor types. Also lower headshot damage or accuracy, that is way off balance atm. You die to 1 headshot (45head) and it happens alot, since people don't miss anymore.
And Thomek if u think archer needs tweaking, u haven't played that much after the patch. :P
IDK..
I don't mind being 3 hitted as that is how many hits it takes to down the average medium armored foe like myself. (52 body armor with gloves)
2 hitting medium armor players is too brutal I think, as that would mean archers do more damage than most infantry do up close. It usually takes me at least 3 hits to down Khorin, who has similar build/armor as myself. (body armor hits)
I think your feelings of being 3 hit falls in line with how I have bows in the OP.. 1 slot bows typically taking 3-4 hits for medium infantry, the slower 2 slot bows generally going between 2-3. But then I think there would need to be acceptance that some slower stronger ranged weapons would need to be able to kill in fewer :wink:
No more ladders, scant secure roofs. Little support from teammates barring special circumstance. Ranged love to shoot you, melee love to sneak up on you and spam before you can defend yourself. Not to mention that shooting at a long distance (2/5ths of map or more) it's really hard to pull off more than 3 shots on the same target. And you have to focus for distance shots, making you a lot easier to sneak up on. Good luck focusing on far away if you know you're about to get pwnt in the very near.
And boo-hoo to this. "I can't hide away from the battle any more waaaah!" Guess what? Ranged also love to shoot me, while their teammates try to circle around and flank me too. As a melee player, I need to be even MORE aware than ranged as I need to go smack dab into the middle of things. I also get little support from teammates unless I'm running with my clan. Just sounds like you're upset that you can't be immune to everything but ranged while shooting laser-guided missiles anymore.
I see PLENTY of archers doing really good after the change. Christ, Duke of Disco was going 23-2 last night as an HA.
Anyway, fix XBOWS and throwing, bows are fine.
It takes me a lot of hits to kill horses like that in melee with 6 PS, too, Mori. Armor in general is a pain, for all classes that aren't stacked strengthwise. After seeing Duke BEATS destroying as an HA I can't agree with it being broken, though he may be level 33 or something which could make it more viable, I don't know, but he wrecks, and I fear him.
Thought I'd jump in here again on why I think current bow damage is fine. Just XBOWS and throwing need adjustment.
My main is a 1-hander with 6PS. With the system we use, 6PS would fall into the average range stat-wise. (Yes, I know most people have 7)
It is EXTREMELY rare for me to be able to 2-shot someone in medium armor. Honestly it takes me about 3-5 hits on average depending on how many stabs and head hits I get in. I also have to get right next to the guy to do that all the while worrying about people circling behind me. So, I find 2-3 hits with ANY bow when it's not a headshot to be ridiculous. You're not shooting flamberges out of those bows after all.
Back on topic a bit, I do think that heavy cav/troops should take more shots on average, but once you get above the 6-8 mark (esp with bodkins) it gets pretty ridiculous. Perhaps we need to think about "max hits" for ranged classes :P
I feel your sentiments, although a few different things to put in context in the archer's favor:
- You have the ability to supplement your 6 PS with a number of blunt/pierce weapon options. An archer has 1 expensive option - Bodkins - that comes with no other damage bonus.
- Melee has no constrains on how many units they can kill a round, while archers are directly tied to stack size. Assuming 2 stacks of bodkins (30 arrows) an archer is tethered. If it is 1 arrow a kill, that's the potential for 30 kills in a round. 2 arrows/kill, 15. 3 arrows/kill, 10. 5 arrows/kill, 6. It goes down dramatically, and that isn't even taken into account misses, fighting cavalry which may take extra shots, split damage on multiple targets etc.
-Once in range melee can do damage at a much quicker rate. Even if an archer can 2 shot someone you can probably get 6 swings in during that time (not taking into account blocks and stuff - just raw damage potential). Just think about how much ground you can cover closing on an archer with them firing 3 shots... change that to 4 and it would require an even greater "safe distance" for archers to shoot someone down from range.
I still agree with some of what you're saying - thus my suggested 3-4 shots to kill for 1 slot bows. For the heavier slower more expensive 2 slot bows however I think more than 3 hits for medium infantry is asking a lot.
Balb cant block for shit, lol.
Break his MP shield and u'll see he dies to anyone at least bit decent.
Dude, do you ever read the OP? Ever?
Its about how ranged should be not about how it is.
Ranged has extra_penetration, so your argument about how melee have blunt/pierce options is basically invalid since your cut damage is about as good as our pierce.That's not really true in practice. Earlier this morning I hit someone with ~55-65 body armor 8 times at medium range - 5 of them glanced doing no damage/stun. The other three stunned him but they must have done minimal damage because I didn't see any arrows on his corpse. You can't tell me someone with 4 PD and a pick/blunt damage is going to glance over half the time on someone like that. I've played plenty of archer and melee, cut damage archery is CERTAINLY not as good as melee blunt/pierce... like at all.
Archers can pick up arrows. And most archers carry 30-40 of them. Plus just because you're an archer doesn't mean that you can't switch to a melee weapon.True, but if you've gone through 30 arrows in battle there aren't going to be too many people left, and scrounging for arrows while you become a prime target/have infantry closing in isn't really practical... most times it's more worthwhile to find a melee weapon on the ground at that point. And yes an archer CAN switch to melee... but dedicated archers are going to be lacking in HP, armor, wpf, ps... essentially a fast peasant. Possible, but not worth considering to the equation.
"...not taking into account blocks and such" Kinda fucking important. Most people on the EU servers can block pretty well nowadays.I dunno, I get the majority of my melee kills by gang bangs and backstabs, those are usually pretty easy kills. Sure getting into a "duel" with skilled blockers slows things down, but if you're in the right position you can just mow through people as melee.
(click to show/hide)
(26 + 2) * (160 * 0.01 * 0.15 + 0.85) * 5 * 0.14 + 1) + 15 / 5
=54.88p basedamage on 0 armor and 0m range
headshot damage = 210%(prepatch) * 125% = 262.5%
54.88 * 262.5%
=144.06p (115.25p prepatch)
bodyshot damage = 100%(prepatch) * 67% = 67%
54.88 * 67%
=36.77p (54.88p prepatch)
legshot damage = 80%(prepatch) * 67% = 53.6%
54.88 * 53.6%
=29.42p (43.90p prepatch)
Notice the damage is on 0 armor and at a range of 0 meters.