cRPG

cRPG => General Discussion => Topic started by: Tristan on March 10, 2011, 04:40:55 pm

Title: An opinion concerning the discussion of "ra(n)gefest" - But in another direction
Post by: Tristan on March 10, 2011, 04:40:55 pm
The rangefest thread is on to something. We are experiencing far to many projectiles in the fresh air of cRPG. Nerf, don't nerf, throwers, xbows and archers can be discussed eternally. I, however, believe that the problem is to be solved elsewhere.

Kesh was on to it (I think), but never made the connection to the above problem. But I believe it is a greater factor than anything for the rangespam we are experiencing.

What am I talking about?

Hybrids and ability to use several weapontypes without focussing on it.

I don't mind dedicated shooters, they are few and far between and generally well balanced, but when they are able to take out shields, great weapons and what not, and fight as effectively as the focussed types something is wrong.

It's important for me to underline, that I don't want to remove hybrids. They fun, and they should be there. But rght now everything is melee/shooter hybrids.

IMO a hybrid should be a jack of all trades, but not as good as a person who focussed.

Another problem is weapons that achieve effectiveness with little or no invested points in them.

What can be done?

) I believe something should be done with wpf so that hybrids is not the only solution. Some tinkering here might do the job.

) Make polearms and 2 handed weapons use two slots. This way we won't see archers with weapons of death. Use a 1h weapon no shield for sidearm. Twohanders have to choose shield or shooty. etc.

) I have not yet figured out a way how to limit the shielder/1h/xbow/thrower type... But maybe you can?

What say you?

regards.
Title: Re: An opinion concerning the discussion of "ra(n)gefest" - But in another direction
Post by: AgentQ on March 10, 2011, 05:11:48 pm
) Make polearms and 2 handed weapons use two slots. This way we won't see archers with weapons of death. Use a 1h weapon no shield for sidearm. Twohanders have to choose shield or shooty. etc.


This is an interesting idea, but is it feasible?
Title: Re: An opinion concerning the discussion of "ra(n)gefest" - But in another direction
Post by: RamsesXXIIX on March 10, 2011, 05:22:19 pm
I think its hardcoded, but maybe you can do it with that WSE (Warband Script Enhancer) they were talking about at one time.

Anyway, another solution could simply make melee weapons require PS
Title: Re: An opinion concerning the discussion of "ra(n)gefest" - But in another direction
Post by: Raskolnikov on March 10, 2011, 05:26:13 pm
Or, how about just removing a weapon slot? A reduction from 4 slots to 3 would still allow for hybrids, but would force them to consider their weapon choice more carefully.
Title: Re: An opinion concerning the discussion of "ra(n)gefest" - But in another direction
Post by: Tears of Destiny on March 10, 2011, 05:35:13 pm
So we want to make taking castles in seiges a breeze then?

My apologies but people will still rage extremely hard even if my Archer is not allowed a 2Her. They will rage when I headshot them or sink an arrow into them, failing to realize that I wasted a few more arrows and significant time to score that hit. 2Hers and polearm users want to be better in melee then 1Hers yet still be as arrow proof, and 1Hers want to be arrow proof without being slowed down by holding the block button.

The general concensus on these boards is that anytime anyone hits you with anything from range, and it takes more then a 5th of your health, it is unwanted.

I think what people really want is Archers, Throwers and Crossbowmen to be as rare as cavalry, but conflictingly, less powerful as well.

I think the cRPG community now has a Melee mentality, where anytime a range person "interrupts" the fight they are in, they get ticked off.

I honestly think the best solution for lowering complaints is to remove all range entirely (Of course, this would require a complete revamp of seiges).

Range in cRPG is akin to Shoguns, rocket launchers and Sniper rifles in an FPS; instant rage inducing weapons.

The following is how I can justify not nerfing range any further, at least for crossbowmen and archers. I still think throwing needs a nerf (maybe a soft nerf, maybe a hard nerf, I am undecided)

The EU servers have this beautiful ability to track stats in an amazing fashion, or at least one of the servers do. Certain players will know what I am talking about. It shows a bunch of pie charts showing a staggering amount of data, including what killed you during your entire lifespan. The average kills for players from range is pathetic at most, usually in the single digits, while 2Hers range from a quarter to a third all by themselves.

Would someone do me a huge favor and post a few of those here, in this thread, so that everyone else can see what I am talking about?

Before we nerfed range because it was absurd how dangerous it was. So fast you could not dodge, it hit like a truck, and it had extremely high accuracy. You were dodging ballistic missiles if the archer was the proper build. Headshot or no headshot, they killed often. I can see nerfing this.

Now though, we face range that almost never tops the scoreboards. I only see extremely skilled players top the scoreboards with range. One can argue that this is because range is a support class and has finally been relegated to it now. But the question is, why nerf it any farther then?

The reason why you see so much range is not because it is OP (Otherwise with the amount of players using it, you melee and cav players would be dead rather quickly and be at the bottom of the scoreboards instead of the top). The reason why you see so much range is because a lot of players prefer this play style. Just as some players use a sword and shield or a 2Her or a cav or a pike because that is how they enjoy the game the most, this same reason pops up for crossbowmen and archers.

Yes, the air is thick with projectiles, but considering the vast majority miss, I fail to see how this is a problem. We can continue nerfing range until it only kills once out of every quiver and people will still call for a nerf if a skilled archer takes them out.

I personally am sick of facing the STR builds that one or two shot everything they hit, but I accept that it is part of the game, and that is how they designed their characters. I also know that those character have a weakness (range).

EDIT: Removing a weapon slot is absurd, though I am completely for adding a PS requirement for melee weapons. This would curb a lot of problems.
Title: Re: An opinion concerning the discussion of "ra(n)gefest" - But in another direction
Post by: jspook on March 10, 2011, 05:37:58 pm
Anyway, another solution could simply make melee weapons require PS

I think this is probably the most valid solution.  Think about it:

bows require power draw
javelins and axes require power throw
horses require riding
Shields require Shield

why dont mele weapons require Power Strike?
All they require is strength, which is crazy.  because every build out there gets a significant amount of strength in the end game.

Archers should have to choose between PS and PD, and it should be a hard choice.  This makes them able to defend themselves, but they would have to stick with the mostly lower tiered weapons as they could probably only get PS 3 or 4 with their archer builds.

If you added (or converted) pd to the weapons, it would most likely fall in line with the current strength requirements.  the only difference being that you need to spend the PS points as well to use it.  IE:

Miaodao
10 str
3 PS

Highland Claymore
15 str
5 PS

Flamberge
18 str
6 PS
Title: Re: An opinion concerning the discussion of "ra(n)gefest" - But in another direction
Post by: Tears of Destiny on March 10, 2011, 05:42:29 pm
I am all for the suggestion of the above poster.

This will actually properly correct the problems that arise when an archer takes out an absurd weapon and cleans your clock with it.


But this will still create rage amongst the uninformed.
My archer has 10PD AND 7PS. I can and will still beat the holy hell out of people. Granted, I took many sacrifices (135-ish archery wpf and 0 athletics and 1 wpf in everythign else) but people will still rage when I kill them.
Title: Re: An opinion concerning the discussion of "ra(n)gefest" - But in another direction
Post by: jspook on March 10, 2011, 05:45:35 pm
Those are still the hard choices you made to get there with that build.  and you have obvious drawbacks.  I have absolutely no problems with that.
Title: Re: An opinion concerning the discussion of "ra(n)gefest" - But in another direction
Post by: Tears of Destiny on March 10, 2011, 05:49:18 pm
Those are still the hard choices you made to get there with that build.  and you have obvious drawbacks.  I have absolutely no problems with that.

Well yes, you do, but the majority of the players are not as sane as you, and will instantly cry "BS" in the game when I clean the clock of an unsuspecting dedicated melee who was expecting a weak melee archer.
Title: Re: An opinion concerning the discussion of "ra(n)gefest" - But in another direction
Post by: Christo on March 10, 2011, 05:52:37 pm
The Power Strike requirement is awesome. Only problem that it won't effect the "spammability" of crossbows, because they are not skill related. I still think about a Crossbow Expertise skill. What about you, guys?

I mean, everything is skill related, only poor xbow is left out from the party, sitting alone watching the last moments of the sunset at the beach.. Oh wait, wrong section.  :)
Title: Re: An opinion concerning the discussion of "ra(n)gefest" - But in another direction
Post by: jspook on March 10, 2011, 05:59:51 pm
the requirement for crossbows are pretty much balanced out by the super long reload times.  There really isnt any such thing as crossbow spam.  seriously.  Its not that big of a problem.  I would, however, like to see the wpf for crossbows have some serious effects on how they are used.  right now they are too damn accurate with only 1 wpf.

It should be wildly inaccurate (no matter what crossbow you have) unless you have a significant amount of wpf.
Title: Re: An opinion concerning the discussion of "ra(n)gefest" - But in another direction
Post by: Christo on March 10, 2011, 06:02:04 pm
the requirement for crossbows are pretty much balanced out by the super long reload times.  There really isnt any such thing as crossbow spam.  seriously.  Its not that big of a problem.  I would, however, like to see the wpf for crossbows have some serious effects on how they are used.  right now they are too damn accurate with only 1 wpf.

It should be wildly inaccurate (no matter what crossbow you have) unless you have a significant amount of wpf.

Good suggestion. Crossbow's "learning curve" should be a lot more steep.
Title: Re: An opinion concerning the discussion of "ra(n)gefest" - But in another direction
Post by: Tears of Destiny on March 10, 2011, 06:09:25 pm
Good suggestion. Crossbow's "learning curve" should be a lot more steep.

Agreed, already they have a high cost and slow reload time, but the wpf curve is lackluster.
Title: Re: An opinion concerning the discussion of "ra(n)gefest" - But in another direction
Post by: ManOfWar on March 10, 2011, 06:14:13 pm
I applaud all the posters in this thread
Title: Re: An opinion concerning the discussion of "ra(n)gefest" - But in another direction
Post by: Chasab on March 10, 2011, 06:15:13 pm
wall of text about not wanting to nerf range

The issue isn't about dedicated people who are range fighters. The issue is its TOO EASY to be a hybrid, and being a hybrid is too good not to do. On any map every round, i will get hit by some sort of projectile. its 100% guaranteed. we have archers/crossbowers. Each of them has 2 sets of bolts for enough arrows to not run out during the round AND some form of melee weapon often times a weapon that easily kills anyone.

then you have the people who focus on melee weapons, but they also put 1 point in PT and now they chuck axes and darts all over the place. Last night a guy hit me with 2 javs, and by the time i got near him he pulled out his triple loomed crush through weapon, i go to block(why bother right?) crush through and i'm dead. so i can either hang back and let him throw at me, or i can try and engage them up close which is when they pull out this huge unblockable weapon looneytoons style.

what needs to happen is people need to make a tough choice, do you want to be a glass cannon and do alot of damage, but are easy to kill? or do you want to be hard to kill, do alot of damage, but have minimal protection? Right now, we have a lot of people running around as tank-mages(UO reference) hard to kill, Tons of damage at range, Tons of damage up close.
Title: Re: An opinion concerning the discussion of "ra(n)gefest" - But in another direction
Post by: Christo on March 10, 2011, 06:17:56 pm
The issue isn't about dedicated people who are range fighters. The issue is its TOO EASY to be a hybrid, and being a hybrid is too good not to do. On any map every round, i will get hit by some sort of projectile. its 100% guaranteed. we have archers/crossbowers. Each of them has 2 sets of bolts for enough arrows to not run out during the round AND some form of melee weapon often times a weapon that easily kills anyone.

then you have the people who focus on melee weapons, but they also put 1 point in PT and now they chuck axes and darts all over the place. Last night a guy hit me with 2 javs, and by the time i got near him he pulled out his triple loomed crush through weapon, i go to block(why bother right?) crush through and i'm dead. so i can either hang back and let him throw at me, or i can try and engage them up close which is when they pull out this huge unblockable weapon looneytoons style.

what needs to happen is people need to make a tough choice, do you want to be a glass cannon and do alot of damage, but are easy to kill? or do you want to be hard to kill, do alot of damage, but have minimal protection? Right now, we have a lot of people running around as tank-mages(UO reference) hard to kill, Tons of damage at range, Tons of damage up close.

This.

+100000000000000000000000.
Title: Re: An opinion concerning the discussion of "ra(n)gefest" - But in another direction
Post by: Dravic on March 10, 2011, 06:24:42 pm
Generally, I am all after making req for melee weapons PS.

There should be simply formula for making new req:

current-req:3=new PS req

HOWEVER, it should be counted down when

The number should be rounded down or up, if it cannot be divided by three without creating the fraction. Whether it should be rounded up or down is determined by is fragile bigger or smaller than half.

for example:

Niuweidao:

Old req: 6str

New req: 6str:3=2PS

German Greatsword:

Old req: 14str

New req: 14str:3=4,(6)PS~~5PS

Mallet:

Old req: 13str

New req: 13str:3=4,(3)PS~~4PS

etc.

Title: Re: An opinion concerning the discussion of "ra(n)gefest" - But in another direction
Post by: jspook on March 10, 2011, 07:03:20 pm
I was thinking something much easier than that even.
there shouldnt be any rounding DOWN at all.

3 and under str = 1 PS
4-6 = 2
7-9 = 3
10-12 = 4
13-15 = 5
16-18 = 6

This keeps it more in line with the bows and other things with similar requirements
Title: Re: An opinion concerning the discussion of "ra(n)gefest" - But in another direction
Post by: EponiCo on March 10, 2011, 07:28:50 pm
If anything make weapons dependant on STR and WPF. For me PS limit would be completely pointless, I always have as much as my str affords, and I'm not sure who doesn't. It's one bloody point and that's certainly cheaper than taking 100 melee wpf instead of 50 for an archer. Geh, I swing a little slower but then I pick a weapon which is so fast I don't care, or is dead slow but 1 shots you from out of your range. Or 1 wpf throwing, easily possible.
But eh, an archer now relies on his melee weapon to get a positive k:d so don't forget to buff it along the way.

If weapons were restricted that way, only dedicated 2h could use greatsword, hybrids could use bastards and axes and maces, and no wpf can use clubs and axes. Same for 1h/pole. It also means people can't be (sucky or mediocre) warbow archer when they sit in the village and pure 2h when not.
Title: Re: An opinion concerning the discussion of "ra(n)gefest" - But in another direction
Post by: Kophka on March 10, 2011, 07:32:17 pm
That's one of the things I agree with, make the weapons wpf dependent, rather than PS. Skill and training over ability to break bricks, yeah?
Title: Re: An opinion concerning the discussion of "ra(n)gefest" - But in another direction
Post by: IG_Saint on March 10, 2011, 07:35:54 pm
If anything make weapons dependant on STR and WPF. For me PS limit would be completely pointless, I always have as much as my str affords, and I'm not sure who doesn't. It's one bloody point and that's certainly cheaper than taking 100 melee wpf instead of 50 for an archer. Geh, I swing a little slower but then I pick a weapon which is so fast I don't care, or is dead slow but 1 shots you from out of your range. Or 1 wpf throwing, easily possible.
But eh, an archer now relies on his melee weapon to get a positive k:d so don't forget to buff it along the way.

If weapons were restricted that way, only dedicated 2h could use greatsword, hybrids could use bastards and axes and maces, and no wpf can use clubs and axes. Same for 1h/pole. It also means people can't be (sucky or mediocre) warbow archer when they sit in the village and pure 2h when not.

Agreed, wpf is a much beter option.
Title: Re: An opinion concerning the discussion of "ra(n)gefest" - But in another direction
Post by: Tai Feng on March 10, 2011, 07:58:17 pm
Upkeep is too low.

That's my view.


This isn't just about melee-ranged hybrids, it's also about any kind of hybrids, say, cavalry-melee hybrids. In Native, if you picked cavalry you were crippled in melee. If you picked archer you were crippled in melee.


I know I know, many will now say how horrible this upkeep is, and that they can't afford anything. Unfortunately, if archer can afford the best bow and the best melee weapon, or if horseman can afford best horse (sarranid/courser), the best cav weapon (heavy lance), top infantry weapon etc.. then there's nothing wrong with hybrids. It simply means people have too much gold.


Now the only question is do we have too many of these hybrids or not. Because there's nothing wrong with the idea itself.
Title: Re: An opinion concerning the discussion of "ra(n)gefest" - But in another direction
Post by: jspook on March 10, 2011, 08:11:38 pm
forcing an archer to put points into PS takes points away that they would otherwise convert into attributes, and still be able to take a mele weapon ANYWAY

with your way, I would just convert those six points into agi and put the wpf into 2H.  This allows for much more hybridized builds.

MY way would force them to actually choose which is more important.  because they would have LESS wpf to spend overall, and would still have to put points in PS to pick a better mele weapon.  Pure archers would have to use a lower tiered mele weapon to sacrifice for that archery wpf, and hybrids sacrifice archery wpf to put points into PS instead of the att conversion.

Its called "balance"

Just modifying the wpf requirements would be simple to bypass by just stacking agi with a 18/21 or 15/24 build and converting 8 pts.  this would allow you to use pretty much every weapon in the game with almost maximum efficiency.  This is the problem that was being addressed in the OP.
Title: Re: An opinion concerning the discussion of "ra(n)gefest" - But in another direction
Post by: Vibe on March 11, 2011, 07:40:57 am
What's wrong is that even with 1wpf, crossbows and throwing weapon reticule is too damn small. The reticule should be huge like a woman's vagina when giving birth until the wpf is about 100-120.
Title: Re: An opinion concerning the discussion of "ra(n)gefest" - But in another direction
Post by: Darkkarma on March 11, 2011, 08:48:51 am
What's wrong is that even with 1wpf, crossbows and throwing weapon reticule is too damn small. The reticule should be huge like a woman's vagina when giving birth until the wpf is about 100-120.

Your effectiveness with 1wpf at crossbow is about as effective as any other melee weapon with 1 wpf and powerstrike.  Also, if you miss with a crossbow of ANY kind at 1 wpf, goodluck getting a second shot in before enemies or other ACTUAL crossbowmen / archers pick you to pieces. (Assuming melee guys don't get to you first,as you're sure not going to be at any serious range from a melee fight with 1 wpf at crossbow if you want to even hope for a kill.) If it weren't for the fact that crossbows have an ungodly reload time for non dedicated users, you'd have a case.
Title: Re: An opinion concerning the discussion of "ra(n)gefest" - But in another direction
Post by: Vibe on March 11, 2011, 09:05:11 am
Your effectiveness with 1wpf at crossbow is about as effective as any other melee weapon with 1 wpf and powerstrike.  Also, if you miss with a crossbow of ANY kind at 1 wpf, goodluck getting a second shot in before enemies or other ACTUAL crossbowmen / archers pick you to pieces. (Assuming melee guys don't get to you first,as you're sure not going to be at any serious range from a melee fight with 1 wpf at crossbow if you want to even hope for a kill.) If it weren't for the fact that crossbows have an ungodly reload time for non dedicated users, you'd have a case.

But once you have a team of shielders and other crossbowmen that support you the reload time doesn't matter. That's why alot of melee picks up a crossbow too.
Title: Re: An opinion concerning the discussion of "ra(n)gefest" - But in another direction
Post by: Camaris on March 11, 2011, 09:09:03 am
I have no more problems to play with those ranged on siege.
Its ok there. But on battle its fucked up. Waiting 3 minutes because someone threw a weapon somewhere and had luck is so disturbing.
Title: Re: An opinion concerning the discussion of "ra(n)gefest" - But in another direction
Post by: Vibe on March 11, 2011, 09:28:21 am
I have no more problems to play with those ranged on siege.
Its ok there. But on battle its fucked up. Waiting 3 minutes because someone threw a weapon somewhere and had luck is so disturbing.

Yep, have to agree here. I really don't mind on sieges, but if I recieve a lucky headshot over half of the map away at the start of a battle round it really sucks.
Title: Re: An opinion concerning the discussion of "ra(n)gefest" - But in another direction
Post by: MouthnHoof on March 11, 2011, 09:51:28 am
The fact that an archer can pull out a big-f-sword and proceed to whoops ass is not a big problem (from my view as an infantry). I WANT them to be able to fight instead of facing only runners. Bows in general are not problematic anymore - it is all about thrown and xbows.

The problem is the melee-focused guys who have no reason NOT to carry a thrown or an xbow. These should be some cost  to make this "what the heck, I'll carry an xbow" attitude unattractive. One is cost on the lightest xbows. I imagine that a dedicated xbowman will go for the heavier xbows and it seems that the "two free slots to fill" types carry the light ones. Raising the cost of the low tier ones may make this a little less appealing.

The other option is to add penalties to xbows that will really hurt an infantry - at least psychologically. It is possible (see Brytenwalda mod) to have skill penalties attached to equipment. An xbow is a cumbersome thing to carry on your back while swordplaying. I bet that if it carried even -1 penalty to PS, many will skip it. I would put this at -2 PS. Make sure to advertise this penalty well for the full psychological effect. The point being: a dedicated xbowman will be much less effected by this: he is dedicated to shooting the bow from distance, not carrying it for the highland charge (one shot, then charge). Xbow user than wishes to go into full melee can "g" drop the xbow and the penalty goes away (in Brytenwalda). I will not mind "two slot fillers" starting the frame with the xbow, then dropping it and going full melee - they will most likely not go back to pick it up and the shoot-melee-shoot-melee will go away.

In theory a similar thing can be done with throwing weapons for the "lets have something to throw from 3 meters" crowd, but I do not think it fits that case (unlike the xbow case, it will hurt the dedicated throwers). Dedicated throwers go insanely high PT anyway, therefore I think that the PT entry point to any decent throwing weapons should be 4 PT and the really good ones above 6. If you are a melee guy that just want to throw something for the lols, there are plenty of stones around with 0 PT requirement.
Title: Re: An opinion concerning the discussion of "ra(n)gefest" - But in another direction
Post by: Darkkarma on March 11, 2011, 09:53:16 am
But once you have a team of shielders and other crossbowmen that support you the reload time doesn't matter. That's why alot of melee picks up a crossbow too.

Fighting a group of rangers of any kind, Hybrid or dedicated is going to be a pain/dangerous if you're not a shielder. Any playstyle is much more effective when you have a team of shielders backing you up. Alot of meleers pick up crossbows because it mainly relies on STR and is alot easier to hybrid with as WPF is all it takes. Lets also take into account how many shots it will take to bring down your average armor wearing individual assuming you have next to no WPF and can't reload quickly. The bolts also travel pretty darn slow unless you have a decent travel speed one like the heavy or sniper (both of which will take ages to reload if you don't have the WPF to use.)

Determining whether or not a weapon is overpowered shouldn't be determined solely by how well it does in a well-rounded group.

I also guarantee you that if a well formed group plays against a crossbower's team, even with 150 wpf, they won't get more than a couple shots off before they are forced to go into melee range assuming they close the distance. Once you're pursuing a crossbower, they can run all they want, in most cases, you're never going to get another shot in the chamber while being chased unless you run into a group of allies, which can be said for any type of ranged fighting style.
Title: Re: An opinion concerning the discussion of "ra(n)gefest" - But in another direction
Post by: Darkkarma on March 11, 2011, 09:58:44 am
The fact that an archer can pull out a big-f-sword and proceed to whoops ass is not a big problem (from my view as an infantry). I WANT them to be able to fight instead of facing only runners. Bows in general are not problematic anymore - it is all about thrown and xbows.


The other option is to add penalties to xbows that will really hurt an infantry - at least psychologically. It is possible (see Brytenwalda mod) to have skill penalties attached to equipment. An xbow is a cumbersome thing to carry on your back while swordplaying. I bet that if it carried even -1 penalty to PS, many will skip it. I would put this at -2 PS. Make sure to advertise this penalty well for the full psychological effect. The point being: a dedicated xbowman will be much less effected by this: he is dedicated to shooting the bow from distance, not carrying it for the highland charge (one shot, then charge). Xbow user than wishes to go into full melee can "g" drop the xbow and the penalty goes away (in Brytenwalda). I will not mind "two slot fillers" starting the frame with the xbow, then dropping it and going full melee - they will most likely not go back to pick it up and the shoot-melee-shoot-melee will go away.




Not to sound rude but losing power strike points is just crazy. It's hard enough killing/fending off certain builds as a dedicated crossbowman as it is without having to worry about melee defects. Shooting from a great distance is also incredibly tough with the current travel rate of bolts, mixed in with the shitty reload rates. It only really balances out at around 100 + wpf in crossbow. What you're proposing would essentially make hybrid builds completely impractical and not worth it. Which is just lame IMO.
Title: Re: An opinion concerning the discussion of "ra(n)gefest" - But in another direction
Post by: Nemeth on March 11, 2011, 10:09:35 am
(click to show/hide)


This suggestion would destroy dedicated xbowman more than you seem to think. There would be no reason whatsoever to go pure xbow over pure archery. Xbowers are forced to melee much more often than archers. If you take their ability to do so away when wearing their only weapon their profficient with, there would be no reason NOT to switch to archery. I can easily have 6 PS on pure archer and it's really not that hard to melee with 1 wpf.
Title: Re: An opinion concerning the discussion of "ra(n)gefest" - But in another direction
Post by: La Makina on March 11, 2011, 10:36:42 am
) Make polearms and 2 handed weapons use two slots. This way we won't see archers with weapons of death. Use a 1h weapon no shield for sidearm. Twohanders have to choose shield or shooty. etc.

I support this (I suggested this idea once, in another thread, no clue where). This would also prevent melee fighters from carrying a 2h sword (for duel) plus a pike (for horses) plus a 2h axe (for  shields) plus throwing weapons, like I actually do.

I would also suggest:

- Divide stacks of thrown weapons by two (i.e. 1 lance, 2 throwing axes, 4 darts...)

- Remove the ability to pick up arrows and bolts from the ground/trees/walls. Once shot, they should be lost (because they break or remain stuck in whatever they've hit...).

So ranged fighters would still have their part of fun but rangefests would not last too long.
Title: Re: An opinion concerning the discussion of "ra(n)gefest" - But in another direction
Post by: Literally_Circler on March 11, 2011, 11:44:11 am

the only problem i see with the current system in regards to everything, is throwers
i have no problem with 1h+shield, 2h, pole, xbow, archers, or any kind of cav. just throwers

they have the power of xbows, combined with the release rates of archers
oh and you can use a shield while you wield them

they are seriously easy mode
Title: Re: An opinion concerning the discussion of "ra(n)gefest" - But in another direction
Post by: EponiCo on March 11, 2011, 11:45:25 am
forcing an archer to put points into PS takes points away that they would otherwise convert into attributes, and still be able to take a mele weapon ANYWAY

with your way, I would just convert those six points into agi and put the wpf into 2H.  This allows for much more hybridized builds.

MY way would force them to actually choose which is more important.  because they would have LESS wpf to spend overall, and would still have to put points in PS to pick a better mele weapon.  Pure archers would have to use a lower tiered mele weapon to sacrifice for that archery wpf, and hybrids sacrifice archery wpf to put points into PS instead of the att conversion.

Its called "balance"

Just modifying the wpf requirements would be simple to bypass by just stacking agi with a 18/21 or 15/24 build and converting 8 pts.  this would allow you to use pretty much every weapon in the game with almost maximum efficiency.  This is the problem that was being addressed in the OP.

Can you detail that build you are talking about? Because I'm simply not seeing it.
I can tell you my build from last gen (the calc is a little wrong)

    * Strength: 18
    * Agility: 18
    * Hit points: 53

    * Converted: 2
    * Power Strike: 6
    * Athletics: 6
    * Riding: 5
    * Power Draw: 6
    * Weapon Master: 6

    * One Handed: 90
    * Archery: 140

and even if I take away the just for fun riding it's not worth it

    * Strength: 18
    * Agility: 21
    * Hit points: 53

    * Converted: 8
    * Power Strike: 4
    * Athletics: 6
    * Power Draw: 6
    * Weapon Master: 7

    * One Handed: 110
    * Archery: 140

That's 8-15% loss on damage for a wee bit more speed - in any case, with PS limit on weapons I'd easily use a flamberge on my build but with wpf limit (of say 150) I'd have no chance to get there without screwing the archering alltogether.
Title: Re: An opinion concerning the discussion of "ra(n)gefest" - But in another direction
Post by: Chasab on March 11, 2011, 03:41:01 pm
Is it possible to make WPF directly linked to the range a bolt/arrow/thrown object travels?

The lower the WPF the closer you need to be for your shots to go far enough to hit the enemy.
Title: Re: An opinion concerning the discussion of "ra(n)gefest" - But in another direction
Post by: Tears of Destiny on March 11, 2011, 04:56:08 pm
I support this (I suggested this idea once, in another thread, no clue where). This would also prevent melee fighters from carrying a 2h sword (for duel) plus a pike (for horses) plus a 2h axe (for  shields) plus throwing weapons, like I actually do.

I am OK with people having all those weapons though, because the upkeep of that means they have terrible armor.
Title: Re: An opinion concerning the discussion of "ra(n)gefest" - But in another direction
Post by: Keshian on March 11, 2011, 05:22:20 pm
I fully support skill rather than attribute based requirements as many ranged weapons already have them.  Some other thread mentioned this for armor and also raising some of the requirements so people can't just do 18 strength and then pump everything into agility and still be able to use all the weapons and armor, but would actually have to do tradeoffs.  In general anything that forces people to make tradeoffs to specialize or hybridize that are balanced choices, increases diversity of player builds, which increases the fun of competition.  Hybridizing currently has too few tradeoffs so you can classify a huge portion of the player popualtion under 3 basic builds - xbow/melee 12-18 strength, the rest agility (only 15 needed for siege xbow), thrower/melee 21+ strength (7 powerthrow opens up throwing lances) and more powerthrow = more accuracy, archer/melee 15-24 to 24-15 weakest bows are a joke as no real speed advantage to make up for crappy damage and so khergit to longbow ar 99% of the bows used (yes, a few people go higher powerdraw but thats not the norm).  Though you still see occasional dedicated melee or dedicated ranged they are the exception not the rule now because you might do it becuse you don't like ranged or vice versa, but the tradeoffs in wpf and skill points is so small right now that it makes perfect sense to hybridize as you are losing almost nothing in your main class.

Having significant requirements would be useful like making longbow stronger but require 8 powerdraw or black armor requiring 27 strength or usign a giant flamberge like a twig requires 7 or 8 powerstrike.  Forcing real tradeoffs and choices would be a step in the right direction - you would probably not see as many fast shooting khergit bow users swinging elegant poleaxes up close or war spear\iron staff\knobbed mace\polearm stun spammers suddenly pulling out a siege xbow.
Title: Re: An opinion concerning the discussion of "ra(n)gefest" - But in another direction
Post by: jspook on March 11, 2011, 06:11:59 pm
Can you detail that build you are talking about? Because I'm simply not seeing it.
I can tell you my build from last gen (the calc is a little wrong)

You are ignoring quite a few obvious possibilities with your builds.  for example:

Strength: 18
Agility: 21

Converted: 8
Power Strike: 6
Athletics: 4
Power Draw: 6
Weapon Master: 7

One Handed: 110
Archery: 140

And your current build is already the tradeoff I was talking about..  There are a lot of 8-10 PD users out ther that can ALSO use a flamberge or poleaxe simply because of all of the str required for the higher PD.  THOSE types of pure builds shouldnt be also using the high end mele weapons.  Thats the point of the OP.  YOUR build is actually pretty balanced, and you are not as effective an archer as someone with more wpf and pd in archery.  thats the point.

edit: The problem stems from these types of builds (who can walk around with both a highly specialized archery build AND be effective with high tier mele) :

Strength: 27
Agility: 15

Converted: 14
Athletics: 3
Power Draw: 9
Weapon Master: 5

Archery: 148

or

Strength: 18 
Agility: 24 
 
Converted: 14
Power Strike: 3   
Power Draw: 6   
Weapon master: 8 

Archery   172   


Having significant requirements would be useful like making longbow stronger but require 8 powerdraw or black armor requiring 27 strength or usign a giant flamberge like a twig requires 7 or 8 powerstrike.  Forcing real tradeoffs and choices would be a step in the right direction - you would probably not see as many fast shooting khergit bow users swinging elegant poleaxes up close or war spear\iron staff\knobbed mace\polearm stun spammers suddenly pulling out a siege xbow.

Agreed wholeheartedly.
Title: Re: An opinion concerning the discussion of "ra(n)gefest" - But in another direction
Post by: UrLukur on March 11, 2011, 06:21:10 pm
I am OK with people having all those weapons though, because the upkeep of that means they have terrible armor.

?

9001
2458
5030
1589
=
18078

6458
8922
=
15380

by that definition, 1h + shield is forced to run in crap armor.
Title: Re: An opinion concerning the discussion of "ra(n)gefest" - But in another direction
Post by: Tears of Destiny on March 11, 2011, 06:55:02 pm
?

9001
2458
5030
1589
=
18078

6458
8922
=
15380

by that definition, 1h + shield is forced to run in crap armor.

True, I was thinking of the more expensive weapons, but note that for 15K the 1Her with shield can get a very good 1Her weapon and a very good shield for that price, compared to the four weapons that were listed.

I think I should re-word my point (Thank you for pointing out that those were cheap weapons, +1 point): For the gold invested, versatility will diminish the amount of armor or effectiveness-at-one-moment that a dedicated will have.
Title: Re: An opinion concerning the discussion of "ra(n)gefest" - But in another direction
Post by: Ronan on March 11, 2011, 07:14:57 pm
I just have something short-ish to add:
  Most of you that complain about throwers, complain because you die by them. Most of you that complain about xbow, die by them, most of you that complain about archers... well you get the point. It seems to be that if they kill you, theyre over powered. Really? Or is it you want to be the best without having to try too hard?
  I can agree with the tweaking. Sure make it a choice to either be ranged or melee, to be a hybrid should have its penalty. Either weight, PS/WP, or what ever creative way you melee orientated characters can hamper what you hate the most. RANGE.
 I really dont think 70% of you(if not more) enjoy any kind of range, thus, you want it gone. Some of you people think about it in a emotional way and try to justify it by "reason" IE: "thats not how it was in real life" "theyre OP" "They dont run out of ammo" and so on. I read it way too much. Those of you that look at logically, i appreciate your input.
 If you really want to win EVERY time, use tactics, dont just run straight at them with your 2Her, dont go after the ones you know you loose to unless you have no choice. I mean, there is no sure thing but there are ways to better your chances. Your rage gets mine ;P

I do like the idea of the original poster. Make it a choice to be melee or range. If you do both you will be best at neither. Thank you for reading, you are all great!
Title: Re: An opinion concerning the discussion of "ra(n)gefest" - But in another direction
Post by: Tears of Destiny on March 11, 2011, 07:19:32 pm
^
<3 +1 cookie
Title: Re: An opinion concerning the discussion of "ra(n)gefest" - But in another direction
Post by: Chasab on March 11, 2011, 07:30:13 pm
True, I was thinking of the more expensive weapons, but note that for 15K the 1Her with shield can get a very good 1Her weapon and a very good shield for that price, compared to the four weapons that were listed.

I think I should re-word my point (Thank you for pointing out that those were cheap weapons, +1 point): For the gold invested, versatility will diminish the amount of armor or effectiveness-at-one-moment that a dedicated will have.

I'm a sword and board player my normal gear runs right around 30k and i make massive amounts of money.

" It seems to be that if they kill you, theyre over powered. Really? Or is it you want to be the best without having to try too hard?" its not the fact that they can kill me, Its How many ways they can kill me in the same round, Hybirds in games are normally too strong, its no different here. right now too many tankmages.


Title: Re: An opinion concerning the discussion of "ra(n)gefest" - But in another direction
Post by: Tears of Destiny on March 11, 2011, 07:32:12 pm
I'm a sword and board player my normal gear runs right around 30k and i make massive amounts of money.

Mind posting your gear? I am rather curious, though running light makes sense if you are an agil build.
Title: Re: An opinion concerning the discussion of "ra(n)gefest" - But in another direction
Post by: UrLukur on March 11, 2011, 10:12:18 pm
True, I was thinking of the more expensive weapons, but note that for 15K the 1Her with shield can get a very good 1Her weapon and a very good shield for that price, compared to the four weapons that were listed.

I think I should re-word my point (Thank you for pointing out that those were cheap weapons, +1 point): For the gold invested, versatility will diminish the amount of armor or effectiveness-at-one-moment that a dedicated will have.

Those are 4 top tier weapons in their class :rolleyes:

The most armor you need is transitional set, it coust around 30k if i remember right. In this mod, if you are not cav not plate, you make gold
Title: Re: An opinion concerning the discussion of "ra(n)gefest" - But in another direction
Post by: Chasab on March 12, 2011, 01:51:04 am
Mind posting your gear? I am rather curious, though running light makes sense if you are an agil build.


Barbutte helm
Heraldic mail
Red wispy gloves
Leather boots
Knightly heater shield
Elite Scimitar (2x heirloomed)

In game it says its 33k

i spent 10k on a horse, and the next night had made 20k since.
Title: Re: An opinion concerning the discussion of "ra(n)gefest" - But in another direction
Post by: EponiCo on March 12, 2011, 02:02:32 am
Quote from: Dravic
And your current build is already the tradeoff I was talking about..  There are a lot of 8-10 PD users out ther that can ALSO use a flamberge or poleaxe simply because of all of the str required for the higher PD.  THOSE types of pure builds shouldnt be also using the high end mele weapons.  Thats the point of the OP.  YOUR build is actually pretty balanced, and you are not as effective an archer as someone with more wpf and pd in archery.  thats the point.

Well, fair enough, I agree to the bolded part but this doesn't go against my point. If they have 10PD and no PS and no WPF they aren't picking up high powered weapons in both systems (PS limit and WPF limit). But if he already has the strength for PD it's easier to get PS (dump 7 points into it and you are higher than many pure melee) than to get wpf (convert 6 points into agi 1 into weaponmaster you get 80 wpf, and you'll never reach 150). Especially thinking the other way round - there's no problem if an archer picks up a sword, it's less projectiles after all  (well some may think the purpose of archers is just to make them look like a porcupine and give them +1 to their k:d of course :lol:).
Problem is imo simply this: Meelist buys say 120 wpf for crossbow. He doesn't notice little decrease in wpf after all. Now he runs around without crossbow, wait what, but doesn't matter he still is perfectly capable melee. Then he sees a good camper map, then he leaves his armor away and plays pure crossbowcamper.
Someone who really plays as a hybrid is pretty balanced through upkeep, well, this guy isn't unbalanced as such, too, he is either mostly shooter with bad melee gear or pure melee, but it leads to more projectiles and always having to charge the archer infested house/tower/ruin.
At least I guess that's what happens, I've personally switched that way, but I mostly play for fun and run around with 2handers on 1h archer hybrid too. But it isn't solved by PS limit, he doesn't use points from PS to get there.
So simply make it so, if he wants best melee weapons he has to have high wpf, if he wants to have good crossbow/throwing/archery he has to have high wpf. He simply can't get both anymore without leaving a lot of useful skill points away.
Title: Re: An opinion concerning the discussion of "ra(n)gefest" - But in another direction
Post by: Chasab on March 12, 2011, 02:27:42 am
there need to be hard limits to counteract the effect player skill, op mechanics and heirloomed items can have.