Yup, in a siege game it put Templars and Fallen in 1 team vs randoms in the other team. Took us about a minute to take the castle, mostly due to the long walk to the flag.Reason why I disapprove banner balance.
Reason why I disapprove banner balance.Well... Logically, everyone should form or join an existing faction/guild/group. Even though i am not a member of any, i want to see team-play and coordination rewarded, not punished by removing banner balance :)
Reason why I disapprove banner balance.
l2use shield and stop whining :p
Well, remember the only weapon effectively nerfed were bows.the other two either don't require any skill points or very little skill points at all. Why wouldn't you use a ranged backup?
That forces 1h.Fun fact they don't even have to shoot over it 1 shield skill using an old board shield I got shot through the shield into my arm and died. I know what your thinking oh xbows do that all the time except it was an archer and no I did not lower my block even for a fraction it was at the end of a round and it was me and him left. The recent nerf to shields is hitting 2handers/PA who use them solely for ranged protection harder than it is shielders, who seem to still have the force field effect anyways (at least with a Huscarl).
If I use a shield as a 2h, and try to move at all, other melee just get up on me and spam attack as I have no offense with a shield.
Also, unless you dump massive points into shield to get decent shields, the shield is either instantly obliterated or they simply shoot over it.
Facts.
Yes, I know having all melée/ranged hybrids suck but would you rather pick up a weapon like the crossbow that only really requires money to use or sit stubbornly waiting to respawn because you just got shot and refuse to be part of the ranged spam?
Until crpg changes to require more dedication to be effective at range Crpg will be exactly this. A melée and ranged weapon on 90 percent of the server population.
I regularly go through when I'm in spectator and count ranged characters vs melee characters. It's usually something like 85% ranged characters on my team, with only a maybe 3-4 not having some sort of range. It's ridiculous.
Well, remember the only weapon effectively nerfed were bows.the other two either don't require any skill points or very little skill points at all. Why wouldn't you use a ranged backup?
Fact: Balance is an issue that should be worked on, so equal cav/archers/etc. are on each team, but if a large number of people are playing ranged, than maybe a large number of people like ranged, and if the game becomes a shoot fest with melee as backup, well, then the community has spoken hasn't it?
In the first minutes of the round I can hardly step on the battlefield because of the arrows raining around. Instead of rushing in the no man's land and get nailed down (or waiting behing a barn), I shoot (poorly) with a crossbow - just to have something to do.
I guess I am not the only one doing it and I believe that this is where the problem lies in: Range calls for range.
Exactly the point I've been making the past few weeks.
Melee doesn't call for melee (it can be stopped by melee OR range), but range calls for range.
This is balance?
Well...
let's ignore 'balance' etc and see if you have ever or often encountered the following 3 scenarios:
team immediatly throws up ladders to get to a roof, where they will snipe and or die.
(often breaking them once up)
pretty well two lines of opposing throwers within spitting distance zinging stuff at each other, rather then change mode or weapon.
Dude with crossbow shoots, hides to reload, watches a 2 on 1 melee 5 feet in front of him.
If i had gold enough for that, i would carry a Light Crossbow on ALL my melee/cav chars. Why not?!
I can make that one lucky headshot, on someone who is far. Or discourage cavalry from picking on me in a field. Or cover my own retreat, while simply holding my xbow up, and aiming from one enemy to another.
Xbow, is not even raising my kill-count. I am normally killing more enemies using melee only weapons, since i don't waste time reloading in the bushes :) But it makes me more versatile, and gives me more possibilities to fight enemies on my terms.
3.) Imposing a limit on what you can carry if you have ranged gear equipped. EG: If you have crossbow, bow, or throwing weapons equipped, you can not equip weapon above a certain tier. This will make ranged an unattractive option for those who want to carry the better weapons.
Last gen I went dedicated 2-H. Yes, there are definitely some maps (bridge maps especially) where I found myself chilling for a minute or so while the range spam sorted itself out and battle lines started crossing. Early on I brought the crappy 0 req round shield and used that to burn a handful of arrows at the start of rounds. Honestly though once I started leveling up and getting more str/wearing some armor I just got rid of the shield and practiced more sporadic movement when closing on archers. Even though archery screwed me sometimes it actually wasn't really as big of a problem as a lot of people make it out to be. More patience and less rambo helped avoid me many a archer death... I had to look and see what their ranged cover was in certain areas before over-pursuing people. Helped me tactically.
The basic cycle of archer > 2-H > shield > archer seems to still be intact. Complaining about archery as a 2-H player is like complaining about shields as an archer :P The whole paper scissors rock thing.
it beats polearms. And polearms beat.....something
polearms beat cavalry, which beat shields, which beat archers, which beat 2handers
Shields, 2handers and polearms all have equal chance to beat each other (assuming equal player skill), with shield beaing easier defensively and harder offensively due to autoblock and some protection from arrows but as a tradeoff less reach and less melee damage. Polearms have it easier offensively and harder defensively due to long reach and good/high damage but as a tradeoff the best melee polearms are (or should be) unbalanced. 2handers are good all rounders which do not excel offensively or defensively.
Funny thing,people talking about OP 1h,OP ranged,but when I look around,I see 2h army :rolleyes:.Trust me,the day will come,and everything will be nerfed except 2h swords,and then "true skilled players" will say that the game is perfect.
You see a "2h army"? Right.Warband is not "Paper rock scissors" game,but some weapon can have some advantage against some class,or in some special situations.Yeah,2h is the most defenceless class,but it doesnt mean the most hard class,they are very good in melee.They are good in duels and perfect in group battles like 5v5.Actually MnB never supposed to have ''2h class",there is "infantry class"-shielder with secondary weapon like 2h,polearm or throwing weapon.And no,2h dont take the most skill,shielders have their own disadvantages,usually slow block speed/weak shield and low damage.Ive tryed to play as a shielder and as 2h,so I know what I am talking about.And yes,I see an army of heavy armored 2hers with german greatswords.
Most skilled players use 2h because it does, in fact, take the most skill. Ranged doesn't even have to expose themselves to danger, shielders have an autoblock -- neither of them are fun, and both of them are easy to be "good" with.
Right now, "everything" doesn't need to be nerfed. That's not the point, and if you think that is the point you clearly lack reading comprehension.
My only point regarding shields was counter pointing someone else who said range>2h>shields>range when in fact range < shields = 2h < range.
Warband is not "Paper rock scissors" game,but some weapon can have some advantage against some class,or in some special situations.Yeah,2h is the most defenceless class,but it doesnt mean the most hard class,they are very good in melee.They are good in duels and perfect in group battles like 5v5.Actually MnB never supposed to have ''2h class",there is "infantry class"-shielder with secondary weapon like 2h,polearm or throwing weapon.And no,2h dont take the most skill,shielders have their own disadvantages,usually slow block speed/weak shield and low damage.Ive tryed to play as a shielder and as 2h,so I know what I am talking about.And yes,I see an army of heavy armored 2hers with german greatswords.
My personal thoughts about hybrid system.I love it,because this system worked from the first versions of MnB,you are not just some ''tank class'' from stupid mrpg,you are true soldier.Ranged spam happens not because people can put few points in bow,it happens because the repair prices are too low,one of my char have 40k,another one 75k.
I agree it shouldn't be "rock paper scissors", but idiots always try to use the range>2h>shield argument and it's just fucking moronic.I like this guy he writes TRUTH. Anyone who thinks 1h plus shield is a gimped class don't know squat.
1h+shield is just in good in melee as 2h, if not better, especially in cRPG where the 1h weapons are even better and longer than the Native versions. When a good 1h'er hits me, even in plate, I lose roughly half my HP.
Dude with crossbow shoots, hides to reload, watches a 2 on 1 melee 5 feet in front of him.Yes, happened a matter of minutes ago on EU1 in fact. There's also the problem of a team that's doing badly deciding the best option is a quick charge straight at the enemy and then there is no charge because what happens in practice is that half the infantry stop and start shooting their crossbows. The ones who have charged are ganked.
So people are saying range > 2h > shields
then shields = 2h
so the easy conclusion is range > all.
:mrgreen:
NERF RANGE
So people are saying range > 2h > shields
then shields = 2h
so the easy conclusion is range > all.
:mrgreen:
NERF RANGE
What exactly about throwing needs a nerf? I agree that there are some aspects of that need some changes, ie: Lances and OP Builds, but can you be specific? A blanket nerf on throwing really isn't needed, just a reduction in the number of people throwing, imo.
What exactly about throwing needs a nerf? I agree that there are some aspects of that need some changes, ie: Lances and OP Builds, but can you be specific? A blanket nerf on throwing really isn't needed, just a reduction in the number of people throwing, imo.
The "weakness" of throwing is in it's small ammo stacks, yet there are so many throwables littering everywhere that that weakness no longer applies.if you let a thrower run away you fail at the game, you should just uninstall...
Throwing lances are obviously ridiculously OP, as well.
Throwing axes and any throwable with a melee mode toggles way too fast. You would think that to kill a thrower, you need to close the distance and melee but they can easily switch to melee mode, exchange a few swings then just run away and keep throwing almost instantaneously. Their sheer flexibility is ridiculous, and it's extremely too easy to "stance dance" between the two modes.
Furthermore, even in full plate with 24 STR and 7 IF, I lose half my HP to a single throwable. In my mind, this isn't acceptable.
Pew in action: http://www.vimeo.com/22211963...and of course, now we have a lot of ghosting which is of greater benefit to archers and crossbows than it is to infantry or cavalry.
...and of course, now we have a lot of ghosting which is of greater benefit to archers and crossbows than it is to infantry or cavalry.
You should just stop posting. It's like every time someone makes a valid objection to ranged mechanics in the game, you come in and just throw off the curve.Whatever that means, I wasn't objecting to ranged mechanics, only to there being too many people shooting and not enough fighting. That's about the character creation mechanics.
Whatever that means, I wasn't objecting to ranged mechanics, only to there being too many people shooting and not enough fighting. That's about the character creation mechanics.
All i'm saying is that the whole "ghosting" remark was about the silliest thing i've read thus far.It stands to reason that ghosting is going to benefit shooters; they're the ones who get sneaked up on most. So many people are on TS (or some variant) now that you can never sneak up on anyone (notice how there are a lot fewer ninjas, because ghost cheating has destroyed their whole raison d'être) and the elimination of this risk can only encourage more people to take up shooting.
Anyway back on topic, I heard that one of the EU servers had some statistics showing who kills who with what weapons, and in the past melee vastly outnumbered range kills by a large number. It would be interesting to see if those stats have changed somewhat or if they're still relatively similar.
It stands to reason that ghosting is going to benefit shooters; they're the ones who get sneaked up on most. So many people are on TS (or some variant) now that you can never sneak up on anyone (notice how there are a lot fewer ninjas, because ghost cheating has destroyed their whole raison d'être) and the elimination of this risk can only encourage more people to take up shooting.
I doubt people are ghosting as much as you make it sound; if anything I could see ghosting be more prevalent with a small group of people (you friend dies so he ghosts you, but probably not some huge clan orchestrated ghosting).
Anyway back on topic, I heard that one of the EU servers had some statistics showing who kills who with what weapons, and in the past melee vastly outnumbered range kills by a large number. It would be interesting to see if those stats have changed somewhat or if they're still relatively similar.
From the perspective of one shooter with teamspeak and full ghosting capabilities, more often than not, being warned doesn't do much good if the guy is right on you, especially when most MIC programs are about a second or two on delays. Also, considering that range used to be even more over powered pre-patch coupled with the fact that ninja gankers still ran around confidently should prove that Ghosting and range are NOT the reason we are seeing a drop off in ninja gankers(assuming there is even a significant drop off present, to which I seriously have my doubts.) Ghosting has existed for as long as there has been organized gaming and gankers have gotten along just fine. I don't but that argument for a moment,mate; sorry.Before the patch things were even worse I agree; you had spam archery coupled with all the 1 wpf crossbow guys. But back then, banner balance was rare so the ghosting opportunities were more limited.
I guarantee you 90% of my deaths are range people who never want to engage in melee; and never have to.
It's ridiculous.
You can dodge 1 or 2, but can you dodge 5+ missiles properly spaced out?
You run around in plate mail and expect to be able to catch some guy in his pajamas? Now that's rediculious. Truth is, everyone has such a boner for strength builds, heavy armor, and the need to one shot everyone that they don't build their characters to have a chance of chasing. Those crazy fast ninjas can catch me, they just have become pretty rare with the agi nerf.
It stands to reason that ghosting is going to benefit shooters; they're the ones who get sneaked up on most. So many people are on TS (or some variant) now that you can never sneak up on anyone (notice how there are a lot fewer ninjas, because ghost cheating has destroyed their whole raison d'être) and the elimination of this risk can only encourage more people to take up shooting.
I guarantee you 90% of my deaths are range people who never want to engage in melee; and never have to.
It's ridiculous.
I guarantee you 90% of my deaths are range people who never want to engage in melee; and never have to.
It's ridiculous.
People in general don't melee you for the same reason they don't melee goretooth or harmless unless they have to.
That's kind of my point though:
People can choose to not melee me and completely negate and avoid my skillset.
I can never, ever choose not to be shot at. I must always expose myself to ranged fire if I want to do anything whatsoever, and I always have to give ranged a chance to shoot me, yet ranged never has to give me a chance to hit them. When you add in a critical mass of archers/xbows/throwers, it's just pretty evident to me that ranged rules the field. I'm not sure how to fix the issue, but it's clear to me that there is one.
Let's say, for a moment, that there was an archer as deadly as Harmless or Gore or I are in melee:
Not only would this archer be able to dominate all other ranged units with effectiveness, he'd also be able to dominate melee players before they even reached him. He would be able to beat other ranged (because he is ranged and can effectively attack them at the very moment he himself is exposed, making it fair for both ranged participants) and he would also be able to beat melee players, as he is able to either shoot them, shoot their feet, shoot over their shield, run from them and let his team shoot them/generate distance so he can keep shooting, or simply pull out a melee weapon and have a chance to attack his enemy, at the very least, before his enemy can kill him. Oftentimes this is the main frustration I feel, I never have the chance to even attack a ranged enemy or effectively defend myself, even with a shield and a shield level of 2, yet a good ranged player always has the ability to attack/defend no matter who he is fighting.
A melee "champion" is hamstrung extremely hard compared to a ranged "champion" when you think about it.
"Let's say, for a moment, that there was an archer as deadly as Harmless or Gore or I are in melee:
Not only would this archer be able to dominate all other ranged units with effectiveness, he'd also be able to dominate melee players before they even reached him. He would be able to beat other ranged (because he is ranged and can effectively attack them at the very moment he himself is exposed, making it fair for both ranged participants) and he would also be able to beat melee players, as he is able to either shoot them, shoot their feet, shoot over their shield, run from them and let his team shoot them/generate distance so he can keep shooting......."
Neither of you had the ability to address the viable concern of a melee player always having to expose to the risk of a ranged player's attack, but a ranged player always being able to avoid the melee player's attack.
Blabber on about "OMG TEAMWORK AND TACTICZ" all you want, this is a discussion about sheer gameplay balance for the sake of balance, not how you have to get other people to augment you for you to be viable.
Battle is Battle, and Duels are Duels. Of course in a 1v1 situation the Ranger will beat the Meleer until the Meleer closes the gap. But things ARE balanced around teamwork and tactics in battle. That's the whole point of battle. You use your team to counter your weaknesses. You may be a terrific Native dueller, but it's a battle field. If you hate something, have your team counter it, while you counter their weakness that you can handle.
EDIT : Edited for off-topicedness
Rhade, you're a fucking idiot.
What a mature admin.
Firstly, I'm not an admin, secondly - look at your posts and then slap yourself, maybe then you'll realize why everyone is mocking 2h because of their constant whining how they getting shot from all angles.
My posts actually bring up valid points which people can't really address legitimately besides offering half measures and weak reasoning.
Constant whining? I'd say it's valid.
4 melee can attack one target, MAYBE.
An infinite number of range can attack one target.
This is simple logic.
Learn to dodge.
That's kind of my point though:
People can choose to not melee me and completely negate and avoid my skillset.
I can never, ever choose not to be shot at. I must always expose myself to ranged fire if I want to do anything whatsoever, and I always have to give ranged a chance to shoot me, yet ranged never has to give me a chance to hit them. When you add in a critical mass of archers/xbows/throwers, it's just pretty evident to me that ranged rules the field. I'm not sure how to fix the issue, but it's clear to me that there is one.
Let's say, for a moment, that there was an archer as deadly as Harmless or Gore or I are in melee:
Not only would this archer be able to dominate all other ranged units with effectiveness, he'd also be able to dominate melee players before they even reached him. He would be able to beat other ranged (because he is ranged and can effectively attack them at the very moment he himself is exposed, making it fair for both ranged participants) and he would also be able to beat melee players, as he is able to either shoot them, shoot their feet, shoot over their shield, run from them and let his team shoot them/generate distance so he can keep shooting, or simply pull out a melee weapon and have a chance to attack his enemy, at the very least, before his enemy can kill him. Oftentimes this is the main frustration I feel, I never have the chance to even attack a ranged enemy or effectively defend myself, even with a shield and a shield level of 2, yet a good ranged player always has the ability to attack/defend no matter who he is fighting.
A melee "champion" is hamstrung extremely hard compared to a ranged "champion" when you think about it.
Dodging becomes irrelevant when the air is full of projectiles.It is not like I disagree with you about too much range...
I like to point out that playing in native a team full of range is nigh unbeatable unless you shield up. Its quite similar to crpg except that in crpg, the range is actually severely nerfed compared to native.
I'd like to point out that in native you can adjust your character to address range spam, you also are able to have 1h/shield/2h and aren't "limited."
If they archer spam, you can switch to heavy horse.
That's not possible in cRPG.
I like to point out that playing in native a team full of range is nigh unbeatable unless you shield up. Its quite similar to crpg except that in crpg, the range is actually severely nerfed compared to native.Native has unpatched "forcefield" shields. Native has smaller battles and so the 'critical mass' Rhade talks about isn't reached. I have been in a Native battle as a Sarranid archer where almost the entire enemy team went cav, charged us on Field by the River and not one of them got to us because we had so many good archers, but it only happened once - in Native the troops and the sides change anyway; if the next map is Nords v Swadians you won't get the sun blotted out with arrows. You also don't get hybrids in Native; if you want to use a crossbow you have to actually be a crossbowman and accept the corresponding gear and skill set.
You address it by picking up a shield and working with your teammates, staying in a group reduces the chance of a fatal range shot and increases the shield protection radius. Solo operation isn't viable here.
So, your answer is that 2h isn't very viable and I need to alter my build, forced to dump points in shield skill and then zerg.Ignore that..
Excellent plan.
So, your answer is that 2h isn't very viable and I need to alter my build, forced to dump points in shield skill and then zerg.
Excellent plan.
You (and you're certainly not alone) seem to have this peculiar idea that you don't deserve to play a character class with a major weakness by sheer talent alone.
Actually, I just don't understand the major weakness of 1h+shield or ranged while 2h has a glaring weakness.
Please explain.
1h+shield has decent range and decent speed, only SLIGHTLY shorter reach than a 2h and about the same speed with AUTOBLOCK and defense from projectiles while being able to attack (2h'ers cant attack with a shield out), so I'd say that's pretty fair, even slightly leaning towards an advantage for 1h+shield in the melee department.
Cav can outreach 90% of 2h weapons with lances.
Archers can shoot 2h.
Xbows can shoot 2h.
Throwers can shoot 2h.
2h is not strong or weak vs 2h.
So where, exactly, does 2h shine? 1h weapons take half my hp while I'm 7IF/21STR/Full plate, so don't tell me we outshine 1h+shield in melee.
Meanwhile:
1h+shield relatively easily balances out againt 2h.
1h+shield has an advantage against archers, xbows, and throwers.
1h+shield is outreached by lances, just like 2h.
Range kills 2h.
Range kills cav.
Range kills range.
Range can shoot over/under/around shields, kite, and worst case scenario pull out a 1h+shield themselves or pull out a 2h and (assuming they're good) kill the 1h+shield.
See the issue here? I really hope so because I'm getting tired of making the obvious point over and over.
Rhade, you're a fucking idiot.+1
Sure, I can explain.
First, to clarify that I understand you, you're arguing that every other class is better than 2H'ers. That's absolutely true under certain battlefield conditions , and absolutely false under certain conditions. We could probably argue as to what these are, fairly, but we'll stick with the obvious extremes- 2H'ers are weak in open fields and amazing with abundant sources of cover or in some tight spaces. The only ones they're very strong against in open fields are shielders, which are slower (foot and swing speed), and you say that have decent reach when in reality, their reach is worst of all archtypes. When they get into swinging distance, 2H'ers have the best damage, the best weapon abilities (crushtrough, for instance), and the second best reach (dividing cavalry into 2H, 1H, and Polearm, the latter being the vast majority). When it comes to pure melee power, 2H'ers stand supreme. The scoreboards reflect this.
An easy way to verify this is to look at siege maps. Who always tops the defender's scoreboard? 2H'ers. Not even ranged folks, being in virtually ideal conditions for their class, beat them with any frequency (I've seen some get close from time to time, but never beat them outright). Yet on offense, 2H'ers (and ranged) don't do nearly as well, usually because they lack any cover until they break through and take the wall. Only shield infantry outshine them, for obvious reasons.
I'd like to break down the other classes as well, where 2H'ers beat them and where they beat 2H'ers, but this really is a long, long discussion and it's after 4am. Maybe tomorrow. If anyone else wants to jump on it, feel free to. Your argument simply doesn't stand and the scoreboards reflect that consistently. 2H'ers are a very viable class with major benefits and equally major flaws. They dominate certain classes in certain cases, and they get dominated by certain classes in those very same situations.
This is all quite far from the original post, however. The only point that has to be reiterated is that, yes, 2H'ers should fear ranged, shields should fear axes, horsemen should fear pikes, ranged should fear shielders* (goddamn huscarls), and peasants should fear everything.
*Looking back, you seem to emphasize the point that ranged can easily shoot above, beside, or under shields. That really just isn't the case. I've poured hundreds of arrows into shields, trying to pierce (oh, wait, slashnerf, ugh, what?) that little toe and rarely with any effect, even when it's clearly unprotected. Really, maybe a dozen times out of HUNDREDS of attempts. The forcefield effect with even just 3 or so points in shield is truly amazing. I've never gotten a headshot on anyone while the shield was raised.
Sure, I can explain.
First, to clarify that I understand you, you're arguing that every other class is better than 2H'ers. That's absolutely true under certain battlefield conditions , and absolutely false under certain conditions. We could probably argue as to what these are, fairly, but we'll stick with the obvious extremes- 2H'ers are weak in open fields and amazing with abundant sources of cover or in some tight spaces. The only ones they're very strong against in open fields are shielders, which are slower (foot and swing speed), and you say that have decent reach when in reality, their reach is worst of all archtypes. When they get into swinging distance, 2H'ers have the best damage, the best weapon abilities (crushtrough, for instance), and the second best reach (dividing cavalry into 2H, 1H, and Polearm, the latter being the vast majority). When it comes to pure melee power, 2H'ers stand supreme. The scoreboards reflect this.
An easy way to verify this is to look at siege maps. Who always tops the defender's scoreboard? 2H'ers. Not even ranged folks, being in virtually ideal conditions for their class, beat them with any frequency (I've seen some get close from time to time, but never beat them outright). Yet on offense, 2H'ers (and ranged) don't do nearly as well, usually because they lack any cover until they break through and take the wall. Only shield infantry outshine them, for obvious reasons.
I'd like to break down the other classes as well, where 2H'ers beat them and where they beat 2H'ers, but this really is a long, long discussion and it's after 4am. Maybe tomorrow. If anyone else wants to jump on it, feel free to. Your argument simply doesn't stand and the scoreboards reflect that consistently. 2H'ers are a very viable class with major benefits and equally major flaws. They dominate certain classes in certain cases, and they get dominated by certain classes in those very same situations.
This is all quite far from the original post, however. The only point that has to be reiterated is that, yes, 2H'ers should fear ranged, shields should fear axes, horsemen should fear pikes, ranged should fear shielders* (goddamn huscarls), and peasants should fear everything.
*Looking back, you seem to emphasize the point that ranged can easily shoot above, beside, or under shields. That really just isn't the case. I've poured hundreds of arrows into shields, trying to pierce (oh, wait, slashnerf, ugh, what?) that little toe and rarely with any effect, even when it's clearly unprotected. Really, maybe a dozen times out of HUNDREDS of attempts. The forcefield effect with even just 3 or so points in shield is truly amazing. I've never gotten a headshot on anyone while the shield was raised.
If you have 3 shield skill, you're obviously not a 2h player but a shielder with some 2h so that's invalidated.
2h doesn't "beat" 1h. 2h requires skill, timing, and precision to manual block while 1h has an AUTOBLOCK feature,
And shielders need skill, timing, footwork and precision as well to beat a twohander. If you're actually standing still to fight a shielder, you're doing it wrong
most shielders wear huscarls, not kite shields, so good luck "breaking" their shield. You would have to block at least 12-15 times with most swords to break a shield, a feat 99% of the cRPG population cannot do.
Taking down a shielder is nothing about simply beating their shield. If you're trying to do that you're doing it wrong.
1h reach is even longer(So is 2handed) here than it is in native and 1h+shield vs 2h is still even in native. In regards to your "range" argument, a 2h must backpedal while a shielder runs at them, shielding, and backpedalling is slower than walking forward so a 2h will get 1, maybe 2 swings off (on an auotblocking shielder) then the shielder is inside with extremely fast attack speed and good damage (once again, my example of losing half my hp to a 1h with 7 IF, 21 STR and full plate you didn't address)Instead of spitting off BS, go use the vargas toolkit to see if this is actually true. If you're wearing 55 armor and the enemy hits you with a max heirloomed steel pick it only does 30 dmg on average. With 21 str and 7 ironflesh you should have 70 hp
, so while you can say that "2h'ers rule the boards" in public matches with bad players, sure, you have some validity in that decent 2h'ers will destroy bad players who can't block. I'm talking about the competitive end where people actually know how to play, 2h'ers don't have any area where they shine. The only time they shine is that they are able to capitalize more quickly when a player is bad.
And, you're forgetting the bigger picture: Where does a 2hander shine? Not necessarily in 1v1 (but certainly there as well) but in group fights. Imagine 10 good shielders against 10 good twohanders. Who wins?
Both are equally effective, one just takes more player skill to be effective with.
And, you're forgetting the bigger picture: Where does a 2hander shine? Not necessarily in 1v1 (but certainly there as well) but in group fights. Imagine 10 good shielders against 10 good twohanders. Who wins?
With swords? 2h's get ganked. I'd guess around 5 shields left. The only way you hit a shielder front on is if he gets careless.In a larger fight, people don't just sit there and duel each other, they try to hit people who are fighting other people. Why? Because it's easier and faster. You could waste your time trying to catch a turtle in a mistake, or just hit his turtle buddy other the head from behind. 2 handers are good at this because they kill faster. 10 2 handers vs 10 shielders with equal skill and those shielders are gonna die, unless the 2 handers are idiots and all tk each other.
In a larger fight, people don't just sit there and duel each other, they try to hit people who are fighting other people. Why? Because it's easier and faster. You could waste your time trying to catch a turtle in a mistake, or just hit his turtle buddy other the head from behind. 2 handers are good at this because they kill faster. 10 2 handers vs 10 shielders with equal skill and those shielders are gonna die, unless the 2 handers are idiots and all tk each other.
Playing a 2 hander is more fun, it does take more skill to be proficient at. Not to say that there are not good 1 handers, but it is easier to be decent at 1 hander, since there is no manual blocking. A noob would do far better to start off as a 1 hander.
I call that the turtle zerg.
A bunch of shielders rush you, surround you, and there's nothing you can do as they refuse to attack unless they're behind you.
2h'ers can't do that.
Also, the extended reach and damage of 2h'ers work against them as they're more likely to hit friendlies.
I don't see how the "10 2h beats 10 1hshield" works at all.
This just isn't viable against good twohanders in a big fight. Maybe the shielders will get some, but they will lose.
Also, how many of you have actually tried this out in clan battles? It IS the way it works. In group fights, the only thing that matters(Apart from your dueling and blocking skills):
1) Reach
2) Damage
3)situational awareness
Assuming both groups have players of similar skill, the shielders doesn't stand a chance against good 2handers.
We can discuss this over and over, i get the feeling that you disagree, and since we can't test it properly, we might as well let the case rest. The reason why i brought this example is to show other areas were 2handers are good, not just in duels. 2handers are better in group fights than shielders, period.
You're also forgetting that range is being thrown in the whole time, and shielders can actively block this while they attack yet 2h'ers have to sacrifice all offense to shield, so even if you were right (you're not), it's still a bit lopsided.
I'll agree there. In strat before the patch, it was very hard to get up a ladder in a siege battle without a shield. Archers would pick you off very quickly.
Each style has its place where it shines. But it'd be hard to say that one is better than the other in a group battle.
And you cant say that 10 2-handers can auto win against 10 shielders. Shit happens. The battle can go either way. It just depends on what all happens. You cant effectively test that either. No 2 ppls skill is the same.
I'll agree there. In strat before the patch, it was very hard to get up a ladder in a siege battle without a shield. Archers would pick you off very quickly.
Each style has its place where it shines. But it'd be hard to say that one is better than the other in a group battle.
And you cant say that 10 2-handers can auto win against 10 shielders. Shit happens. The battle can go either way. It just depends on what all happens. You cant effectively test that either. No 2 ppls skill is the same.
A bit back on the topic:
I have a theory that rangefest and roof camping are actually due to cavalry being OP. Well, personally I don't find cav OP but the fact is that cavalry is the worst threat (cav is fast, swift, unpredictable, has double HP (cumulate with the horse), longest range for melee, and it kills anything in one hit...) and that the maps are offering them too easy times. The best way to avoid the harassing cav is to go range and hide on roofs.
In this sense see that, as strange as it sounds, there is less range in sieges than in battles and I think that this is due to the fact that there is no cavalry in siege.
So, IMO, to reduce rangest and encourage melee fights (if this is what we want), we should first prevent the supremacy of the cav. No need to nerf anything, just to redesign battle maps so that cav does not always have plains and highways to rampage players on foot. More slopes, trees, water... more obstacles = more chance to survive cav = less need to go range...
A bit back on the topic:I don't agree; apart from horrible random plains maps this isn't what I've observed. On random plains, both teams immediately rush up hills and hide behind siege shields in a big mob, shooting at each other, because otherwise they would indeed be horse food. The maps where I've seen the most domination of the game by ranged fighters have been the very maps where cavalry is weakest such as that one in the walled town with a road leading to a distant castle - don't know the name.
I have a theory that rangefest and roof camping are actually due to cavalry being OP. Well, personally I don't find cav OP but the fact is that cavalry is the worst threat (cav is fast, swift, unpredictable, has double HP (cumulate with the horse), longest range for melee, and it kills anything in one hit...) and that the maps are offering them too easy times. The best way to avoid the harassing cav is to go range and hide on roofs.
Interesting analysis. I think it's partially true. But changing maps won't work. Except if you completly remove cavalry. Maps such as Nord Town are usually not so bad for cav players, because horses used currently have a shitload of maneuvrability. We should change the way horses have to be used in a more risky one for cav players, not allowing them to make a u-turn at full speed. This is the reason we don't see any more 1h cav but only lancers. It's so easy to avoid every attack you don't really need armored horses, just fast and agile ones. This leads to clans like GK dominating many maps, with their correct use of the extreme maneuver of champion sarranid horses.
Prepatch we had way more 1h cav because heavy horses were usable (not doomed by horrible upkeep prices). Now I'd say 65% of horses seen are sarranids, 10% steppe and 25% of others. Read : disbalance among horses. To fix that, I'd suggest we buff charge damage, armor and health points and nerf maneuvrability A LOT (maybe speed too, but not so much), so "charge" horses are used again, and horses users aren't allowed to evade everything by making a u-turn at the last moment.
Furthermore, this would probably lead to more organised cavalry forces, and better chances of opposing cavalry armies avoiding each other (attacking the enemy cav group should'nt be the good tactical move), so less chaos of cav vs cav "battles" where agile horses dominate even more.
A bit back on the topic:
I have a theory that rangefest and roof camping are actually due to cavalry being OP. Well, personally I don't find cav OP but the fact is that cavalry is the worst threat (cav is fast, swift, unpredictable, has double HP (cumulate with the horse), longest range for melee, and it kills anything in one hit...) and that the maps are offering them too easy times. The best way to avoid the harassing cav is to go range and hide on roofs.
In this sense see that, as strange as it sounds, there is less range in sieges than in battles and I think that this is due to the fact that there is no cavalry in siege.
So, IMO, to reduce rangest and encourage melee fights (if this is what we want), we should first prevent the supremacy of the cav. No need to nerf anything, just to redesign battle maps so that cav does not always have plains and highways to rampage players on foot. More slopes, trees, water... more obstacles = more chance to survive cav = less need to go range...
ROFLcopter !
If i was able to laugh my ass off at anything within this mod/forum i recon this is the case when it would happen.
Cav Op.....needs to be prevented......the only thing that needs to be "prevented" is a bunch of non-caring, blind, "i charge cause its fun and i dont give a damn about anything" morons who tend to give horsemen those unbelievable scores for free, all cav needs to do is ride and "collect" their 40+ kills per map. Nerf them (blind, non-caring idiots) and you've successfully nerfed the cavalry.
It's been a long time since I've heard "Cav is OP!!!" :D. Cav is probably the least OP build in the game. An average archer/crossbowman can stop even the most skilled heavy cavalryman in 30 seconds, as can a peasant with a pitchfork. There is no "whiff" mechanic when it comes to polearms vs horses, as even a "whiff" will rear a plated charger. A lvl 8 person with a 500g pike can completely rape a lvl 30 cavalry with 80k worth of gear, all he has to do is pay attention. And I'm not sure where you play, but almost every map in NA features broken terrain, hills, buildings, fences, towers, and rocks to climb on.
I wish we'd go back to having random plains in the NA rotations, since that's where both ranged and polearm users can shine when they work together, while flankers and shield bearers can form a line and advance on the enemy. It'd be nice to actually see tactics in this game (like the day the Hospitaller crew put a random plains map on, it was one of the greatest battles I've seen in months, here in crpg.), so that 2 handers/polearmers can do what they do best (flank engaged fighters, and get 5 kills in 5 seconds), shielders can do what they do best (make a line and push the enemy around like a bulldozer vs a doll house,) ranged can do what they do best (force the enemy to keep their heads down and shields up, protect the team from flankers), and cav can do what they do best (scare the crap out of the enemy, flank, draw people out of formation, and kill people too dumb to move with their team).
Took the words right out of my mouth. Maps are bad, cavalry are not OP, most NA servers have horrible maps, except for NA NYC Acre server which has classic maps like field by river, ruins and guess what, RANDOM MAPS! You don't see tactics till you get a good old random map. More Karma for you.
Roof campers just lack the software to handle cavs and also refuse to deal with it by taking the easy way out.
The thing with archery is that it take a long time to draw your arrow, so if you actually want to shoot once in a while there will be 3-4 second were you will be in tunnel vision mode no matter how good your awareness is. Even if you spot a horse after that you have to draw your weapon out before you can block down that also take time. Add people with 7-11 riding skill and champion sarranid/desert/courser horse and it's really a nightmare being an archer. I guess that's why some people are asking for being able to block with bow, it would help a lot.
I've recently started an archer alt and really it's the hardest class i have tried yet. Even with 8PD i will often land 5-6 arrow for 0 kill an get backstabed by a horsie that i saw coming but too late.
As for archers, remove all arrows apart from normal and give them the heirlooms on the other arrows and gold back. Then make each heirloom on arrows give more damage each time. Not as much as bodkins do, but some.
If anything bump damage up a bit, it takes 4-5 arrows on anyone in mail to put them down, thats alot.
You do know that the 4-5 shots are made from across the map right?? i cant swing my 1h sword from that range and kill my enemy with my regular 3 swings.... you have unlimted range melee dont!! we have to get into the fray while u can stand saftely behind your meat shield of team m8s and seige shields roofs ect ect...
im lmao at you tards thinking its ok to have the same dmg as infantry with your legolas bows......
Your trading dmg for range thats the whole point of being archer is that u dont have to get into melee if everyone was able to deal the same dmg as infantry with their bows no1 would play infantry....
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Artist's rendition :P
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
The changes made with the last patch were a huge step forward.
Archery surely isnt a 100% honorable thing, though I can totally admit that archers now have to work for their kills.
I like that.
Archers with good k/d surely earn respect!
As some ppl correctly posted before:
Its not archery causing the feeling that there is "somehow too many missiles airborne"
and
It is not archery causing the feeling that "uhh one hit, wheres my hp?".
It is simply due to the xbow overload.
1h got competetive, 2 h still are (depends on the user ofc), polearms still are (depends on the user ofc), archers arent easy anymore but i can see more and more good players,
But xbow hybrids are simply idiotic, atleast with the currently possible loadout.