cRPG
cRPG => Suggestions Corner => Topic started by: Joker86 on August 23, 2012, 03:48:36 pm
-
As some of you may have noticed, we already have several topics in the general discussion and the suggestion corner which are about cav+archers vs. infantry, one of the oldest topics in cRPG at all. Since the beginning of the game cavalry and archers made the life of many infantry players really hard and often demotivating, at least to a wider extend than vice versa (you don't see many archers or cavalry complain about infantry).
The reasons for this are manifold, but one of the most important (in my eyes) is the missing teamplay of infantry players. Most infantry players, even the very skilled ones, simply rush towards the closest targets to engage them, and they don't give a fuck about what the rest of the team does, which results in a lot of single headless rambo-lemmings, and single headless targets are the easiest prey for archers and cavalry. But as you can't change the players you must change the system. So here are my suggestions. Some of them can even get combined, and if someone posts another suggestion I will edit it here into my OP, so that we can have all suggestions together in one post.
1. Implement a commander system
Make a system where players follow the orders of a commander. The commander needs to be elected automatically, a player vote won't work. Next to this every player must have the system enabled by default when he enters the server, and there should be some little rewards for carrying out orders, at least in the period after implementing the system. When (if at all) the community changed its behaviour and plays the game more consciously, things can get changed. Actually this solution would aim to "change the players". The idea is to make infantry play together, and thus buff each other by complementing their abilities and nullifying their weaknesses.
2. Add an area buff to certain classes.
Make certain infantry classes grant buffs to other infantry classes, the best way would be that classes, which cover a weakness (e.g. shielders which cover 2hd players from projectiles) grant a buff which is most useful for the particular player (for 2hd that could be PS, for example). The bonus for several players should be cumulative, to a certain maximum, which shouldn't be too high. 2 or 3 points, I would say. This is another try to make infantry not only stick together, but also encourage players to look for classes which provide an effective combination with their own class. This buff should only apply FROM infantry players TO infantry players. If you think a skill buff would be too much, you could also think about a gold or XP buff. Or make it basing on kills the OTHER players around make. WHich would encourage players more to support each other, instead of seeing the others only as extras to your own one-man-show.
3. Change battle mode.
The main strength of infantry is conquering and holding terrain. With a battle mode where not killing but conquering and holding flags would be the goal, infantry would gain importance, and reward calculation could become easier. For example infantry could be rewarded most for being close to the flag and less for killing, while archers are rewarded more for killing and less for staying next to the flag.
4. Give infantry extra skills.
This suggestion is rather extreme. You can click a button on your character screen, which is called something like "Infantry training". Once pressed (and confirmed!) the way you can spend skills is changed. This change can't be made undone unless you retire or respec. The skills "Power Draw", "Power Throw", "Horse Archery" and "Riding" get locked or limited to a very low value (2 or 3 at the most). Already spent skill points get refunded, of course (only of the locked skills. This shouldn't be a cheap way to respec!). Same applies to the corresponding proficiencies like "Crossbows", "Bows" and "Throwing Weapons". Simultaneously you need only two governing attribute points to level the following skills: "Power Strike" "Athletics" "Iron Flesh" and "Shield". (You need to find a solution to prevent builds with unbreakable shields which can still hit pretty hard, though). Additionally the item weight will always be reduced by a certain percentage, something like 30-50%. This would make infantry the absolute kings of ground combat, and with the higher IF and ATH values they should be more difficult to kill.
Edit: a less extreme version of this suggestion would be that you have to choose either STR or AGI, and depending on your choice IF and PS or ATH and Shield become sheaper, the other two remain the same.
5. Rework armours
Currently, top tier armour is a rather bad choice. That's why I would suggest to make the armour values climb more exponentially to the top tier end of the list, while simultaneously lowering upkeep a bit. In exchange you can raise the item weight a bit. That way really heavy infantry could be viable again, and if wearing plate items armour values from 70 over 80 to perhaps close to 90 (with loomed items) could be reached. That way you could have heavy shock infantry at the front of your team, covering the rest against enemy arrows, even without shield. (Which would also, as beneficial effect, add a little bit of realism)
Tell me what you think about the suggestions, which you like or dislike, or whether you have own suggestions. Keep in mind that although the effects are similar, I want to focus on improving infantry, not making the other classes less effective. cRPG had enough nerfs, it's like the old story of a wobbling chair with heavily sawn of legs, because every time you saw off one another one has the wrong length. It's time to stop the sawing and put something under the shortest leg.
If we have enough suggestions, we can even start a poll.
-
Out of my stomach I'd say only the last point could be promising. Heavy Infantry should pack a punch but while being slow and barely touchable by archers, except arbalests. Like knockdown for mace, give arbalests something like "Plate penetration".
That is just after a quick read w/o giving it much thought. Just like the idea for a new class called "Heavy Inf" as described above. Slow but hard hitting, plate armor. Something that really needs to be ganked or shoot by "plate penetrating range" (Arbalest only). Sounds like a nice addition... Requirement for certain Plate armor could be raised to 27 strength or something to force low agi/ath and high ps/if.
-
No more fucking magic area bonuses please.
And also dont make melee for archers even harder, they`ll just run more.
And dont buff armor, please no, dun want old all tincan times back.
-
No more fucking magic area bonuses please.
And also dont make melee for archers even harder, they`ll just run more.
And dont buff armor, please no, dun want old all tincan times back.
Well, the magic bonuses are not perfect, and I don't like them too. But you need something to motivate people to play together, instead of just next to each other. ANd if you don't like the magic attribute bonuses, we can still have the option of additional money or experience, because those two have always been earned "magically" :wink:
Concerning the armours: it's not like suddenly everybody would be running around with them. Their weight gets increased, so people should become noticeably slower, and they would still have about 2k upkeep, which is a lot. Yes, the amount of tincans will raise, but at the moment we have almost NO tincans, so I see no problem there.
I am not a fan of the "make archers better in melee", because this makes them to infantry which can also engage on range, which is absolutely ridiculous. I think if a dedicated archer and a dedicated infantryman encounter each other in melee, the infantryman should have severe advantages, because on range infantry has 0 chances to kill the archer. Things have to stay fair.
-
Well, the magic bonuses are not perfect, and I don't like them too. But you need something to motivate people to play together, instead of just next to each other. ANd if you don't like the magic attribute bonuses, we can still have the option of additional money or experience, because those two have always been earned "magically" :wink:
Concerning the armours: it's not like suddenly everybody would be running around with them. Their weight gets increased, so people should become noticeably slower, and they would still have about 2k upkeep, which is a lot. Yes, the amount of tincans will raise, but at the moment we have almost NO tincans, so I see no problem there.
I am not a fan of the "make archers better in melee", because this makes them to infantry which can also engage on range, which is absolutely ridiculous. I think if a dedicated archer and a dedicated infantryman encounter each other in melee, the infantryman should have severe advantages, because on range infantry has 0 chances to kill the archer. Things have to stay fair.
... not get made worse for archers.
-
I think your first point is the only valid one. I don't think infantry need a buff. I feel just fine when I'm on the ground as my 18/18 hybrid cav/infantry build. Even when I drop my shield and only run with a polearm.
The game seems balanced very well between classes, to me. Every class has strengths, and every class has weaknesses. The goal should be to expose your enemies weaknesses to your strengths. If your weaknesses are being exploited, that doesn't mean your class needs a buff, it means you're doing something wrong.
Fix your playstyle, don't ask for nerfs and buffs.
-
How about we just up the horizontal turn speed radius up to 180 degrees frontal (at least overheads) and improve melee weapon speed like has already been planned.
That and it'd be nice to see stationary type move that could stop horses in their tracks with weapons over a certain length. Horses already have an extremely unfair advantage. Fastest speed, longest melee weapon reach 95% of the time, instant kill moves (couching), etc..
The horses themselves don't suffer any realistic effects from getting spooked in combat, collision damage from hitting trees/buildings at full speed, etc...
yet somehow they are still rewarded with an unblockable instant-kill move
-
I'm not a big fan of nerfs and buffs, but as a cavalry lancer I would totally consent to them re-working blocking from horse back. Especially without a shield. Your lance shouldn't be a forcefield to protect your horse from taking damage.
And although I do agree that horses in the middle ages were more powerful in battle (biting, kicking, and knocking people unconscious when they ran into you, or possibly even killing you outright if it hit you in the right spots), they were also more vulnerable. They were bred to be controlled by the rider, but they still had minds of their own. They would spook if shot with an arrow (reports of horses bucking riders after one shot, or even turning and running uncontrollably back through their own ranks of infantry).
The games certainly far from real world realism, and I don't think it ever could hope to achieve that. So you just have to make do with what we have. If you want to implement changes to make cavalry more realistic, you'd have to counter it with making changes to every class to be more realistic, since they are all affected by each other's play styles, strengths, and weaknesses.
-
I'm not a big fan of nerfs and buffs, but as a cavalry lancer I would totally consent to them re-working blocking from horse back. Especially without a shield. Your lance shouldn't be a forcefield to protect your horse from taking damage.
And although I do agree that horses in the middle ages were more powerful in battle (biting, kicking, and knocking people unconscious when they ran into you, or possibly even killing you outright if it hit you in the right spots), they were also more vulnerable. They were bred to be controlled by the rider, but they still had minds of their own. They would spook if shot with an arrow (reports of horses bucking riders after one shot, or even turning and running uncontrollably back through their own ranks of infantry).
The games certainly far from real world realism, and I don't think it ever could hope to achieve that. So you just have to make do with what we have. If you want to implement changes to make cavalry more realistic, you'd have to counter it with making changes to every class to be more realistic, since they are all affected by each other's play styles, strengths, and weaknesses.
This disparity of realism between cav riders and every other class in the game probably couldn't be any further distanced at this point.
They really aren't even horses the way they play. They are armored medium speed motorcycles that have seatbelts and air bags.
-
This disparity of realism between cav riders and every other class in the game probably couldn't be any further distanced at this point.
They really aren't even horses the way they play. They are armored medium speed motorcycles that have seatbelts and air bags.
They're also all-terrain and can climb ladders and roll people people over on roofs like it ain't no thang.
-
I agree with 1, 2 and 3 points - these are great and generally obvious ideas(like commander system), but not with 4 - because this makes infantry some uber-class; and not with 5 - because armour overhaul should look differently and adding weight would make eg. Flambergers useless. Plate armours(those full but half and black armours too) need a buff against projectiles, sword-slash and weak pierce weapons, but other heavy armours seem to be ok, overall.
-
Why does infantry need a buff. Explain that first.
-
Implement skill for armor, as requirement only, without any bonuses. Looks like infantry have too many free skillpoints.
-
Implement skill for armor, as requirement only, without any bonuses. Looks like infantry have too many free skillpoints.
if that skill would decrease greatly WPF penalty and a bit movement speed penalty from armour weight - why not? It'd be smth like shield skill, not bad.
-
No more fucking magic area bonuses please.
And also dont make melee for archers even harder, they`ll just run more.
And dont buff armor, please no, dun want old all tincan times back.
There never was a ''all tincan time''
-
There never was a ''all tincan time''
Even alot of archers were tincans (okay, Transitional and stuff, not bright steel)
in my early days in this mod, thats what I`m refering too.
-
Why does infantry need a buff. Explain that first.
As some of you may have noticed, we already have several topics in the general discussion and the suggestion corner which are about cav+archers vs. infantry, one of the oldest topics in cRPG at all. Since the beginning of the game cavalry and archers made the life of many infantry players really hard and often demotivating, at least to a wider extend than vice versa (you don't see many archers or cavalry complain about infantry).
-
I don't complain about any classes or play styles. Well except for those fuckers who leech for weeks or months (or their whole career) with gear that costs less than 300 gold total.
-
Even alot of archers were tincans (okay, Transitional and stuff, not bright steel)
in my early days in this mod, thats what I`m refering too.
That was a myth, there was far more light armor and medium armored peopel back then, the peak of plate was actually when the new money system was introduced, which made plate armor easy to get, but then everyone realised it was shitty and now its now.
-
That was a myth, there was far more light armor and medium armored peopel back then, the peak of plate was actually when the new money system was introduced, which made plate armor easy to get, but then everyone realised it was shitty and now its now.
Well, I just remember alot of ppl from Siege wearin plate, may be due to the fact that light armored ppl
are not that impressive.
At least I remember a squad of plate archers and guys like Phyrex, Tormen or TheFinn, Otec and stuff.
(Hitted Otec 7 Times from the back with my 27 str Great Maul, after that he turned around and onehitted me (9 if, Mamluk Mail) :D
Those were the days of the mighty guys in plate, nowadays it`s more a gimmick and that what it`s supposed to be imo.
-
Those were the days of the mighty guys in plate, nowadays it`s more a gimmick and that what it`s supposed to be imo.
Due to my personal taste I have to disagree. It's still a medieval game, and armour should matter. You need bad light and good heavy armour, so that the player needs to make a choice. Making choices makes character building interesting. Having bad light and bad heavy armour leaves you no choice, and thus the game becomes less entertaining. Let alone the fact that heavily armoured "tanks" can add to the game, if balanced properly.
-
What about a standard bearer system? Someone who guides the footmen thanks to his banner and give some bonus to who stand near him. Maybe gibe the possibility to carry a banner only to 1Hers without shield, to encoourage this sub-used class.
I like your first point, joker.
-
Even alot of archers were tincans (okay, Transitional and stuff, not bright steel)
in my early days in this mod, thats what I`m refering too.
I agree with this dude. i played this Mod since the beginning, and even I, who barely played/play had a full Milanese and Elegant poleaxe. That was the day when Tincans would just run into a crowd of people (since cash and xp were proximity to kill programed) and swing wildly with poleaxe or flammy and take out 3-4 guys before being put down.
Oh yea, and lets not forget Lady Gagas war elephant of doom. you dont see that anymore either, she was the epidemy of the tincan era
i dont think we want to go back to the era where 1 player can take out half of the other team just based off of equipment.
-
What people forget when complaining about those tincan monsters which were almost unkillable is, that at that time the players a) had a higher max level. Some were even 42 or something like that, if I remember correctly, which means they had much higher STR values (giving them more survivability) or more AGI (making them faster and allowing them to take down more enemies before dying), and b) the game itself was faster and deadlier. You had a higher WPF and the weapons were faster, with lower skill requirements for items. If you raise the STR requirement of the buffed plate armours you will indeed have tough enemies, but their swings will be that slow, instead of parrying them you can simply walk backwards out of reach... after you saw they released the swing.
-
You are talking about doing choices. You are doing something wrong.
Again:
Why does infantry need a buff. Explain that first.
Give me 1 good reason. Infantry has always and will always be the most important and actually best "class", not only due to several build/ weapon choices.
-
I agree that melee infantry has, and will always be, the most important class in the game. They change the tide of the battle. The term infantry is not the same as one person with a melee weapon trying to be rambo.
Cavalry can't touch a group of infantry who have spearmen to keep cavalry at bay. Archers can't shoot through shield walls. Cavalry can't slaughter enemy infantry as fast or as efficiently as a coordinated group of footmen. Archers are weak if they are the focus of the enemy team (rather than being able to shoot at people who are distracted).
-
1. I'm all for it, but I really doubt it will change anything. Still worth a shot though.
2. I'm conflicted about this. On the one hand, it would be really great for teamwork and would very much help different classes function differently. But on the other hand it just doesn't really fit in with the game's mechanics. However I would be for the addition of "special" abilities being given for the support classes. Things kind of like this: http://forum.meleegaming.com/suggestions-corner/nudge-and-general-off-hand-fun/msg583456/#msg583456 (http://forum.meleegaming.com/suggestions-corner/nudge-and-general-off-hand-fun/msg583456/#msg583456)
Also in general, it would be nice to see people have more reasons for playing support classes. Pikes and LS are more or less OK (though I wouldn't be opposed to a little buff :P), but primarily shielders have had a huge portion of their abilities stripped away. Especially in regards to their ability to "counter" archers. Right now, they not only don't counter archers, but they have little better defense against them than a wiggle dancing 2Her.
Essentially I'd like to see more classes get abilities (similar to the off-hand stuff paul talks about in that link) that are basically useless in 1v1, but can help your buddy(s) get hits in.
In particular I think the board shields could use some work. They SHOULD be (imo) the perfect support shield. Very slow, so they can't really duel well, but very very tough, and allow even a low shield skill shielder to block 100% of arrows coming in from at least a 90 degree arc in front of him (possibly even 120 degrees). Something like this http://forum.meleegaming.com/suggestions-corner/dropping-board-shield-creates-set-up-pavise/msg554256/#msg554256 (http://forum.meleegaming.com/suggestions-corner/dropping-board-shield-creates-set-up-pavise/msg554256/#msg554256) would also be fantastic.
3. OH GOD PLEASE YES. Battle is atrocious with no defined goals other than "kill the enemy". This is another way of telling everyone "Sit around and camp the whole map if you want to win." It also is one of the main reasons infantry get their asses handed to them regularly in battle in horrible ways. Infantry are the best possible class for holding and taking key positions, not for the kiting ranged and sneaky cav fest that is battle.
4. I'm not really sure about this, as I like the idea of hybrids. However, I do agree that the skill system is desperately in need of an overhaul.
5. YES. Right now, heavy armor gives and medium armor are almost identical, save a little bit of armor and weight difference. Heavy infantry performs basically the exact role that medium and light infantry do with the current system. THIS SHOULD NOT BE THE CASE. I would be 100% for your suggestion here. Heavy armor, medium armor, and light armor should all fill different roles. Honestly I don't think they should even cost anything different, but rather they should have positives and negatives for each, such that they're equal.
-
Thanks for your support!
Concerning point 4: Hybrids have, similar to cav and archers, the advantage of flexibility, though it's not that big like the pure builds. The problem infantry has is, as we have stated, the game mode, where killing is the goal, and both cavalry and archers are flexible enough to make killing reaching them in melee really difficult. So basically we can say that being pure melee on foot is UP. What use do you have of your superior melee powers, when you don't get in a situation to use them? Hybrids don't need that buff, because they are hybrids and don't lack flexibility that much.
-
if that skill would decrease greatly WPF penalty and a bit movement speed penalty from armour weight - why not? It'd be smth like shield skill, not bad.
No. This skill must make possible to wear armor, nothing more. Bonus from armor itself is huge enough to justify skillpoints sink. 95% of our «heroes» is useless without their full armor loompacks.
-
No. This skill must make possible to wear armor, nothing more. Bonus from armor itself is huge enough to justify skillpoints sink. 95% of our «heroes» is useless without their full armor loompacks.
then I can't really see a point for adding that skill, because it'd depend on STR, so it'd only "steal" skill points, so we would have even less guys wearing havey armour and probably more shielders. And I don't like shielders.
-
No. This skill must make possible to wear armor, nothing more. Bonus from armor itself is huge enough to justify skillpoints sink. 95% of our «heroes» is useless without their full armor loompacks.
Ah ah ah, yeah right.
-
What if we just increased everyones running speed and buffed armour values on mid tier and heavy armour.
-
buff lolstab
-
^think about your statement.
Anyway i think that the classes are not super unbalanced except that shields could do with a weight reduction or speed increase. I find them much slower than manual blocking and obscuring to my vision. I don't think shield users should be punished for using the big heavy board shields as they were a staple in warfare and should be the ultimate anti-ranged solution.
I think that the only people without shields should be anti cav and\or very well armoured.
-
IMHO best way to buff infantry is to rework the maps. Majority of the maps are just too open, and there's no way to flank the archers without being seen and shot miles away. Ie city maps offer much better opportunities to all kind of infantry (unless they're sad one-street oval race maps), compared to the popular hilly open fields.
-
Why did this thread fall down to 2nd page. This is not acceptable. Add Objectives to maps so infantry can do what Joker said: Hold territory.
Do it. Now. Infantry has to have a reason for being infantry other than upkeep.
-
make upkeep 1 gold for infantry!
-
In my opinion, the armor system could use an insane overhaul. I own the "best" armor in the game, and I find myself wearing chainmail, because I take the same amount of damage wearing that as I do with the full plate armor. I used to use a shield, but I stopped, since the way 2hd can just beast mode the poor shielder, so I'd also support a buff on shields. I completely agree with everyone who said to make heavy armor give way more armor, but be way heavier. If I'm wearing plates of steel, it SHOULD be able to stop an arrow or two. And most weapons SHOULD bounce off, except for like picks and mauls, weapons designed to smash through armor. Although, I'd also support an increase in cost to said heavy armors, to make them harder to get(if you just sell 1 loom point, you're practically set up with enough money forever). I have always, and always mostly will play an infantry, and I'd love for there to be some balance. Now as for battle objectives, I like this idea, and I think it would be awesome(maybe even have like a king of the hill game mode), but I feel as if the game would still mostly end with one side killing off the other side in a mad rush of a spawn, but hey, its worth a shot. The commander system I dont see working, but it would be cool if it did. Just my two cents.
-
IMHO best way to buff infantry is to rework the maps. Majority of the maps are just too open, and there's no way to flank the archers without being seen and shot miles away. Ie city maps offer much better opportunities to all kind of infantry (unless they're sad one-street oval race maps), compared to the popular hilly open fields.
The open maps are the only maps where infantry uses tactics and teamwork, the only maps where they are fighting relatively close together. The majority of maps have man-made structures in them already. Only a few maps are actually open fields, out of the whole rotation.
-
Buff... infantry?
Lol wut?
-
Buff... infantry?
Lol wut?
To buff means to make something stronger/better.
Infantry is the comprehending term for fighters which fight on foot. In the context of cRPG infantry means all fighters who fight on foot and only in melee. Fighters using bows are called archers, using other ranged weapons like crossbows or throwing weapons are called ranged fighters or missile troops, although they are often also put under the term of archers, and last but not least fighters riding on horses are called cavalry.
-
Bump.
Battle needs some change. And infantry on battle servers need some goal. Teamplay would be the solution... but yeah... not half the people want to sit infornt of a micro on teamspeak (me included) . so this wont work easy.
If the flag (battalion flag) would give some areabonus to the group ... like +10 armor, or slow health gain, or something like that, maybe it would get more popular again.
Balancing is not my thing. For me it seems fine as it is - but hell ... if infantry doesnt work together its near useless.
I'd add as proposal to make some smaller battleservers again, with some of the old maps (two towers, canyonlabyrinth, woods-ropebriges and river style, etc).