cRPG

cRPG => General Discussion => Topic started by: owens on October 22, 2012, 02:34:25 am

Title: Shields
Post by: owens on October 22, 2012, 02:34:25 am
Everyone used to take a shield into battle.

Archery doesn't need a nerf people need to wisen up.


We all know that archery has lower damage then ever at the moment and lower melle capability.

Title: Re: Shields
Post by: Pollux on October 22, 2012, 02:44:47 am
buff cav archers!
Title: Re: Shields
Post by: duurrr on October 22, 2012, 02:50:01 am
what a retard

try playing with a shield, if you ever get close to an archer he'll just run away, it doesnt change anything it just delays your death
Title: Re: Shields
Post by: Weewum on October 22, 2012, 02:51:04 am
what a retard

try playing with a shield, if you ever get close to an archer he'll just run away, it doesnt change anything it just delays your death
Chances are, if you know how to play with 18 agility, you shouldn't have a problem.
Title: Re: Shields
Post by: Rebelyell on October 22, 2012, 02:54:56 am
Everyone used to take a shield into battle.

Archery doesn't need a nerf people need to wisen up.


We all know that archery has lower damage then ever at the moment and lower melle capability.
I will ask devs to add subscribe option on forum,
I just want to be sure then I will not miss any of your posts

+1
Title: Re: Shields
Post by: Adamar on October 22, 2012, 02:59:50 am
Leoking doesn't have a problem trolling archers with his little buckler.
Title: Re: Shields
Post by: Digglez on October 22, 2012, 03:08:47 am
archers also couldnt penetrate plate without a longbow, whats your fucking point?
Title: Re: Shields
Post by: owens on October 22, 2012, 05:30:46 am
I run 15 agility.

Maybe I am biased as I use only big shields and low weight armour in NA. With 21 str and 0 IF I can take a few arrows and tbh I don't care about melee when I'm pinging.

Thanks for listening
Title: Re: Shields
Post by: Grumpy_Nic on October 22, 2012, 07:31:08 am
Everyone used to take a shield into battle.

Archery doesn't need a nerf people need to wisen up.


We all know that archery has lower damage then ever at the moment and lower melle capability.

As far as I remember (almost) nobody has a problem with damage output but with this ridiculous kiting. Running - ok. Kiting - lol.
Title: Re: Shields
Post by: Joker86 on October 22, 2012, 08:24:21 am
Everyone used to take a shield into battle.

Archery doesn't need a nerf people need to wisen up.


We all know that archery has lower damage then ever at the moment and lower melle capability.

Yes, the solution is obvious. Treat the amount of ranged spam as something completely natural, and offer two choices: play an archer or play a shielder. Forcing people on equipment, reducing choices for builds, great for diversity. It's like the usual answer to complaints about cav, where you hear to bring a pike or a spear. Why don't we rename "infantry" in cRPG to "hoplite" anyway, because according to some people it's the only way to go.

When will people stop telling other people what classes to play or what equipment to bring?

It should still be possible to play WITHOUT shield. To make classes like 2hd/halberd infantry and pikemen viable, for instance. Yes, higher vulnerability against archers is something you need to take into account. But the shifted strengthes and weaknesses should be about equal. So the higher reach, damage, speed and the better animation should be of about the same extend as the higher chance of being shot. If the chance of being shot is unproportionally bigger, blance is broken. All we need to find out is, if the chance is bigger or not. My guess is, it is, that's why your point is not viable.

P.S.: I don't know if you refer to history or olver game versions. If history: no, not everyone used to carry a shield into battle. If to older versions: could be they used to, but shield weight, slot cost, upkeep and all the other factors were completely different at that time, that's why you can't compare.

Sorry for the long post, but I wanted to prevent a few obvious smartass answers before they even happen.
Title: Re: Shields
Post by: owens on October 22, 2012, 11:19:08 am
Imagine entering an ancient battle field lightly armoured and shield less you wouldn't last 5 minutes.

More seriously In some ways it tackles the issue of min maxed builds. I like to play knowing I have made a sacrifice to have an advantage. Whether I throw trees, can melee when other archers cannot, carry a shield or just ride a horse around.

Variety is the aim of the game and if you want to survive being a clone of a generic "super soldier" is not how to do it.

I could catch nine out of ten archers with 5 ath.
str does have its weakness' and kiting is and should be one of them.
Title: Re: Shields
Post by: Haboe on October 22, 2012, 12:09:53 pm
what a retard

try playing with a shield, if you ever get close to an archer he'll just run away, it doesnt change anything it just delays your death

Nuubie.
Title: Re: Shields
Post by: Mlekce on October 22, 2012, 12:17:42 pm
Best thing in crpg is when arrows pass trough your shield.
First it was problem with long and  narrow shields now arrows and bolts pass trough elite cav shield also.
Title: Re: Shields
Post by: Haboe on October 22, 2012, 12:24:09 pm
Best thing in crpg is having your shield almost above your head, having someone trying to shoot your feet, and  forcefield that arrow up into your shield anyway.


EDIT: for those who don't get it, this is sarcasm. Forcefields are yet the most unrealistic part or crpg, though good for game balance (without it, shieldskill and shields would be rather useless)
Title: Re: Shields
Post by: Joker86 on October 22, 2012, 01:40:51 pm
Variety is the aim of the game and if you want to survive being a clone of a generic "super soldier" is not how to do it.

You can't call out variety as aim of the game and in the same topic support the use of shields for everyone. And actualy I don't understand what you mean with the part where clones of generic super soldiers are not meant to survive.

I could catch nine out of ten archers with 5 ath.
str does have its weakness' and kiting is and should be one of them.

I don't believe that 5 ATH + shield + good melee weapon + medium-heavy armour makes you faster than bow + arrows + light armour.

And you are right, speed loss is one sacrifice STR builds should make, but kiting shouldn't be part of it, because at the moment the objective is killing the entire enemy team. Kiting prevents you of doing so, and there is no way it is acceptable that one class can make it impossible for another one to win the round. But that's a game mode problem, not really archer related.
Title: Re: Shields
Post by: Tovi on October 22, 2012, 02:17:45 pm
During Middle Age, most fighters had a shield. Look at all pictures of this period, they all have a shield. 2H heroes were very rare (some HRE schock troops, or berserkers, for exemple).
Archers, in Western Europa,were 30 to 50% of an army. In Eastern Europa and in muslim world... almost 100%
Title: Re: Shields
Post by: Rebelyell on October 22, 2012, 02:18:56 pm
During Middle Age, most fighters had a shield. Look at all pictures of this period, they all have a shield. 2H heroes were very rare (some HRE schock troops, or berserkers, for exemple).
Archers, in Western Europa,were 30 to 50% of an army. In Eastern Europa and in muslim world... almost 100%
at last someone got history lessons
Title: Re: Shields
Post by: Thedric on October 22, 2012, 03:01:31 pm
During Middle Age, most fighters had a shield. Look at all pictures of this period, they all have a shield. 2H heroes were very rare (some HRE schock troops, or berserkers, for exemple).
Archers, in Western Europa,were 30 to 50% of an army. In Eastern Europa and in muslim world... almost 100%

I dont ever remember reading about archers kiting when charged by inf. Besides back then inf was not armored (hence the need for shield) so arrows were effective. Once the troops started to wear armor only crossbows and longbows did any real damage.

I dont know where you got your crazy numbers from, but those of us who learn about history by reading instead of looking at pictures know that of all of western europe only England could muster armies with large numbers of archers. Muslims, although effective HA never had pure armies of archers or HA. It is widely documented that they did occasionally "charge"crusader armies, so they must have had a significant number of inf and cav.

All of this is of no import since crpg is made to be fun, not realistic, and archers are making it less fun for the rest of us.
Title: Re: Shields
Post by: Torost on October 22, 2012, 03:32:34 pm
A straight forward simple solution to all the kiting is to raise the PD requirements for all bows..... thus forcing less agi.
But then again , some will whine about bows hitting too hard.

Bows should be remade anyway IMO .. we dont need 8 bows where only 3 of them are usable.(Horn bow,Yumi and Rusbow)
The idea of marginally increasing all the stats is no good.
Should make bows with diffrent traits.
The accurate one - The hard hitting one - The cheap one - The fast one and so on.

Bring back the Warbow! PD10!
Title: Re: Shields
Post by: Tore on October 22, 2012, 03:49:53 pm
Free 10PD 2012
Title: Re: Shields
Post by: Siberian_Wolf on October 22, 2012, 04:00:08 pm
A straight forward simple solution to all the kiting is to raise the PD requirements for all bows..... thus forcing less agi.
But then again , some will whine about bows hitting too hard.

Bows should be remade anyway IMO .. we dont need 8 bows where only 3 of them are usable.(Horn bow,Yumi and Rusbow)

We don't need 200 melee weapons when only 30 of them are usable, shut up with that faulty logic lol.
Title: Re: Shields
Post by: OpenPalm on October 22, 2012, 05:51:50 pm
A straight forward simple solution to all the kiting is to raise the PD requirements for all bows..... thus forcing less agi.
But then again , some will whine about bows hitting too hard.

Bows should be remade anyway IMO .. we dont need 8 bows where only 3 of them are usable.(Horn bow,Yumi and Rusbow)
The idea of marginally increasing all the stats is no good.
Should make bows with diffrent traits.
The accurate one - The hard hitting one - The cheap one - The fast one and so on.

Bring back the Warbow! PD10!

lol
Title: Re: Shields
Post by: Kafein on October 22, 2012, 06:27:32 pm
For having played a lot both with and without shield, it doesn't change anything. As a melee char, you won't kill archers.

That is, unless you have a greater top speed, acceleration, turning angle, have a shield and there are no other ranged enemies that can shoot you.

So yeah, versus one archer, leoking will win.
Title: Re: Shields
Post by: Tovi on October 22, 2012, 08:30:53 pm
With a shield, an archer is not a real threat, and you don't need to chase him.
Title: Re: Shields
Post by: Kafein on October 22, 2012, 08:34:11 pm
With a shield, an archer is not a real threat, and you don't need to chase him.

Well of course, I will wait until he dies of a cerebral-vascular accident. Afterall, in battle you are not forced to kill everybody in the enemy team.
Title: Re: Shields
Post by: Adamar on October 22, 2012, 08:37:27 pm
If you can't chase him, make a ballanced build, wait for the flags, wait until he runs out of arrows, or until he decides he can't kill you without a melee aproach.

But that's boring right?
Title: Re: Shields
Post by: Hunter_the_Honourable on October 22, 2012, 08:42:39 pm
Even if you wait for flags, people think its smart to poll kick you for not chasing him  :?
Title: Re: Shields
Post by: Kafein on October 22, 2012, 08:55:59 pm
If you can't chase him, make a ballanced build, wait for the flags, wait until he runs out of arrows, or until he decides he can't kill you without a melee aproach.

But that's boring right?

Not only is that boring, but that's assuming your shield doesn't break and that there's only one archer and one shielder. If there are 2 archers and 2 shielders, if the archers have a combined IQ superior to that of an amoeba, the shielders die.

Btw, in this conversation you are implictly saying shielders aren't meant to kill archers. The natural question is, what classes are meant to kill archers ?


(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Shields
Post by: Adamar on October 22, 2012, 09:06:43 pm
No, Im suggesting shields can stop arrows, which helps you survive the process of killing an archer. You still need decent athlectics and a notion of timing to kill an archer or more.
Title: Re: Shields
Post by: Kafein on October 22, 2012, 09:17:09 pm
No, Im suggesting shields can stop arrows, which helps you survive the prcess of killing an archer. You still need decent athlectics and a notion of timing to kill an archer or more.

Well, I got 6 athletics, I don't even bother chasing archers, because the "process" of killing one can pretty much take the whole round if he likes running and on top of that is it very dangerous. Actually much more dangerous than fighting melee, since I won't be subject to as much flanking projectiles and cav, or faster melee catching up on me if I stay closer to melee fights.

Also, I'd like you to formulate precisely what do you mean by "a notion of timing".

A shield is only part of what is needed to be called an archer counter. The class that would act as an archer counter as well as archers act as a shieldless melee counter would need to have the speed of horses with the turning ability of humans, and an integral shield.
Title: Re: Shields
Post by: Adamar on October 22, 2012, 09:32:04 pm
Also, I'd like you to formulate precisely what do you mean by "a notion of timing".

Raising a shield is way faster than pulling a bow and aiming. You also need to time your attack properly, so as to not get shot in the face or missing the hit and letting the archer escape. And knowing when to chase an archer and when not is also important.

I dont like kiting either though, but you people keep aproaching this issue the wrong way. As I understand, kiting became a problem when the devs forced pure builds with the slot system and stuff, so I think that making melee archers good again would be the best alternative.
Title: Re: Shields
Post by: HarryCrumb on October 22, 2012, 09:33:26 pm
You're 21/15 and have 0 IF as a shielder? What is your build?!
Title: Re: Shields
Post by: Tovi on October 22, 2012, 09:47:21 pm
As a thrower (4 ath), I can kill archers, cav, 2h, poles etc.

So ?
Title: Re: Shields
Post by: Dooz on October 22, 2012, 09:55:38 pm
He truly is, BEASTMASTER.
Title: Re: Shields
Post by: Protemus on October 22, 2012, 10:10:20 pm
Faith is my shield !

http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/581224cosplay32.jpg

me in real life
Title: Re: Shields
Post by: owens on October 22, 2012, 11:19:50 pm
It is a roman build I made for fun. Turned out it is really good if a bit fragile.

21/15

7 PS
7 PT
0 IF
5 ATH
5 WM
5 Shield Skill

120 throwing
99 1H


I don't see archers as a threat and they are only a threat if you lose big numbers in melee. As your opponents melee is out numbered if you lose you deserved it. Even on my 24/13 level 27 polearm main (which I hate), Archers are not ever foremost in my thoughts.
Title: Re: Shields
Post by: Tovi on October 23, 2012, 02:41:02 pm
The trick, when you are a thrower, is to approach without showing that you have a throwing weapon (sheathed or anything). So, the archer think he has time to shoot at you and no flee.When you are close enough and/or when he turn his back, you shoot him.
Like I say, archers are not a problem.
HA or cav lancer often die when they charge at me (ok,  I die in 10% of cases), or at least their horse.

The problem is not cavalry or archers, the problem is 50% of player are 2h/pole, slow, without protection or any teamplay.
I often see a 2h's running faster than me as I'm trying to protect them with my shield.
Title: Re: Shields
Post by: Angantyr on October 23, 2012, 02:49:11 pm
Make shield utilization as interesting/challenging mechanics-wise as manual blocking and I might be tempted to go shielder like I was forced to back in Native.
Title: Re: Shields
Post by: ThePoopy on October 23, 2012, 04:15:35 pm
Title: Re: Shields
Post by: Thedric on October 23, 2012, 06:42:20 pm
I just had an archer-chasing experience as a shielder on EU1. Basically I was chasing an archer and was catching up, then when i got close he jumed, turned around and fired an arrow at me, forcing me to raise my shield, thus slowing me down. Now here comes the fun part: before I could drop shield and commence attack he turned around and ran out of my range (I had a nordic warsword, so decent range) and I was swinging at air.

This went on for ~20 seconds, it got to a point where he ran out of arrows and had to pick up the ones on the ground. He did it all while I was chasing him. In the end one of his jump-turn-fire attacks hit me in the face and i died.  :cry:

He then went on to do the same thing to a couple other ppl before getting cornered by superior numbers.

So nowadays when going shielder you need to chose if you want to be able to catch archers OR be able to hold your own in an inf fight. There is apparently no middle ground.
Title: Re: Shields
Post by: Sandersson Jankins on October 24, 2012, 01:03:20 am
I'm not familiar with archer builds; never even considered playing one and likely never will. Would a 12/27 build with 9 shield skill and 9 ath be able to catch most archers, or would I need to go something like 9/30? I would either take a fast blunt weapon like a flanged mace, or a scottish sword. Maybe even long dagger if I feel like being crazy.
Title: Re: Shields
Post by: rustyspoon on October 24, 2012, 02:00:27 am
I'm not familiar with archer builds; never even considered playing one and likely never will. Would a 12/27 build with 9 shield skill and 9 ath be able to catch most archers, or would I need to go something like 9/30? I would either take a fast blunt weapon like a flanged mace, or a scottish sword. Maybe even long dagger if I feel like being crazy.

With 7 athletics and a gambeson, it's a rare archer I can't catch. 9 would be no problem.
Title: Re: Shields
Post by: Adamar on October 24, 2012, 04:12:31 am
Oops didn't mean to vote