cRPG

cRPG => Suggestions Corner => Game Balance Discussion => Topic started by: OttomanSniper on February 17, 2013, 06:54:30 am

Title: Is archery nerfs fair? (Updated 03.05.2013)
Post by: OttomanSniper on February 17, 2013, 06:54:30 am
Arhery Nerf List From Game Start:
But two handers still crying like premature.

Summary: ARCHERY IS TOO HARD, TOO EXPENSIVE AND NOT FUNNY

Thanks for read.
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair?
Post by: Gmnotutoo on February 17, 2013, 07:00:48 am
No it isn't fair, but a lot of melee people are going to disagree with you just because they hate archers.
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair?
Post by: FrugFrug on February 17, 2013, 07:01:01 am
I personally think Archery is balanced right now. Now all we need is a nerf to 2h stab.

And before I get called melee elitist: I've got a level 31 Short Bow archer alt that I frequently do good with. (good meaning 1-5th place.)
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair?
Post by: Malaclypse on February 17, 2013, 07:11:22 am
  • Slot system was introduced (Its bad only for ranged players

Fibs.
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair?
Post by: XyNox on February 17, 2013, 07:24:16 am
I know its been said a thousand times and this thread will be flooded shortly by handicapped children, claiming that archery is still OP but hell, the current state of archery is simply bullshit.

As of now I see little to no reason to play archer at all. Arrows are so damn slow, hitting someone who is aware that you are shooting him is more luck than ever. Hornbows dont kill people anymore, they are just for staggering enemies in a duel. Even I survive headshots from fully loomed bow and bodkins now with a 55 hp build. Archers still have no mobility and cant dodge horses if they are holding a bow in their hands.

Although I have more of a pure archer build I tend to walk around with GLA + hornbow recently because, even with 1 WPF, getting kills with a long melee weapon is SO FUCKING EASY compared to shooting people with a bow.

If you wanna be a ranged unit just grab a Crossbow ( like everyone seems to be doing these days ) and you have more damage, more accuracy, more missile speed and the luxury of not having to invest skillpoints as a requirement. You may have to reload but its not like cover is something scarce on the battlefield.

Rageball doesnt work either for archers anymore because of the weight nerf.

I understand the intentions behind the weight nerf and I do not at all miss the kiting aspect of archery but still I think this could also have been achieved with a mechanic a bit less retarded. What I dont understand though, instead giving some compensation for the mobility nerf, archers get another ranged nerf by nerfing missile speed and damage ??

This has been brought up so many times now. Long time archers like Bagge quit archery. I see more and more non-archer classes stating that the archery nerfs were too much. I still dont know what is wrong with the devs on this matter. I can in no way imagine that there is a dev who plays archer on a regular basis. Even Paul stated several times that archery is "on an all time low" but still nothing is done there.
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair?
Post by: OttomanSniper on February 17, 2013, 07:54:57 am
I say devs too many times "i want free respec after big nerfs" but they dont give free respec. im lvl  34 (164,979,711 xp) now and they cant understand it. If can i leave archery i will make cav build. i dont have polarm wp but i can play good than archery this class.

ARCHERY IS TOO HARD, TOO EXPENSIVE AND NOT FUNNY
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair?
Post by: the real god emperor on February 17, 2013, 07:59:45 am
As a cavalry, i can honestly say, archery is really nerfed, and archery should ve been buffed, because no horse can move after getting shotted from head. Buff archers! (But remove kiting)
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair?
Post by: OttomanSniper on February 17, 2013, 08:27:33 am
because no horse can move after getting shotted from head.

what ????

I need 2 hs for killing stumpter. 8PD and all equip+3
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair?
Post by: Armycook_of_KSantiago on February 17, 2013, 08:57:53 am
what ????

I need 2 hs for killing stumpter. 8PD and all equip+3

he meant that's the way it should be, not what it is like in game now.
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair?
Post by: OttomanSniper on February 17, 2013, 09:54:18 am
I've got a level 31 Short Bow archer alt that I frequently do good with. (good meaning 1-5th place.)

"Short Bow" ? Are u sure? My Rus Bow +3 shots bounce on tincans some time. (8PD)
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair?
Post by: Tzar on February 17, 2013, 10:38:14 am
Archery only just reached a somewhat balanced state.

Why dont you guys just adapt :?: I see plenty of good archers that does really REALLY well!

Try getting used to not being able to run n shoot. Get a 1slot weapon like Tenne.


Also you really moan and bitch in your post. You did try to make a few points , but they got drowned in self biased piece of shit text..


PS: Melee have gotten just as many nerfs as archery.. You really make it sound like archery is something special that keeps getting stomped upon..
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair?
Post by: Patoson on February 17, 2013, 11:14:55 am
Archers were nerfed? Sure, but now the majority of players are archers so that kinda compensates.  :P
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair?
Post by: XyNox on February 17, 2013, 11:24:29 am
I dont actually expect a useful retort but lets try anyway:

Why dont you guys just adapt :?: I see plenty of good archers that does really REALLY well!

Who are these archers that do REALLY well tzar and when/where do they play ? What is your definition of REALLY well ?

Try getting used to not being able to run n shoot. Get a 1slot weapon like Tenne.

You missed the point, its not about kiting. How does getting a 1slot weapon fix archery ? Getting a 1slot weapon is at most a way to avoid using your bow. When a dedicated archer build is forced to use a melee weapon over the bow because melee outperforms archery to such an extent, then something is very wrong.

Also you really moan and bitch in your post. You did try to make a few points , but they got drowned in self biased piece of shit text..

How is he moaning and bitching ? How is he biased ? It is a list of nerfs that have been applyed to archery. Whether the list is correct is another thing to discuss.

PS: Melee have gotten just as many nerfs as archery.. You really make it sound like archery is something special that keeps getting stomped upon..

No, melees didnt get as many nerfs. Melee is still 100 % controllable. There are no random dice which decide whether you hit or not. There is no weightnerf that makes you a sitting duck when cav looks at you wrong. Melees also get their 2 or 3 slot weapon and thats all they need.

I would be delighted if I actually got at least a few of these questions answered.
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair?
Post by: Zlisch_The_Butcher on February 17, 2013, 11:37:01 am
You missed the point, its not about kiting. How does getting a 1slot weapon fix archery ?
You should have to use a freaking melee weapon once you finally get caught, kiting is a horrible 'feature'.

And archery is UP, however it being buffed would be horrible.
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair?
Post by: XyNox on February 17, 2013, 11:54:37 am
You should have to use a freaking melee weapon once you finally get caught, kiting is a horrible 'feature'.

And archery is UP, however it being buffed would be horrible.

You got me wrong there. Of course you should carry a melee weapon as a backup. With the current state of archery though, your bow is in fact the backup weapon as it is easier to get kills in melee, even with an archer build.

Missile speed and damage has been nerfed so much that basicly any armored 2h hero can charge an archer on an open field without too much risk. While spinning like an inertialess helicopter he will dodge most arrows fired at him.

The problem is that archers have to sacrifice EVERYTHING in order to shoot. They are basicly peasants, peasants with bows. And for all the things you have to give up, being able to shoot as it is now is in NO WAY a compensation for all the things you lose. The only way to really be usefull as an archer right now is to not shoot at all and get a big easymode melee weapon.
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair?
Post by: Belatu on February 17, 2013, 12:23:01 pm
chadz said once that he practised archery irl XD

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair?
Post by: Malaclypse on February 17, 2013, 12:31:21 pm
And archery is UP, however it being buffed would be horrible.

Agreed. Get ready for some parenthesis. I usually get two shot, sometimes three or one shot (usually from speed bonus, sometimes not- plus 3 arrows/bow and randomish damage) by arrows in 40 body armor, which I feel is a reasonable value to play at regularly- neither too high or low but right around the middle available range, a bit above it. Maybe it's not as effective against higher armor values, and I feel the same pain with 6 PS. What it comes down to, and please excuse the tautology, is that ranged has the significant advantage of range- being able to attack and injure, suppress, or kill targets from a distance. That in itself justifies any shortcoming in comparative damage output between it and ground melee, at least.

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair?
Post by: Torben on February 17, 2013, 12:44:15 pm
this is just to put your post into perspective,  I agree that archery has been hit hard. but most classes have been nerfed a lot,  i am just throwing in some of them:
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair?
Post by: Abay on February 17, 2013, 01:45:07 pm
As an infantry, I wouldnt like to see buffed archery but what I like is more realism in the game. So I can agree with OttomanSniper. Archery is the best fighting class in reality. It is like guns in medieval. Can u imagine attack a man who carries gun with a sword? Feel like that and stop trying to make classes equal.

P.s:
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair?
Post by: Torben on February 17, 2013, 02:54:32 pm
As an infantry, I wouldnt like to see buffed archery but what I like is more realism in the game. So I can agree with OttomanSniper. Archery is the best fighting class in reality. It is like guns in medieval. Can u imagine attack a man who carries gun with a sword? Feel like that and stop trying to make classes equal.

P.s:
(click to show/hide)

well,  if wed talk reality,  most arrows should glanz off plate armor.
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair?
Post by: Lennu on February 17, 2013, 03:18:24 pm
I guess the archer nerfs were to make archery more skillbased. No matter how good 2hander or polearmer you are, ANY archer could just run from you and shoot you to death eventually in 1v1 situation :D  Hell, Any archer could do that to 3 2handers at once. Ofc, there is always "get a shield n00b!" answer, but you still couldn't catch the archer. So you still have no chance to win against him.
Now that they can't run anymore, the archer has 2 - 3 shots he can take before he needs to engage in melee, or drop his bow and arrows and run. Still, the melee guy has no chance on catching him, so the archer cannot lose this one either. Just make big circle and pick your bow again, get those few shots. repeat till you win.

Archers against cav is a bit different. If the map/surroundings give the cav player an advantage = archer has no cover. OR the archer has an advantage = he has some cover. Now the map decides how it goes.
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair?
Post by: al_benz on February 17, 2013, 04:10:26 pm
why did they nerf and not buff for balance?
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair?
Post by: Gurnisson on February 17, 2013, 04:12:47 pm
My Rus Bow +3 shots bounce on tincans some time. (8PD)

I need 2 hs for killing stumpter. 8PD and all equip+3

That's the sort of things that makes me not taking you seriously. Lies, lies and more lies :(
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair?
Post by: Tzar on February 17, 2013, 06:26:58 pm
I think we need to hand out Master lobbyist awards  :P
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair?
Post by: bagge on February 17, 2013, 06:31:46 pm
That's the sort of things that makes me not taking you seriously. Lies, lies and more lies :(

Like you melee people don't lie about damage from archers lol. Like, "urgh *crycrycry* TWO arrows kills my TINCAN11!11 *crycrycry*"
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair?
Post by: OttomanSniper on February 17, 2013, 08:52:43 pm
That's the sort of things that makes me not taking you seriously. Lies, lies and more lies :(

When u ready send me a pm, we can try this in duel server.
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair?
Post by: Konrax on February 17, 2013, 08:53:18 pm
I read most of the first page.

Skipped the second to throw in my 2c, just know that I am a shielder and have been since CRPG started.

I just want to say that I am very glad they made kiting as an archer more difficult, it honestly was a stupid mechanic that if anything was unintentional.

That being said, I also believe that bow damage in general is too low, and that projectile speed should be higher. Now that archers need to commit to their firing locations, they need to be better at actually making a difference in a battle. I've honestly felt bad for the damage reductions to bow for a while, but the kiting was really what the real issue was. Now that it has been relatively fixed, I think it's time to give archers their role back.
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair?
Post by: Tears of Destiny on February 17, 2013, 09:04:18 pm
No it isn't fair, but a lot of melee people are going to disagree with you just because they hate archers.


This... Oh god this...


This is brought up so many times that we should be able to buy dead horses in c-RPG... Why do people make these topics still, oh god, the humanity!
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair?
Post by: OttomanSniper on February 17, 2013, 09:21:02 pm
I capture this photos 10 min ago, perfect timing  :D

I got headshot and i lose only %50 hp

http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/595869894426781192/BDCFC9343FD525E5EFFBCEB4335117968558EF0E/
visitors can't see pics , please register or login

------
------
http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/595869894426776804/438E65442D369B4BA20D531B0E379D79D2C042A8/
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair?
Post by: FrugFrug on February 17, 2013, 09:41:35 pm
Is archery nerfed harder on EU than NA? There is no way I would ever live a headshot from any type of arrow unless I was running full speed in the opposite direction of a peasant archer.

I also die in 1-3 shots with 58 hp and 38 body armor. (2 being the most common.)
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair?
Post by: To Kill A Dead Horse on February 17, 2013, 09:42:13 pm
this is just to put your post into perspective,  I agree that archery has been hit hard. but most classes have been nerfed a lot,  i am just throwing in some of them:



RIP 4D Long Vougle you were the greatest friend i ever had
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair?
Post by: Tzar on February 17, 2013, 09:45:49 pm
Funny otto....

I just got 1 shot in my face today by a bodkin arrow... I have around 80 hp an 50 armor...

Could you try lobbying a bit harder :?:  :lol:
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair?
Post by: OttomanSniper on February 17, 2013, 09:57:10 pm
Funny otto....

I just got 1 shot in my face today by a bodkin arrow... I have around 80 hp an 50 armor...

Could you try lobbying a bit harder :?:  :lol:

Yea i can be unicorn leader with my head arrow.
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair?
Post by: Torost on February 17, 2013, 10:05:03 pm
I played 7 gens straigth as dedicated archer. In the end I just quit, felt pointless. Im a whaler now, with 4 harpoons :D

You can discuss back and forth if the nerfs to archery was over the top, I think it was. Made it unfun.

The real problem was that archery was made irrelevant by the crossbow.
For all practical purposes it did not make sense to spec archer with all its limitation and use expensive equipment versus just get  a 1slot crossbow and have a char viable at melee. Crossbowing is such a dull way to play IMO. Shame really.

Even with all the crazy limitations placed on archery, they could be bearable if not the crossbow was there as much better alternative.

Mimics history .. crossbows replacing archery... :D
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair?
Post by: Gurnisson on February 17, 2013, 10:27:50 pm
Like you melee people don't lie about damage from archers lol. Like, "urgh *crycrycry* TWO arrows kills my TINCAN11!11 *crycrycry*"

I play all classes mate, archer being one of them, so please zip it :wink:
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair?
Post by: jtobiasm on February 17, 2013, 10:44:13 pm
Yeah Headshot's don't even kill in one haha
(click to show/hide)

Funny otto....
I just got 1 shot in my face today by a bodkin arrow... I have around 80 hp an 50 armor...
Could you try lobbying a bit harder :?:  :lol:

visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair?
Post by: jtobiasm on February 17, 2013, 10:45:15 pm
Double post ffs
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair?
Post by: Macropus on February 17, 2013, 10:47:48 pm
What I can say for sure is that I can do quite decently with any melee/cav build (saying decently I mean average 1=k/d) and as archer it's much harder for me to get some kills when I try it on my STF. I don't think it's a matter of my personal low skills, it feels really wrong.
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair?
Post by: XyNox on February 18, 2013, 01:35:44 am
Had some ridiculous moments as well.

- The other day, within a few round my +3 bodkin fired from a +3 hornbow at 6 PD bounced 3 times on Templar_Bobby's (?) Birgandine.

- When I was playing on EU4 I got a headshot from a rusbow + bodkin ( no info about looms or build though ). I was wearing a great helmet with a 55 HP build and I lost a bit less than half of my HP.

- Blackbow headshotted me with +3 hornbow + 3 bodins while I was wearing a Klappvisier, 55 HP. I lost about 70 %.

- Playing on my pole alt with 44 b armor and 65 HP I got hit in the body with 6 PD from a hornbow and a barbed arrow and lost about 5 % HP.

In general it feels like everyone wearing a helmet with some metal parts in it is now immune to hornbow oneshots, which is not necessarily bad as the hornbow is a mid tier bow. The low missile speed comibined with this low damage however makes killing someone charging at you more a matter of randomness instead of skill.

I think we need to hand out Master lobbyist awards  :P

Funny otto....

I just got 1 shot in my face today by a bodkin arrow... I have around 80 hp an 50 armor...

Could you try lobbying a bit harder :?:  :lol:

We have a winner, its Tzar ... who would have thought  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair?
Post by: San on February 18, 2013, 02:53:24 am
I expect archer damage to be a decent 1h weapon with the same PS, so maybe I'm biased there when I get hit for tons of damage sometimes for miniscule amounts.
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair?
Post by: Lactose_the_intolerant on February 18, 2013, 03:53:13 am
While devs were too busy nerfing archers, crossbows in the meantime, allow stupid agiwhore melee builds and gokarts horsecrossbowers.

It is actually easier to fire and reload a crosswbow then to shot an arrow from horseback. It is even more demanding buildwise to thow a throwing lance off horseback. Searching for logic in this game is pointless
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair?
Post by: bagge on February 18, 2013, 10:12:56 am
Tbh it feels like the armor values are fucked up big time, cause I'm headshooting alot of people that survives nowdays, or did you actually nerf the shit out of headshots that I've missed? Even people with Kettle Helmet survives headshots now, what's up with that? :?
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair?
Post by: Arrowblood on February 18, 2013, 02:51:03 pm
Tbh it feels like the armor values are fucked up big time, cause I'm headshooting alot of people that survives nowdays, or did you actually nerf the shit out of headshots that I've missed? Even people with Kettle Helmet survives headshots now, what's up with that? :?
But tzar gets fuckin instakilled by headshots every single fucking time, i bet even by a huntingbow.
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair?
Post by: bagge on February 18, 2013, 02:51:32 pm
hahaha :lol:
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair?
Post by: Lactating Vegetables on February 18, 2013, 03:47:07 pm
Hmm, i play both a pure archer build and, pretty much most other builds. Id have to say, if infantry has a problem with archers kiting, then surly it would have been a better idea for some infantry to quit being complete tanks and instead beat the kiters at their own game?

my current shielder can easily out run most infanrty, and catch the archers.

On my archer i can still kite its just harder.
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair?
Post by: XyNox on February 18, 2013, 05:12:24 pm
But tzar gets fuckin instakilled by headshots every single fucking time, i bet even by a huntingbow.
(click to show/hide)

 :D

I guess it was throwing lance, he just cant tell the difference. Like that guy that opened a thread about ranged damage being OP and then he actually posted a screen with a bolt sticking out of his leg.
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair?
Post by: Tomas on February 18, 2013, 08:11:16 pm
There are a number of problems with archery in its current state

1) Ranged still kite.  There isn't enough room in the class system to be a decent hybrid archer and they have too many arrows - it is this that allows and encourages kiting and the weight increases have not stopped Xbow, HA or HX kiting at all so to me it was a poor idea.  In fact archers themselves still kite by dropping their bows and arrows and then running back to them later.  All it has done is add an annoyance to the game and overpower cav.

2) Archers no longer get valour whilst certain melee players can get it most rounds.  Even I can get valour a decent amount and i'm crap at melee.  This means the repair function is useless and it unbalances archery.  Melee players are stacking more armour than they should be able to on average and are still making money meaning archery is worth less.

3) Shields should be useable by everybody.  Without the bonuses from shield skill even the best shields are pretty crap in melee so why not let everybody use them.

4) PS matters too much. If we want every build to be viable in melee then damage needs to be effected less overall by build.

What we actually need in cRPG is a Primary/Secondary system whereby everybody's primary class is generic melee and is based solely on their attributes, but then they have a secondary class based on their skills and that allows them to either focus on a special branch of melee or on archery, throwing or crossbows.

Here's what I would like to see.....

First people pick attributes (1 point per level, non convertable)
- People start at 15/15
- Strength effects damage (inc xbows) and weapon/armour usage (2% extra damage per point)
- Agility effecta base wpf and run speed (2 wpf per point in all classes, 2% extra run speed)
- Everybody gets 60hp as standard

Then people pick skills (1 point per level, no caps based on str or agi, normal caps at 15 points, non-convertible)
- Iron Flesh gives extra HP (2 per point)
- Shield gives a damage reduction to shields (6% per point)
- Riding allows the use of horses and buffs maneuverability by 6% per level
- Archery unlocks the use of bows and gives 6 archery wpf per point
- Crossbow unlocks the use of xbows and gives 6 crossbow wpf per point
- Throwing unlocks the use of throwing weapons and gives 6 crossbow wpf per point
- Two Hand skill gives 6 2H wpf per point
- One Hand skill gives 6 1H wpf per point
- Polearm skill gives 6 Pole wpf per point

Some level 30 builds

Max strength 2H
- 45/15, 15IF, 15TwoHand = 90% damage bonus, 30% run speed bonus, 90HP, 120 TwoHand wpf, 30 wpf in all other classes.

Max Agi 2H
- 15/45, 15IF, 15TwoHand = 30% damage bonus, 90% run speed bonus, 90HP, 180 TwoHand wpf, 90 wpf in all other classes.

Balanced 2H
- 30/30, 15IF, 15TwoHand = 60% damage bonus, 60% run speed bonus, 90HP, 150 TwoHand wpf, 60 wpf in all other classes.

Strength Archer
- 45/15, 15TwoHand, 15Archery = 90% damage bonus, 30% run speed bonus, 60HP, 120 Archery wpf, 120 Two Handed wpf, 30 wpf in all other classes.

Note - ranged will only get 1 quiver so they will need that melee ability

Agility Archer
- 15/45, 15TwoHand, 15Archery = 30% damage bonus, 90% run speed bonus, 60HP, 180 Archery wpf, 180 Two Handed wpf, 90 wpf in all other classes.

Balanced Archer
- 30/30, 15TwoHand, 15Archery = 60% damage bonus, 60% run speed bonus, 60HP, 150 Archery wpf, 150 Two Handed wpf, 60 wpf in all other classes.

Potential Cav Build
- 35/25, 10Polearm, 15Riding, 5IF = 70% damage bonus, 50% run speed bonus, 70HP, 110 Polearm wpf, 90% Maneuverability bonus, 50 wpf in all other classes.

Potential HA Build
- 20/40, 15Archery, 15Riding = 40% damage bonus, 80% run speed bonus, 60HP, 170 Archery wpf, 90% Maneuverability bonus, 80 wpf in all other classes.

Note - no need for HA skill anymore as HAs only have 1 quiver anyway.  There would still be an accuracy malus for firing from horseback though but it could be linked to maneuverability rather than traveling speed to promote the use of lighter horses and higher riding skill.

The build I would probably go for
- 25/35, 8 Shield, 12Xbow, 10OneHand = 50% damage bonus, 70% run speed bonus, 60HP, 48% damage reduction to shields, 142Xbow wpf, 130 One Handed wpf.

Overall results
- Everybody can melee but focused melee are still better at it as they can carry extra HP or better shields.  For example the difference between a balanced 2H and a balanced Archer with 2H is Hit Points not damage.
- As people get higher levels they can keep focusing their attributes but must spread their skills due to the cap at 15
- Still plenty of variation
- Overall there is a nerf to high strength builds (less max damage, less max HP, same wpf) and a buff to Agi builds (more HP, More min damage, same wpf) but both still offer different playstiles.
- Less ranged projectiles overall although probably more hybrids with ranged in the game
- Most ammo will be used up in the first few minutes of rounds meaning less kiting at the end of rounds when most players are dead.
- More skill to ranged play as wasting ammo is very costly.
- Finally you could link ammo counts to server population to make sure ammo is always at a premium and likely to run out just as the round is ending.

Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair?
Post by: Dach on February 19, 2013, 12:40:41 am
Id have to say, if infantry has a problem with archers kiting, then surly it would have been a better idea for some infantry to quit being complete tanks and instead beat the kiters at their own game?

THIS!!!

Sometime ago (before the archery weight nerf) I made a 15/30 crossbow/melee build wearing very light armor and I could tell you no archer could kite me...

But no people make 30/15 build and WHINE that they can't catch archer with 15/21, 15/24 build...

The archer invested point for his ATH... let him use it... if melee build build don't want to invest in that skill well..... DEAL WITH IT!

But yeah, i'm just renting continu to nerf ranged, I'm playing HA right now.  :P

Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair?
Post by: Zlisch_The_Butcher on February 19, 2013, 12:54:25 am
Before the patch I couldn't catch a lot of my old friendchers with my 12/27 9 ath leather armor and 90 length weapon char.
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair?
Post by: Dach on February 19, 2013, 02:51:54 am
well maybe they had 9 ATH too?  :wink:

And guess what you need more ATH then them because first you need to catch up to them and when you start an attack you slow down...

But the current nerf is over the top...

Right now an average archer is carrying 25 weight of stuff.... mace 2 / tribal warrior outfit 5.5 / rus cavalry boots 0.8 / horn bow 2.5 / 2 stack of bodkins 14 (It get worse if he want to wear a bit more protection or use any other kind of arrows.)

For your average 2h melee that mean: Danish 2.5 / Splinted greaves with spurs 2.5 /  Vaegir war mask 3 / Plate mittens 1.3 / Heavy Kuyak 14

(See the trend here?  :P )

Which is around 50 armor rating all around unloomed, this is medium armor leaning on the heavy side.

Why should an archer should be as slow as an medium armored fighter?! Come on...

Also the melee fighter will probably one shot the archer, the archer will need between 3-5 shot the kill the other guy. Unless you headshot him.

There is also the unbalanced between STR and AGI build that doesn't help either.

Do I need to add that archer get a malus on their wpf for using PD, do melee fighter get the same for using PS ??? ehhh no.

STR reduce the weight malus on ATH, Give you more HP, give you more damage.

AGI increase movement... which is nerfed by too much weight...

 :lol:
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair?
Post by: bagge on February 19, 2013, 07:08:33 am
Nerfing kiting and not increasing melee power even the slighest is just unfair. If we however would be able to carry a decent weapon with 2 quivers I highly doubt that kiting would be an issue. "The good old days" were way better when archers could actually wear armor and a melee weapon. I'm not lobbying for tincan archers, but at least medium armors

Isn't it kinda obvious if you strip a ranged class their melee powers, they intend to run and shoot or are you seriously expecting archers with 0-4 PS to try and kill tincans with a Pickaxe/Hammer? Well then you are retarded :?

Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair?
Post by: Ronin on February 19, 2013, 11:54:00 am
Let me give you an example:

I was enjoying my game.
Bagge just headshotted me in the strategus battle yesterday night. If I recall correctly, I lost all of my health and died. (18 STR, 2 if, huscarl helmet)
I didn't cry.
I continued enjoying my game.


People really think archers should not be able to hit their targets at all. That is the logic behind those nerfs.

Reducing archers' kiting effectiveness and also dropping their melee capabilities are purely retardic. Retardic! There are no words to decribe this in a more polite way.

By the way:
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair?
Post by: Tennenoth on February 19, 2013, 01:35:32 pm
Another thread I see!  :rolleyes:

My own personal views, not that I am much of an archer these days, is that the damage on ranged weapons is far too random, it's clear to me that no one really has an understanding of what the average damage is because Tzar claims he was one shot to the face and Ottoman claims that he takes two headshots on the weakest of horses and both of these claims could be true. (On a side note I will bug people for the actual specific calculations to see what the ranges are, whether or not on a best case scenario each of those things are possible, it might take a lot of teeth pulling however.)

Archery, and I expect a lot of people won't agree, particularly archers, is in a more or less reasonable state vs infantry melee. You need a reasonable number of shots to take down a target depending on the type of equipment you're using (you shouldn't really be using a horn bow and firing for tin cans, that's not what it's for!) and that promotes consistent skill over random luck which is what is promoted. You can't kite quite as easily as before, of course the weight nerf wasn't ideal but it was far superiour to the silly athletics to wpf bollocks.
The major downfall is against cav, which we should have more difficulty in fighting since they're effectively our counter-balance but I do believe they have quite a large advantage since we can no longer jump shot.

The only thing for archer that I want to see changed is the jump shooting, it's, want of better words, bloody stupid. First off, mechanically, it's confusing; you jump while drawing back your bow, regardless of where you are in the animation, your local character jumps quite happily but then you get pinged back, and your server-side you stays exactly where it is. Not only are you a sitting duck, if your opponent somehow misses, usually a cavalryman, you're disorientated while trying to work out where you actually are. Previously, which was a much better implementation (and I don't know why it was changed to this) where it just cancels the firing and does the "penguin jump" - at least you know where you bloody well are along with the ability to actually avoid whatever the hell you were trying to in the first place. In this regard there are two options for me, revert to the old penguin jump or remove the crappy parallel universe jump.

To summarise;


Anyway, as I say, I'm not much of an archer these days since I try to melee as much as possible when I run out of my 17 arrows but I still think that I can pin point a few flaws and "annoyances" that I have with the class.
The other ranged class, in particular crossbows, really dulls us down in effectiveness, we're doomed to wear lighter armour than most, we have to deal with our slow speeds and we become the major targets for crossbowmen who do not need to worry about approaching cavalry or other infantry. Arbalesters can one shot us 95% of the time (again, the damage calculations are needed to confirm this type of thing but I rarely survive an arbalest shot as a rule of thumb) and because of their higher missile speed it makes it much more difficult for us to do anything about it, even at range. (In comparison here: Longbow: 40 missile speed vs Jarids: 20 missile speed vs Arbalest: 58 missile speed. Granted you can't throw as fast as you can shoot but it was just to make them feel wanted.) I remember, and I could be wrong knowing my memory, that archery's missile speed was changed to near real life speed values (I vaguely remember a talk with Paul/Urist a long while back) while crossbow speeds stayed above realistic values, which I've always thought unfair, but I'm sure they had their reasons.

Right, time to cut this here since I'm starting to ramble about irrelevant things. I don't really want to get involved in random spam wars of baseless comments but I will be happy to reply to opinions and speculations with reasonable thoughts in so that we can try and keep this as civil as possible! :D Especially since most of what I have written is my own opinions and speculations!
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair?
Post by: Spa_geh_tea on February 21, 2013, 06:44:27 pm
Not too sure what archer builds are these days, but in my 40 body armor 1 arrow equals 1/2 to 3/4 of my HP. In melee it takes 3hits to kill me.

How is it, someone who can hit me across the map kill me in fewer "attacks" be considered unfair?


So please enlighten me as to what these archer builds are, because they seem to work just fine.



PS. I have a 6shield skill and still get pinged from the front.
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair?
Post by: CrazyCracka420 on February 21, 2013, 09:00:51 pm
Not too sure what archer builds are these days, but in my 40 body armor 1 arrow equals 1/2 to 3/4 of my HP. In melee it takes 3hits to kill me.
Depends on the PD of the archer, the bow used, were they shooting down at you, what type of arrow used, were the bow/arrow loomed.

What type of melee damage (cut/pierce/blunt) was the item loomed, what was their PS/WPF, did they get a speed bonus, or were they given a negative speed bonus for not turning into the swing.

So many variables involved, to make a statement that you made without any qualifying information just shows your ignorance.

Let me try your logic:

Sometimes I get hit with an arrow and it takes away 1/6th of my health, other times I get hit by melee and die in one hit.  I'm being 100% honest here, but I'm not providing you any relevant information that would be necessary to determine why the arrow only took 1/6th HP and why I was one hit by melee.
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair?
Post by: XyNox on February 21, 2013, 09:28:23 pm
PS. I have a 6shield skill and still get pinged from the front.

You know, shields dont autosoak arrows just for being in the inventory. You have to equip it and click RMB to actually bring your shield up :lol:
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair?
Post by: KaffeKalle on February 22, 2013, 02:14:13 am
Archery doesnt need to be buffed, I think its alright as it is now. It deals about the same dmg as people do in melee. Xbows should get nerfed as well though, the dmg some of them deal is just insane...can come walking around in my pretty heavy armor, get shot in the foot and die from one hit...
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair?
Post by: EponiCo on February 22, 2013, 07:08:19 am
crossbowmen who do not need to worry about approaching cavalry or other infantry.

I do not know how you can think this. In 1vs1 vs infantry the archers ability to keep distance as long as possible while shooting all the time is offset by the crossbowmans fairly good chance to oneshot and somewhat higher melee stats. I'm assuming btw that the archer has a 1 slot weapon and 5 or 6 PS, if your shooting damage isn't good enough with that then I'd really argue that there is something wrong with the damage values, or alternatively making higher tier bows 1 slot, giving more ammo etc.
When ganked or in a group fight the archer is simply better. An arbalestier in a group fight always has to make a decision: Do I commit myself to a 6 or 7 second reload during which I have to stand still or do I jump into melee? All it takes is one enemy able to focus attention on him and he can cancel it and go into emergency melee anyway. The archer just keeps shooting until that actually happens, no time wasted, and since he can always position himself as he wants probably can avoid melee in the first place.

(In comparison here: Longbow: 40 missile speed vs Jarids: 20 missile speed vs Arbalest: 58 missile speed.

I think archery skills (WPF + PD) increase missile speed, similar for throwing. Have no idea if that's (still) in or what values that actually are. I've never been a particular fan of the speed nerfs though. I think the reasoning behind it was they are going to nerf archery one way or another and that's still more skill based than decreasing accuracy.


But in any case agree, pointless thread is pointless.
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair?
Post by: OttomanSniper on February 22, 2013, 01:55:18 pm
Archery doesnt need to be buffed, I think its alright as it is now. It deals about the same dmg as people do in melee. Xbows should get nerfed as well though, the dmg some of them deal is just insane...can come walking around in my pretty heavy armor, get shot in the foot and die from one hit...

Devs always say this but nerfs never stop.
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair?
Post by: Tennenoth on February 23, 2013, 02:08:34 am
I do not know how you can think this. In 1vs1 vs infantry the archers ability to keep distance as long as possible while shooting all the time is offset by the crossbowmans fairly good chance to oneshot and somewhat higher melee stats. I'm assuming btw that the archer has a 1 slot weapon and 5 or 6 PS, if your shooting damage isn't good enough with that then I'd really argue that there is something wrong with the damage values, or alternatively making higher tier bows 1 slot, giving more ammo etc.
When ganked or in a group fight the archer is simply better. An arbalestier in a group fight always has to make a decision: Do I commit myself to a 6 or 7 second reload during which I have to stand still or do I jump into melee? All it takes is one enemy able to focus attention on him and he can cancel it and go into emergency melee anyway. The archer just keeps shooting until that actually happens, no time wasted, and since he can always position himself as he wants probably can avoid melee in the first place.

I think archery skills (WPF + PD) increase missile speed, similar for throwing. Have no idea if that's (still) in or what values that actually are. I've never been a particular fan of the speed nerfs though. I think the reasoning behind it was they are going to nerf archery one way or another and that's still more skill based than decreasing accuracy.


But in any case agree, pointless thread is pointless.

I believe you have very much extrapolated from what I said there. I was talking about a situation where the crossbowman does not have any immediate threats, not in a 1 vs 1 situation against infantry, I'm not sure which part of what I wrote caused that to pop up. What you have said is still valid for your specific scenario, an archer does have a far better chance to survive than a crossbowman against a single target gunning for them but once again, that is not close to what I was talking about.

To put emphasis on what I was actually talking about, I am saying that the crossbowman is quite happily away from any aggressors, at range from the battlefield & has the liberty to pick his target. This is not a "crossbowman vs infantry" state, this is a "crossbowman vs archer" state. To further solidify my target situation, the archer can't stand still long enough to release a shot because the arbalester has already cocked his shot and is aiming at said archer. Regardless of how you look at it, that archer is "pinned down", maybe not by actual fire, but by the threat of someone pointing something that will potentially one shot him with little chance to avoid it.
Onto your second point, WPF & PD does not even come close to catching up to the missile speed, not even slightly, besides that, crossbowmen are still able to put in their own wpf, which I would assume, if one increases the missile speed, the other would too, therefore the PD speed up would make bugger all difference, to put it bluntly. (Oh, and then there is the effective WPF decrease with the higher PD, which means that it would offset it more.)

Comparatively, that missile speed is a total of 18 higher than that of a longbow, a hunting crossbow, the "worst" of the lot, has as much speed as a masterwork longbow, the highest missile speed bow on the market. If we're talking about skill, I assume you're referring to the ability to judge which direction an aware player will move, and whether or not they are aware, the drop in the missile to hit your target. Well, that would mean that to hit a target with a crossbow, you need aim flatter and have a much higher chance of hitting your target if they are aware because regardless of the range, the projectile moves faster, which reduces the time that the player has to get out of the way.
Theoretically the crossbow should be used at longer ranges for their higher projectile speeds, but given the map set ups that we have, they don't need to be across the other side of the map as there is a sort of "gravity" towards points where the two bulks of the armies will fight giving a wide range of different targets to hit. In my opinion, this lessens the backing for such high missile speeds.
On top of that, if my memory serves me well, the real life mechanics apply in Warband as well; the further the projectile travels, the more speed it loses and therefore the less damage it does on contact. (As you'd expect) The higher the missile speed means that it can lose more speed (and fly further), therefore hitting its target at a higher speed at the same range than a shot from a lower missile speed weapon, causing more damage. To equate this to an arbalest, it can shoot for a higher distance without such a high damage reduction ensuring that it deals a higher damage than any shot from an archer. (Given the arbalest's maximum damage compared to an archers maximum damage, I mean this specifically to mean the damage loss from their maximums and not to compare a high damage archer build vs an arbalest).
I hope that made sense because I've read it a couple of times and I'm just not sure it's as clear as it could be, but it should do.

Without all of the above, this is not a "archery vs crossbowery" thread and has little place here other than the clarify and attempt to answer your post in a amiable manner, which I hope it has done. Please note that I have said things such as "I believe" and "if my memory serves me well" which means that I could be wrong but I am giving it my best shot to understand & intelligently add to the conversation at hand.
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair?
Post by: EponiCo on February 24, 2013, 02:34:16 am
I believe you have very much extrapolated from what I said there. I was talking about a situation where the crossbowman does not have any immediate threats, not in a 1 vs 1 situation against infantry, I'm not sure which part of what I wrote caused that to pop up. What you have said is still valid for your specific scenario, an archer does have a far better chance to survive than a crossbowman against a single target gunning for them but once again, that is not close to what I was talking about.

Ahh, I'm sorry, I've read you as "we become the major targets for crossbowmen (as they) do not need to worry about approaching cavalry or other infantry.".  :oops:

Onto your second point, WPF & PD does not even come close to catching up to the missile speed, not even slightly, besides that, crossbowmen are still able to put in their own wpf, which I would assume, if one increases the missile speed, the other would too, therefore the PD speed up would make bugger all difference, to put it bluntly. (Oh, and then there is the effective WPF decrease with the higher PD, which means that it would offset it more.)

Comparatively, that missile speed is a total of 18 higher than that of a longbow, a hunting crossbow, the "worst" of the lot, has as much speed as a masterwork longbow, the highest missile speed bow on the market.

Iirc it is quite clear that you have to aim quite a bit higher with a bow than with a crossbow of comparable level. Which probably means missile speed is lower as well. What I'm saying is that this also would require quite some testing to get accurate numbers.
For example if PD increases missile speed by 1/3rd of it's damage increase, that would increase longbow speed to 50 something at 6 PD. Which is a speed difference of 12% instead of outrageous 50% compared to the arbalest (crossbows can only improve reload and accuracy). Well like I said, I am also saying that from memory and it may never have applied, or not apply anymore.

Theoretically the crossbow should be used at longer ranges for their higher projectile speeds, but given the map set ups that we have, they don't need to be across the other side of the map as there is a sort of "gravity" towards points where the two bulks of the armies will fight giving a wide range of different targets to hit.

Well, as you need enough cover to reload (and distance sort of increases the area your cover ... uhm covers) you can be very well sitting a long way away from the battle. What range anyone finds reasonable is personal preference, what actually works well in practice for any class is dependent on a number of factors (the accuracy stat or damage dropoff for example) of which not all are really quantifyable (this discussion about tactical range for one thing).

In any case, I'm just saying this to add some points and because there's a big tedency on this forum to just find some stats or anecdotes (or just make them up for all I know) and use them for whining and lobbying, and ignore everything else (not against you).
And in any case, archery is going to be nerfed again.  :lol:
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair? (Updated)
Post by: OttomanSniper on March 05, 2013, 07:19:47 pm
Updated...
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair? (Updated)
Post by: Lactose_the_intolerant on March 05, 2013, 07:35:26 pm
Updated...

you forgot the one hand weapons with 0 slots as a buff....
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair? (Updated 03.05.2013)
Post by: Tzar on March 05, 2013, 10:02:44 pm
Imho Archery still needs more nerfs  :wink:
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair? (Updated 03.05.2013)
Post by: Elmokki on March 06, 2013, 04:27:31 pm
Kiting is bundle of sticksry. Anything that makes kiting easier should not be reverted back unless something else nerfs kiting. I do understand that the extra weight is horrible for legit melee fighting and I can only approve archers fighting with those new 0 slot onehanders with low ps but probably no other real penalties, but I have no idea what'd be a better solution so just throw your bows to the ground!

Upkeep can be lowered for all I care.
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair? (Updated 03.05.2013)
Post by: Kafein on March 06, 2013, 06:39:02 pm
That list is an attempt at maliciously making people think that only archers got nerfs and that not a single archer buff ever happened, and those statements we all know are false.

Also you forget that the playerbase is not static. Defending against melee is a skill that is learned and is extremely effective to drag melee fights. You can't do that against archers. You couldn't when the game was released, and you still can't. There is no such thing as "learn to dodge". Everybody knows how to dodge. It just doesn't work against a good archer.
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair? (Updated 03.05.2013)
Post by: Spjut on March 17, 2013, 12:48:09 am
Well I quit CRPG I am a HA and can't hit anything if I don't ride up and shoot the target from some meters. I tried to fire into a bunch of players from around 50 meters and I couldn't hit anyone from there... Then I tried to bump one soldier but he just glided around the horse so I guess they nerfed the bump thing also. Poor the nerfing. I have all my stuff as a archer... no loomed armor or weapon. I can't fight anylonger. I quit. BYE! :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair? (Updated 03.05.2013)
Post by: XyNox on March 17, 2013, 12:31:16 pm
Countless threads about archery being overnerfed for several months now. Archers all over the world complaining the game is not fun anymore. Even more and more melee players state that nerfs are getting quite unfair. Players quitting to the left and right.

Devs, how would you judge the current situation ?

Devs: Uhhh, ... *snort* ... dunno ... nerf archery ?
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair? (Updated 03.05.2013)
Post by: Varadin on March 18, 2013, 04:46:00 am
Im archer myself, i find it more difficult now , but i can still kill anyone with my bow. If archery is going to be nerfed i think the fair thing should be that rest of the classes be nerfed as well.
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair? (Updated 03.05.2013)
Post by: Wolfsblood on March 18, 2013, 05:39:48 am
as it is, I believe archer is as balanced as it is going to get without nerfing it to the point that it is unplayable (the only thing that sucks is I apparently run around with 10 boulders in each of my quivers but, meh, i cant think of a better way to keep my old friends from kiting).

we now have 0 slot weps that archers can actually hurt people with so they dont have to be kiting my old friendchers. the only time i see people still complain about archers is when they run in a straight line up a hill towards 6 archers and then they go "WHY MY IF NO WORK HURR DURR NERF ARCHER MORE PLOX"

Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair? (Updated 03.05.2013)
Post by: Paul on March 18, 2013, 12:12:02 pm
I'm actually having fun as an archer. Even as a (money problems related) dismounted horse archer. Doesn't seem overnerfed.
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair? (Updated 03.05.2013)
Post by: LordRichrich on March 18, 2013, 12:12:46 pm
Honestly, I think archery is fine.  Maybe less drop on long range shooting or something though?

I play archer, 18/15 atm. My wpf is evenly split between 1h and archery. I beleive this is the way to go. I'm slow moving and slow drawing (longbow) so I'm not going to fire at super long range, I'm going to shoot what I can hit. And when it gets too close, 6PS and a short brod sword can often deal with it :)

I beleive the majority of players that rage (And i know this doesn't apply to Ottoman sniper because he's 2h) are pure archers. Any pure class (apart from 2h ofc *sigh*) is gonna get fucked in this game ^^
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair?
Post by: KillerofFlowers on March 18, 2013, 01:35:02 pm
I understand the intentions behind the weight nerf and I do not at all miss the kiting aspect of archery but still I think this could also have been achieved with a mechanic a bit less retarded. What I dont understand though, instead giving some compensation for the mobility nerf, archers get another ranged nerf by nerfing missile speed and damage ??

I don't know if its already done like this but instead of increasing weight on all the archery gear, change power draw, so that the more power draw you have the slower you are.
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair? (Updated 03.05.2013)
Post by: Molly on March 18, 2013, 01:40:38 pm
I am more surprised that people are still complaining. There are a bunch of archers on EU1 the whole day and just play... can't be that bad after all.
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair? (Updated 03.05.2013)
Post by: XyNox on March 18, 2013, 06:24:13 pm
I'm actually having fun as an archer. Even as a (money problems related) dismounted horse archer. Doesn't seem overnerfed.


In that case, let me show you a few quotes about your opinion concerning archery from the past. Please keep in mind that you posted some of those pre nerf.


Quote
Quote
If you compare 1 shot from arba to 1 shot from bow, yes. Reloading..? Bow wins. Mobility...? Bow wins. Upkeep...? Both are high.

There is so much more between it. The ability to hold the closed reticule for a long time, the far better awareness due reloading, the higher shot speed...

I know, a skilled archer can compensate all that to a certain degree, even more when fully loomed. But the average player is more dangerous with an arba than with any bow.

Quote
The thing is the ones who complain the most, the inf, are actually the round deciders while archers along with thrower have the least impact on the round outcome. So if you wanna complain about archers, complain about having too many of them in your own team while the other steamrolls you due the inf advantage.

The other big factor, map dependent, is of course cav. But  they again feast on the ignorance and stupidity of players. If there was actual teamwork among the ranged and melee footmen, cav would have a harder time.

Quote
Did I miss anything? Archers are the ultra class now that dominate everyone  - even shielders with "antishielder bugusing"? I remember them as squishy bottom feeders that were more an annoyance than a threat to my shieldless melee chars. They didn't even waste any energy to target my shielders. Raped by cav and other ranged alike, their low armor making them a "one mistake and you are out" class. But they are probably OP now, with all the changes over the past months.

Quote
What is a "risk"? For me the lowest risk of losing a round is either going melee footman(low upkeep) or melee cav(high upkeep). As ranged horseman I might be able to survive for a while and hurt the enemy team with taking out the horses of their melee cav but I can't really deal damage to their players unless they are really retarded. Highest risk for me is going foot archer because he is made out of glass and not even close to being a cannon. Going foot xbow or (hybrid) thrower is ok. Medium risk, I can be effective there. But don't get me started on horse throwers.

Quote
Quote
infantry is the meat of the mod. If there are too many archers and cav they kill it like bloodsucking little mosquitos.

Infantry are the round decider of this mod. Along with cav, who mostly profit from ignorance of other players, they are the most powerful factor in this game. In comparison ranged is on an all time low in terms of significance towards the outcome of a round.

However we will nerf ranged further. Afaik after the end of WSE2 beta and with the installation of the WSE2 clientside endlösung, we plan to add wind(with a fixed vector per map or round) to the game that deviates the path from projectiles significantly, making aiming more skillbased.


All those points you list are the same that archers still complain about today. In every of those posts you give reason for archers being an overall inferior class compared to its competitors. And I repeat, some of those statements were made when archery was a lot less nerfed than today.

So what happened Paul ? Why the sudden change in attitude ?
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair? (Updated 03.05.2013)
Post by: Paul on March 18, 2013, 09:51:28 pm
Well, air friction got lowered to back Native levels. This is one hidden buff that seemed to stayed off everyone's radar. This especially positively affects high cadence ranged like archery. I also base my opinion on current play experience, so it is prone to change. I'm on noone's side, never was. I don't have any preferences either.
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair? (Updated 03.05.2013)
Post by: CrazyCracka420 on March 19, 2013, 02:37:23 pm
I doubt we'd notice the air friction being at native levels unless the missile speeds were the same.  Wouldn't the current (aka cRPG missile speeds) and the native air friction just allow the projectiles to travel farther, not faster?  Wouldn't there be less drop on the missile as well (compared to previously in cRPG)? 

I'd assume archers would have noticed this right away.
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair? (Updated 03.05.2013)
Post by: Molly on March 19, 2013, 02:45:50 pm

In that case, let me show you a few quotes about your opinion concerning archery from the past. Please keep in mind that you posted some of those pre nerf.


There is so much more between it. The ability to hold the closed reticule for a long time, the far better awareness due reloading, the higher shot speed...

I know, a skilled archer can compensate all that to a certain degree, even more when fully loomed. But the average player is more dangerous with an arba than with any bow.

Infantry are the round decider of this mod. Along with cav, who mostly profit from ignorance of other players, they are the most powerful factor in this game. In comparison ranged is on an all time low in terms of significance towards the outcome of a round.

However we will nerf ranged further. Afaik after the end of WSE2 beta and with the installation of the WSE2 clientside endlösung, we plan to add wind(with a fixed vector per map or round) to the game that deviates the path from projectiles significantly, making aiming more skillbased.


All those points you list are the same that archers still complain about today. In every of those posts you give reason for archers being an overall inferior class compared to its competitors. And I repeat, some of those statements were made when archery was a lot less nerfed than today.

So what happened Paul ? Why the sudden change in attitude ?
I may be wrong but none of those quoted statements were about the fun-factor of the class.
Maybe it's not fun for you anymore but the archer population and their score on Eu1 tell me otherwise every day.
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair? (Updated 03.05.2013)
Post by: OttomanSniper on March 19, 2013, 06:23:17 pm
Well, air friction got lowered to back Native levels. This is one hidden buff that seemed to stayed off everyone's radar. This especially positively affects high cadence ranged like archery. I also base my opinion on current play experience, so it is prone to change. I'm on noone's side, never was. I don't have any preferences either.

Is it a placebo? I don't feel any change.
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair? (Updated 03.05.2013)
Post by: chesterotab on March 20, 2013, 01:36:19 am
I'm actually having fun as an archer. Even as a (money problems related) dismounted horse archer. Doesn't seem overnerfed.

Never played as an archer myself, but I took this screenshot a couple days ago and something doesn't seem balanced about it.

visitors can't see pics , please register or login


Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair? (Updated 03.05.2013)
Post by: BlindGuy on March 20, 2013, 02:18:02 am
I like shooting ppl with my bow, and I have played mainly as an archer since before crpg existed, these days: I shoot horses, especially to down HX and HA, I shoot other archers to stop them shooting me,  and I shoot melee enemies to soften them up for killing in melee; but let me give you an example from TODAY:

On eu2 I had 86 points, ZERO kills, defender, 2 stacks of arrows, warbow ('loomed gear of course :D) and a dagger. Got 2 dagger kills, respawnd without bow, just my Mighty Fighting Axe (a true gentlemans weapon I might add), chopped some guys for a while, pressed tab again: 114 points, TWELVE kills. Each arrow hit gives 1 or 2 points, so that between 40 and 80 players who I shot without killing a single one.

Im not the best melee player, probably 40% of players I fight 1v1 eventually kill me when I whiff and they spam (blocking all day is off course very easy and possible but the temptation to hit back is too great, blocking never killed anyone), but Im FAR from the worst archer, I dont much like to complain, but my problem with the weight nerf was the opposite to kiters: Now I must drop all my shit to fight, else every douche holds his S key down, safe in the knowledge I cannot close the gap while I carry arrows. The weight addition killed my melee as archer, and that was NOT meant to happen. Fucking kiters ruined everything for me. But still I am happy because kiting was the very fucking ugliest thing in the mod at the time. But I would LOVE to see a solution, and I am not 100% serious but a good example I would liek to make is a League of Legends character: Tryndamere: if you run from him he has an ability that when he uses it calls enemies a chicken for running: if they are running from him they slow down, if they are facing him it has no affect. Something like that would be so nice instead of arrow weight.

TL;DR very happy theres no kiting, but sad that now my arrows dont kill, and I must drop all my archery gear to not be a freekill in melee
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair? (Updated 03.05.2013)
Post by: Nordwolf on March 20, 2013, 02:43:38 am
The same picture as always.

I think everyone should understand, that people complain not about average player, but about those who kill them.
Of course they are just going to shout OP! everytime they see a good archer doing their job.


Archery requires a rather high lvl, abandoning anything other than archery, taking small amount of arrows and you still nerf them?
Really, only point to nerf them was to remove kiting, while the first time it proved viable, some 34-35 archers still were able to kite someway. But that is not an average archer, so I think that the second time weight nerf was not good.
I still think that there should be a better way to remove kiting.... but I'm not really sure how



For example, today I've been playing and have seen a good archer, aimes, kills. But who's that? An archer I've seen for more than 2 years now. And usually that picture is repeating, average archer is so much worse than any average melee player.
But think, that archer was very good, but in battle there were at least 6 melee/cav players superior to that archer >> top archers are like average melee/cav or even worse.

Yes, archers can sometimes be a pain for cav, but when it comes to killing the rider, my total ~56 body armor can survive 3-5 hits with no speed boost. Yes some archers can kill me from 2-3 body shots, but they are usually those fully loomed longbow archers - not an average archer at all


Also I would say that term "average archer" has lost it's meaning, because what I see now is some good dedicated archers, alts or new archer players, who probably abandon it in a short time.
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair? (Updated 03.05.2013)
Post by: Tydeus on March 20, 2013, 03:03:01 am
I've had similar experience with archers taking 12+(The ss I have is with 12 arrows sticking out of my character) arrows to kill my 50~ hp 62 body armor, character. Can't say I like it for balance exactly, but at the same time I know the HA is using a weak bow with a weak build(low PD). That same HA would also be a much larger headache for the player of a light armored Agi character.
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair? (Updated 03.05.2013)
Post by: Teeth on March 20, 2013, 12:41:30 pm
I love how the OP comes up with realism arguments about bow and arrow weight after calling the removal of jump shots illogical. Maybe you should provide some drawings of Ottoman warriors doing 360 jump shots.
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair? (Updated 03.05.2013)
Post by: XyNox on March 20, 2013, 05:27:16 pm
I cant agree more with BlindGuy and Nordwolf.

Dont get me wrong. It is still possible to get kills with bows obviously. But at what price ? I can share exactly the same problem as BlindGuy when it comes to melee'ing. While having a bow equiped even 60ish armor people can backpaddel faster then you can accelerate forwards when trying to hit them. Fighting a ninja with bow and arrows on your back looks like a scene right out of benny hill. Current archery balance is like "if someone charges you and you cant shoot him down before he touches you, you are dead". The "ranged" advantage has still to be payed with massive drawbacks while buying heavy armor and a greatsword in comparison makes you killing machine without much personal commitment.

With my loomed, lvl 34 archer build I admit that it is not as bad as for new archers, still I think in comparison melee has too much Strengths that simply come by default. Just watch what happens on the battlefield. 2H's charge archers on an open field like never before because they know how easy it is to dodge and how many arrows their armor can soak up.

I also really despise the lack of long range damage for archers. Missile speed already got nerfed several times and making long range shots is certainly not easy, yet the damage reduction over long range is very drastic. I am still going for longrange shots every time I get the chance because its fun but more often than not its a waste of ammo if you count all the hits out of all the fired shots ( needless to say after the first hit people usually figured out that they are getting shot and start dodging ). We have a lot of unrealistic "features" in the game which are fine because they reward player skill, such as hitting an opponent instantly makes his weapon all his momentum. Why not go the same route for archers and reward longrange shots by removing or toning down damage reduction over distance ?

All in all I think we need some changes regarding archery that make the class more fun again without making it unfair. And if I knew that devs are actually looking for suggestions regarding that matter, I would be pleased to sit down and give thoughts to an archery overhaul that hopefully pleases everybody.
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair? (Updated 03.05.2013)
Post by: Joker86 on March 20, 2013, 08:00:18 pm
All in all I think we need some changes regarding archery that make the class more fun again without making it unfair.

Fun derives from success. Success derives from effectivity. So raising fun means raising effectivity. Which is... well, not acceptable. Not with the current conditions, and under the current circumstances.

I agree that a single archer is seriously UP. Okay, some AGI-HAs shooting enemies a dozen times before dropping them is a little bit exaggerated and definitely not the norm, but still I can see how one archer can have a hard time against heavy infantry.

But I say again, that any stat buff or nerf won't basically change anything on the problem. Buffing archery in ANY way you are going to suggest will only cause more complaints. The problems come from a few very basic directions:

- Infantry and basically all other players too are completely unwilling to use any kind of teamplay, outside of clans

- Battle mode which is simply no game mode for infantry, the same way siege is not a game mode for cavalry

- Upkeep system, which does incredibly bad in restricting equipment in a fair and balanced way, reduced the range of actually "viable" items and made some classes basically disappear (e.g. heavy cavalry, which would be a factor for balancing archers). It is slightly connected to the slot system, which also has a few flaws, next to the bunch of advantages it undeniably brings.

- The limited variability of viable builds for a lot of classes, not only skill wise (there were times where literally 90% of all archers had 18 STR and 6 PD), but also equipment wise (see above).


I can again write a wall of text about the different levels of flexibility for infantry on one, and archers and cavalry on the other hand, about choice of targets, acting and reacting gameplay, about how the nerfed classes lower the effects of the rock-paper-siccors-elements and how this further discourages teamplay, the limited choice of viable builds for certain classes and what not. It's like a huge gordian knot where everything is connected with everything, and thus everything would need and overhaul. But explaining all that would help nothing.

It's much more important to get the playerbase organized. Smoothrich made a topic about conquest mode. I think it reached 2 pages. I made my own topic a few months later, I think it didn't even exceed one page. As long as people do not get where the actual problem is, nothing will change at all.

In this community egoismegocentrism is really strong. You don't care about the problems of the others, you only care about your problems. In fact you want to PREVENT the others from solving THEIR problems, because you automatically assume that it will become YOUR problem instead. Archery is killing you and ruining your gameplay? Get it nerfed! Don't care about the fun of the archers! You are an archer and your class has been nerfed? Lobby for some buffs, and don't care about the gameplay of the others you are ruining.

Until all that lobbying shit does not stop, the game will not make any real progress (apart from the fact that it's dying, see my signature. The last patches are only the beginning of a long, painfull chemo therapy which will ultimatively end in exitus). The lobbies keep boxing from the left to the right and back again, and the devs are - more or less consciously - following this struggle in the desperate attempt to "fix" the game, but only few people see that the truly needed movement is lying on a completely different axis, e.g. up and down or forth and back.

We have to face it: cRPG is for medieval battle games what CoD or BF are for shooters (Medieval II or something like that would be the pendant to Deus Ex in my example). And the average community member fits to this. I don't say they really ARE the average CoD-kiddie, but they do behave like this concerning cRPG, be it on the forum or ingame. You want to connect to the server, you want to kill shit, you want to have quick, immediately rewarding fun without great intellectual effort, and you react stroppy if you don't get it.

Unless the community matures, steps back a bit and looks at the whole matter from a totally distant point of view, all this "nerf this, buff that, make the game fun again"-talk is nothing but waisted air/ink/whatever you waste when you write on the internet.


Phheeeewwww, I guess I got carried away a little bit while writing this  :lol:
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair? (Updated 03.05.2013)
Post by: Alexia on March 29, 2013, 01:19:48 am
Well even if Im a new player, I know about times where archery was fun to play and better balanced.

Its was hard to come from native to crpg archery but that was what i wanted actually. We all are here too have more fun or a higher skillcap.
Even with the little tricks to oneshot people (eye spots for example they have 0 armor rating --> oneshot for decent archer with a bit luck) i must say, that a normal bow with 7 pd is sometimes more viable than a longbow/rusbow just for the fact, you cant hunt down enemys with 50+ armor anymore. Even if it sounds stupid, but i was a Yumi user with 7 pd (i know not the best weapon and in my eyes totally fucked right now :x ) and I have to get around 8-9 hits for a enemy with medium armor in the body. so i though hey lets get at least a decent melee weapon? good thought right? fuck it really.. 7 PS isnt enough for most enemys too cuz youre so fucking slow, that even a snail can hunt you down.
Fact is, paying 770 gold nearly every round for a longbow to repair it, is just too expensive, and the gold/usable ratio is really bad.

All in all i must say, i see very good archers like Nox, Bagge, Blackbow and Tenne. Because of them i wanted to be a archer cause they saved me soo fucking often with epic melee shots. This guys are still "viable" archers cause they got loomed gear and good skill trained over a long time i guess. but for a newbie like me its a pain in the ass.
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair? (Updated 03.05.2013)
Post by: Spa_geh_tea on March 31, 2013, 02:41:36 pm
Well even if Im a new player, I know about times where archery was fun to play and better balanced.

Its was hard to come from native to crpg archery but that was what i wanted actually. We all are here too have more fun or a higher skillcap.
Even with the little tricks to oneshot people (eye spots for example they have 0 armor rating --> oneshot for decent archer with a bit luck) i must say, that a normal bow with 7 pd is sometimes more viable than a longbow/rusbow just for the fact, you cant hunt down enemys with 50+ armor anymore. Even if it sounds stupid, but i was a Yumi user with 7 pd (i know not the best weapon and in my eyes totally fucked right now :x ) and I have to get around 8-9 hits for a enemy with medium armor in the body. so i though hey lets get at least a decent melee weapon? good thought right? fuck it really.. 7 PS isnt enough for most enemys too cuz youre so fucking slow, that even a snail can hunt you down.
Fact is, paying 770 gold nearly every round for a longbow to repair it, is just too expensive, and the gold/usable ratio is really bad.

All in all i must say, i see very good archers like Nox, Bagge, Blackbow and Tenne. Because of them i wanted to be a archer cause they saved me soo fucking often with epic melee shots. This guys are still "viable" archers cause they got loomed gear and good skill trained over a long time i guess. but for a newbie like me its a pain in the ass.

It takes 2-3 arrows in the chest from a fair distance to kill my character in 50armor. That sounds reasonable to me considering I can't hit back or block. Now a tin can...well shit everyone but high blunt damage has trouble killing them. 7ps and it takes me 4-6 hits to kill them with a pick.
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair? (Updated 03.05.2013)
Post by: Konrax on April 03, 2013, 12:28:49 am
Body damage might have been nerfed too much imho.

However with Bodkin arrows against heavy armour it still does hurt!
Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair? (Updated 03.05.2013)
Post by: bruce on April 06, 2013, 12:18:46 pm
I'd honestly say the damage, especially and particularly of non-heirloomed bows (and you know, if any hypothetical new players come to crpg, that is what they will be using) is really bad now.

I mean yesterday I was headshotted (12 str, 1 IF, 33 head armour) by a non-heirloomed HA, and it took only 50% off (granted, I was riding away). This is really bad. The reason why you see those HXs (which I like to play, but I did play that when archery did about 3x the damage it did now with super-precision) and all that is because archery is so bad only the die-hards bother with it. Putting non-heirloomed bows to the level of current heirloomed bows (which would too get better damage) seems good to me.

They can't really kite now, which was one of the huge annoyances really.


Title: Re: Is archery nerfs fair? (Updated 03.05.2013)
Post by: The_Bloody_Nine on April 06, 2013, 03:38:50 pm
On the one hand I think a solution would be a proportional ranged restriction per server. Because from POV of infantry it is not so bad to have a couple of very dangerous archers, it is mainly the amount of archers and other ranged players that is really sometimes destroying the fun of the game.

On the other hand I think it is a really bad Idea to artificially dictate the class players should play instead of free choice for all. Maybe still the lesser evil, but I am not sure about it.

 :|