Increase to 2 slots, and then increase the number of bolts in an individual stack so that a pure xbow character isn't gimped as well.This is really all I think needs changed. Set the bolts per stack back to what it was before the hybrid changes and I think it'd be fine. It feels like the nerf to hybrids didn't actually happen for crossbowmen.
Crossbows have a special functionality because of their slow rate of fire, and you're very vulnerable to archers because of it. I feel that the crossbowmen who want to go crossbow + bolts + one-hander + shield should be able to do so, at least up to the mid-tier crossbow, which is how it's now. You can get ranged protection as a crossbowman if you sacrifise damage. Seems fair to me.
You can get ranged protection as acrossbowmanhorseman if you sacrifise damage. Seems fair to me.
I agree that something should be done to stop crossbowmen taking a 2hander or polearm like bowmen. What I suggest is that instead of all crossbows being 2 slot (which would kill off crossbow + shield hybrids) that all 2 handers/polearms should be 3 slots. When you think about it the only things a dedicated 2hander/polearm user might use an extra slot for are a shield to absorb arrows or taking a couple of throwing weapons (crossbow should not be a common 2hander/poleusers sidearm) so I think that 3 slots could work.
Ideally I think archers should at least be able to use a 2hander/polearm if they use lower tier bows, but crossbowmen should not as all crossbows are good but best for different situations while with bows there is a progression where the lower tier bows are clearly overall worse than the top 3. Possibly if you put a point into Powerdraw 2handers/polearms become 2 slots for you?
Perhaps all crossbows should be at least 12 str with the heavy and arbalest at 15?
P.S - If we really must have a 1 slot crossbow, let it be the hunting xbow and lower its damage to around longbow+barbed arrows region of damage.
Why use a crossbow instead of an Arbalest? The two slot system has already made the Heavy Crossbow obsolete as it shares 2 slots with it's better counterpart.I saw just as many Crossbows before the patch as I did Heavy/Sniper crossbows. This isn't about just decreasing the number of ranged players. This, thanks to an archer bringing this to my attention, was founded with balance in mind. Arbalest's rate of fire is much slower than a Crossbow's rate of fire, which is specifically why many people took this crossbow before the patch, not to mention reduced upkeep cost. That's like asking "Why take the Strongbow/Warbow when you can use the Longbow" or the Longsword instead of a Greatsword. There are other important factors aside from just damage.
All these worthless hybrids, burn em!
I see why you'd wanna keep 1h/shield crossbow hybrid, it's a fairly good "nub" combo, but the result is still tincans with decent range and 2h/pole, which is rather boring. Being a dedicated crossbowman, this suggested 2 slot change wouldn't affect me at all, but but I would still support it.
To be honest, you only need "range protection" when your on an open field, and then your biggest concern is cavalry anyway *shrugs*.
Considering WPF mechanics and X-Bows inherently higher accuracy than other ranged types, as well as damage, I fail to see how a Wielding a crossbow, a stack of bolts, a poleaxe, all while in plate, is any better than the previous system. Even if, with the new system, you're forced to use a crossbow instead of a heavy or an arbalest, it doesn't seem like anything has changed. Crossbows have the least investment needed out of all ranged and they have some of the best possible ranged damage. I think because of their low investment, which I'm not suggesting needs to be changed, they should all be two slots to help balance them with bows and throwing.yup pretty much sumed it up, i been trying to nag people to see the truth about xbows but it seemed to fall on death ears :|
Currently battle servers have reverted to how they were before the most recent patches, that is, with all melee either bringing a pike or a crossbow along with their heavy two-handed/polearm weapons. The first minute or two of the battle is a camp fest where all the ranged just take pot shots at each other. Crossbows during this time become every bit as effective as bows are, but then late in the round, when the ranged are forced to enter melee, the crossbow guys pull out poleaxes and claymores while the bows have to pull out one handers. Not to mention Crossbowmen are much freer to use heavy armor than bowmen are.
Sure, lower tier bows like the Strongbow and Khergit are 1 slot so if they bring one stack of arrows they can do the same thing. The difference though, is that bows require far more of an investment to be good with. Spending skill points is mandatory for bows while not for crossbows. 120 wpf minimum(and this is being generous) is mandatory for bows while crossbows are perfectly fine at 80 wpf (And I know a couple of people who only get 50 wpf in crossbows). There is also a significant STR/PD difficulty difference(that I wouldn't suggest changing) between the two ranged types. You only need 10 str for the highest tier 1 slot xbow, but 12/15 for the 2nd highest/highest 1 slot bows.
I could go on, but I'm interested in seeing what other people think as well.
Crossbows have a special functionality because of their slow rate of fire, and you're very vulnerable to archers because of it. I feel that the crossbowmen who want to go crossbow + bolts + one-hander + shield should be able to do so, at least up to the mid-tier crossbow, which is how it's now. You can get ranged protection as a crossbowman if you sacrifise damage. Seems fair to me.
When both shots kill...with precise headshots.
...with precise headshots.
You forgot that part.
We aren't talking about Goretooth or other plate users.
You forgot that part.
X-bows 1 shot archers, whatever the type. Archers take 5-8 arrows to take down that plate wearing x-bow slinger and if you are getting too many hits? Well just bring up that shield and advance with a far better melee weapon than the pure archer can carry.
X-bows 1 shot archers, whatever the type. Archers take 5-8 arrows to take down that plate wearing x-bow slinger and if you are getting too many hits? Well just bring up that shield and advance with a far better melee weapon than the pure archer can carry.
:lol:
You have never, ever, tried being a crossbowman!
1h/shield + xbow was easy mode for k/d ratio. Hold your aim forever, dismount cavalry, kill roof camping archers, 2 handers easily handled, and wear whatever armor you wanted to wear without worrying about your aim being screwed. Maybe you just aren't a good crossbowman. :!:
A lot of people on this thread have no idea what they are talking about. Ofc if you skimp on IF and wear light armour, that is the risk you take, being killed by an armour piercing weapon. Throwing is a sidearm. Maybe it was nerfed too hard, but Gorath is right when he says ranged players are nerfing each other into the ground. Too many players forget to factor in how much they fail, and how much of an effect teamwork has. Oh yeah and before you make all crossbows 2 slots spare a thought for the poor hunting crossbow.
We're not talking about your hunting xbow, we're talking about shit that actually gets used.
Also, my archer has the same melee weapon as my crossbowman. If you have to grab the best bow as well as two stacks of arrows, you don't deserve a good melee weapon. It's all about priorizationI think we can both agree that one of the most important things to look at when talking about balance between archers and crossbowmen, is shootspeed, correct? That being said, shootspeed has a direct effect on quiver size. With the highest tier bolts/arrows being nearly the same size, it's a necessity for archers to bring two quivers. They have to bring an extra quiver to get the same effectiveness a crossbowman would get out of a single stack of steel bolts. Especially when we look at lower tier bows. Remember, only the longbow is pierce damage so (generally speaking) lower tier bows are going to have a higher percentage of their total damage negated by armor, than their low tier crossbow counterparts and both high tier bows/crossbows. This just means it's not possible for strongbow and lower tier bows, to be as effective with only one quiver.
MW Arbalest + Sharp Steel Bolts, medium range. Archers in robes, leather jerkins etc. often survives a body shot. I mostly go for the head so it's not my biggest issue, but it happens. Stop making dedicated crossbowers look like a class that only has one big button to press that says 'Kill'. You need to be good, just like with every other class.
Text
Do they ? :shock:
I highly doubt it, and if they do, i'm 100% sure a sumpter horse can bump kill them.
whole point of the patch was to remove the hybrids
It's essentially Native with an easy addition (items) and a terribad addition (grind).
but what good is it if people pick up the normal xbow and continue??
whole point of the patch was to remove the hybrids
whole point of the patch was to remove the Gnjus
They'll just pick up the light x-bow and continue. And then the hunting x-bow and continue. Just like people are now throw spamming more daggers and wardarts instead of lances/axes/jarids. Archers are running like douches instead of melee'ing, etc.Which is why all Crossbows should be 2 slots. I'm fine with archery and throwing being a hybrid for Two-Handers/Polearms, because you have to spend so many points, you're going to be hurting your build in multiple places because of their vastly higher requirements. You can still use throwing with little investment, but at the very least, they have a significantly shorter range than crossbows.
The problem lies in the players, not the mechanics. It's a mindset problem.
*I tried to mention this before the slot change happened. People will just adapt to whatever the newest "best" ranged spam weapon they have available after the patch. This is all the more reason to have a melee/cav only server or two for everyone. Or we just get it over with and remove ranged altogether.*
Which is why all Crossbows should be 2 slots. I'm fine with archery and throwing being a hybrid for Two-Handers/Polearms, because you have to spend so many points, you're going to be hurting your build in multiple places because of their vastly higher requirements. You can still use throwing with little investment, but at the very least, they have a significantly shorter range than crossbows.
You understand that out of the 3 ranged types, x-bow/archer/thrower, that x-bow's are absolute shit as a "dedicated" build right? Slow rate of fire, have to stand still to reload, damage range capped at expense, etc.nope, just nerff xbows and life is better.
Again, might as well quit beating around the bush and just get rid of them altogether at this rate really.
nope, just nerff xbows and life is better.
unfair weapon, free range for no trade off, maybe make them use skill points to weild, like 3-4 skill points for sniper?
This slot business serves to kill genuine crossbowmen as easily as hybrids. It's like swatting a fly with a grenade.
The simplest solution is to restrict crossbows not by strength but by proficiency.
150 to use an Arbalest
140 Heavy Crossbow
125 Crossbow
75 Light Crossbow
1 Hunting Crossbow.
The higher values may seem heavy handed, but they are unreachable to 'hybrids' yet easily surpassed by genuine crossbowmen. I'd also balance these values as they were in native, in that, accuracy is scaled downwards as power increases. In order to preserve accuracy you must invest in points. 180 to achieve excellent accuracy in an arbalest, 165 for the HCrossbow, and 150 for the crossbow.
To be clear. If you have 75 crossbow and attempt to use a light crossbow, the accuracy and speed will be very low.
If you're already spending 3 slots minimum and 20k on it then you're not a hybrid anyway.oh? then why did they nerff my throwing lance? your idea dosnt work here... the fact items cost alot and take slots is beside the point
This slot business serves to kill genuine crossbowmen as easily as hybrids. It's like swatting a fly with a grenade.
The simplest solution is to restrict crossbows not by strength but by proficiency.
150 to use an Arbalest
140 Heavy Crossbow
125 Crossbow
75 Light Crossbow
1 Hunting Crossbow.
The higher values may seem heavy handed, but they are unreachable to 'hybrids' yet easily surpassed by genuine crossbowmen. I'd also balance these values as they were in native, in that, accuracy is scaled downwards as power increases. In order to preserve accuracy you must invest in points. 180 to achieve excellent accuracy in an arbalest, 165 for the HCrossbow, and 150 for the crossbow.
To be clear. If you have 75 crossbow and attempt to use a light crossbow, the accuracy and speed will be very low.
nope, just nerff xbows and life is better.
unfair weapon, free range for no trade off, maybe make them use skill points to weild, like 3-4 skill points for sniper?
and i not consider OP at all a 1hander+shield and a a medium crossbow who need an average of 3 bolts for kill someone in a medium armor, i can say that i have 0 wpf in crossbow and when there is a map with many cav i use one together with my steel pick and steel shield, and best i manage to do is kill cavalry with that. and reload is very low. no archer ever considered me a treath.This is exactly what I'm talking about. This thread isn't about lowering xbows damage or making their shoot speed worse. It is a discussion about the ease of crossbowman hybrids, to which I proposed that crossbows should be two slots rather than imposing a wpf/pd requirement. It's a focus on the fact that several people hybrid with crossbows at 0 wpf adding to the unnecessarily high number of ranged that is going on.
Stop crying; xbows are fine the way they are.So then if you think they're so bad, you use them because...? Your claim that they're terrible, isn't supported by the facts. In close & medium range they do decent damage, 20%- 30% to me when I have 9 IF and 80 armor in plate, isn't bad damage. That's more than many people do with melee swings. Considering how many throwers there used to be and how many there are now due to the throwing nerf, I think it's safe to conclude that people in the cRPG community tend to flock to what they think is effective. With the increase in crossbows, I can't imagine they're all doing it because they enjoy playing gimped classes.
As a pole/2h using xbow, you have to sacrifice your shield slot (counter to ranged), to get an inaccurate, low damage, short range counter to ranged.
Anything under a double heirloomed regular xbow has such a low shootspeed and damage as to have crap range and crap damage unless someone gets lucky and headshots (which is difficult at best with lag and such especially with low wpf in xbow).
Tydeus: Your suggestion fails for 2 reasons
1) x-bows HAVE to be hybrids. They cannot be a primary class due to the severe shortcomings of the x-bow (standing stock ass still to reload for 10 seconds, inability to properly kite)
2) Making them all 2 slots would simply kill x-bows altogether. Instead, imposing a WPF requirement to USE the x-bow would stop the 1 wpf x-bow users which seems to be what you are really hating on.
First of all, I think you should play a few times with karma. He uses about 150 wpf in crossbows, there's no room to be a hybrid with that. Second, I didn't say anything about not being able to hybrid altogether. What I have been stating, is that Crossbows should be hybrids with one slot weapons. This means no huge ass, high tier polearms or Two-Handed weapons. I've posted more than once in this thread so I think you should go back and re-read everything. Furthermore I've stated that I proposed making crossbows 2 slots as an alternative to a wpf/pd requirement as I know several people think crossbows are what they are because they have a low requirement, but that I would also agree with a wpf/pd requirement being imposed.
I feel like I should also remind people that this is the Balance Discussion thread, not the Suggestion Thread.
Put wpf req along with PD on the xbow and finish this endless long debate for god sake......
If archers can do it xbowmen can too
With a PD requirement why oh why would you ever take an x-bow rather than a bow?That's the argument I've been expecting to see, it's also one I agree with (mostly). Whether it's a wpf requirement or a PD requirement, when hybriding, it still comes down to skill points. Weapon Master vs Power Draw. Though personally I'd be more for the WPF requirement being imposed upon crossbows.
What I have been stating, is that Crossbows should be hybrids with one slot weapons. This means no huge ass, high tier polearms or Two-Handed weapons. I've posted more than once in this thread so I think you should go back and re-read everything.
Make the better 2h weapons and polearms 3 slots then. that way you can still have your crossbow, a stack of bolts, a 1h and a shield.Because this nerfs Two-Handers and Polearms drastically. All the anti-cavalry weapons you see people use now, it would keep 90% of the current users, from using them. It's a huge buff to cav. It nerfs throwing hybrids as well. Not just high tier, but specifically low/mid tier throwing would get hit the hardest. As Rhaelys stated earlier in the thread, it's already hard enough for cav to manage with their slot requirements. This is just not at all possible, it nerfs everything except for pure sword and boards and Archers.
Because this nerfs Two-Handers and Polearms drastically. All the anti-cavalry weapons you see people use now, it would keep 90% of the current users, from using them. It's a huge buff to cav. It nerfs throwing hybrids as well. Not just high tier, but specifically low/mid tier throwing would get hit the hardest. As Rhaelys stated earlier in the thread, it's already hard enough for cav to manage with their slot requirements. This is just not at all possible, it nerfs everything except for pure sword and boards and Archers.
Why are you even mentionning upkeep Rhaelys! It's useless nowadays, it doesn't prevent anyone from using anything anymore, everyone has like one million gold stashed up, upkeep is the LEAST of anyone's worry right now.
Why are you even mentionning upkeep Rhaelys! It's useless nowadays, it doesn't prevent anyone from using anything anymore, everyone has like one million gold stashed up, upkeep is the LEAST of anyone's worry right now.
That's the argument I've been expecting to see, it's also one I agree with (mostly). Whether it's a wpf requirement or a PD requirement, when hybriding, it still comes down to skill points. Weapon Master vs Power Draw. Though personally I'd be more for the WPF requirement being imposed upon crossbows.
1) x-bows HAVE to be hybrids. They cannot be a primary class due to the severe shortcomings of the x-bow (standing stock ass still to reload for 10 seconds, inability to properly kite)First of all, I think you should play a few times with karma. He uses about 150 wpf in crossbows, there's no room to be a hybrid with that...
...
...
First of all, I think you should play a few times with karma. He uses about 150 wpf in crossbows, there's no room to be a hybrid with that...
...
This is the intrinsic quality that crossbows have that separate them from archers: they will see either see melee combat or they will be camping a roof. The lack of mobility means that if you are a mainly melee character using one you are keeping yourself from using your primary skillset (and thus performing far more poorly as far as your team's welfare is concerned) or else you hardly get to use the crossbow anyway. You camp, you're not fighting; you fight, you're not shooting. There's almost no room for the odd potshot with a crossbow.
This also means that for a dedicated crossbowman you will most likely see melee combat more unavoidably than an archer does, as oftentimes there is no "second shot" (or third, or fourth...) regardless of any theoretical choke point. In Karma's case, specifically, he has to keep up with his ability in melee fighting or else find himself at a loss anytime his shot doesn't put someone who gets close to him down. He may not have much proficiency in his melee weapon, but a round when he doesn't use it is the outside chance.
In the case of the lower level crossbows, their weak projectile speed (or "bullet drop", if you will, which makes the effective range a lot shorter in addition to altering the aim) coupled with their subpar damage-to-frequency-of-shots ratio makes them somewhat feeble in terms of actual efficacy, regardless of who is using them and with how little investment.
I will say, however, that anything resembling the situation under the old experience system, where everyone had no reason not to carry a crossbow, and rounds would never properly get started for melee characters due to the sheer amount of thingies flying through the air is not only frightening but could also be viewed as regression as far as the state of the mod is concerned. On the bright side, crossbows have had their damage significantly reduced since then, and bolts are penetrating shields faaaaar less often, so ubiquity aside, they're not nearly as randomly deadly.(click to show/hide)
IRL, crossbows require less exertion and training to use, than bows. Longbowmen were so strong that their left arms developed bone spurs, but a relative weakling could use a crossbow. Because they are mechanically drawn, the strength of the user does not effect the speed or power of the bolt. Aiming would require some training, but less than a bow where fatigue worsens aim when holding the drawn bow (as seen in the game).
Crossbows niche should be a ranged weapon that does not have skill requisites to use. They are slow to reload, and their gold expense should balance any stat-based advantage they have over bows.
In an ideal Crpg, I'd imagine dedicated crossbowmen as a sniper class. They would rely more on gold than xp (Think italian mercenary cliche). Peasant levies would enjoy sacrificing some armor/melee wpn gold for a pricey crossbow instead because of the low requirements to use. Wealthy melee infantry with some item spots to spare might take a crossbow to a siege. Basically, the way they were used irl, making an intriguing simulation of medieval warfare rather than another boring rock-paper-dildo.
It's been said time and again, realism will NEVER be a good way to balance a game.
A lot of things are said time and again. Why should I believe you? What is your criteria for balance?
What is more balanced than reality?
Crossbows niche should be a ranged weapon that does not have skill requisites to use. They are slow to reload, and their gold expense should balance any stat-based advantage they have over bows.Gold should never be used as the main balancing factor for items. Were this the case you could essentially add a machine gun to the game that you have to buy for 1,000,000 gold and a stack of bullets costing 100,000. It wouldn't change the fact that while in use, during the battle the item would be blatantly overpowered.
Don't take my word for it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3997HZuWjk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HagCuGXJgUs&feature=related
Realism is also a slippery slope. If we are going to talk realism, then why don't we add a stamina system like in AOC? While we are at it why don't we add misfires?
Why don't also have it set up to where a lone long pike man rather stopping plated chargers singlehandedly breaks both of his arms from the sheer impact of such a massive armored beast coming at him when he tries to stab it?
Reality has a nasty habit of being terribly unbalanced more often than not.
I don't understand this video's relevance. If a longbow propelled arrow from distance x can penetrate plate armor y, than I would hope it would be reflected accurately in Crpg. Whether the video experiment accurately simulates the physics of medieval combat/armor/weaponry is another matter.
This video seems to support my argument.
It would be neat if these things were added to the game.
Physics is perfectly balanced if you catch my drift. The average combat utility difference between two items is difficult to calculate. Gold cost is the way that this gap can be bridged (under a fair gold gaining system).
@Tydeus: Machine guns are not in the game for the purposes of aesthetics. Imo, there are enough fanciful "balanced" games out there; I would like to see a realistic medieval combat simulation.
Should a naked man throwing rocks be "balanced" against a knight on horseback? Where do you draw the line?
The idea behind the the armor vs plate video is that despite being within the guaranteed kill zone of the bow, it was completely neutralized by the heavily defended plate of the armor. I didn't even go into the fact that plate armor was practically sword proof unless one was using a tapered blade or something akin to a Halberd. It is still up for debate, but Plate armor is largely viewed as being damn near impenetrable to arrows and bolts 8/10 times. Does that sound like a fair example of realism to base a game off of?
Also, the point behind the Xbow vid was that it was shown to be impractical in almost every sense when compared to the long bow. The Velocity wasn't really much greater in most cases, and when it was, it took near 30 seconds to reload a single shot, giving it no mobility and making it a terrible weapon in any environment other than a heavily fortified wall. A crossbow of similar firing rate to it's bow counterpart was virtually inferior to it in every way.
A truly realistic medieval combat simulation would be just that, a simulation. It would no longer really be a video game. It would be like comparing piloting in a flight simulator to the piloting one does in one of the battle field games. I'd love to see a medieval combat simulator, even if done in mount and blade; but DON'T try and bring it into CRPG, it simply would not work.
Yeah, it does. Unfortunately m&b cannot account for spots of thinner armor and gaps in armor. That being said, plate should cost a lot of gold and be well protective. At a certain cost, a player cannot maintain plate armor, thus limiting its usage.
You honestly think that making plate more realistically impenetrable than it is now when one can make a heavily ironfleshed, power strike happy strength build would be offset simply by the fact that armor costs alot? With as broken as that build would be, people with such a set up would win so often and hold onto a multiplier so often that upkeep would be totally neutralized.
I believe that armor should be buffed and base health significantly nerfed. I also dislike the current gold gain system. Buffing plate armor is not the sole change I'd like to see and I agree that it alone would "Unbalance" the game.
@Tydeus: Machine guns are not in the game for the purposes of aesthetics. Imo, there are enough fanciful, cartoony "balanced" games out there; I would like to see a realistic medieval combat simulation.I like how you state aesthetics so you can try to escape from speaking to my actual point. It was simply an analogy that can just as easily be restated with a medieval weapon. For example: They could implement another sword much like the Flamberge, except with 200c and costs 500K gold. This item would never be balanced by the upkeep costs. The fact would always remain that at 200c you would still 1shot everyone, regardless of anything they could do. It would be rare, sure, but it would most certainly be the most overpowered item on the battlefield.
Should a naked man throwing rocks be "balanced" against a knight on horseback? Where do you draw the line?
I like how you state aesthetics so you can try to escape from speaking to my actual point. It was simply an analogy that can just as easily be restated with a medieval weapon. For example: They could implement another sword much like the Flamberge, except with 200c and costs 500K gold. This item would never be balanced by the upkeep costs. The fact would always remain that at 200c you would still 1shot everyone, regardless of anything they could do. It would be rare, sure, but it would most certainly be the most overpowered item on the battlefield.
You are still wrong. Theoretically, if gold cost reflected the average effectiveness of the uber-flamberge, then it WOULD be balanced. You could use it for maybe a couple battles and then it would break; good luck with the upkeep.
MORE IMPORTANTLY, the uber-flamberge stats should fit its aesthetic representation in the game. Thus, the 200c uber-flamberge would need to be modeled like a light-saber/chainsword/weeaboo thing to reflect the 200c stat. That does not fit aesthetically with the game.
Historical weapons are researched -> modeled -> assigned appropriate stats -> given gold cost to reflect there effectiveness.
Should a naked man throwing rocks be "balanced" against a knight on horseback? Where do you draw the line?
that to be balanced, one must be able to pick any item at random and be just as likely to kill any other person in a 1v1 situation.
It may not be how this game was balanced, but that is in fact true balance.Indeed I would call that "true balance". Though I don't know of any game that is so simple that it is able to use that method for balancing. There are several systems that become unbalanced only when you take character skill into account. Many times you have to decide whether you're balancing for casual players or balancing for competitive players, among many different things. Risk vs Reward is an example of how an item can appear to be both underpowered and overpowered at the same time. Balancing is rarely, if ever, so easy that one can just balance one item, with all other items. The idea that there is a working, universal concept of balance, is rather abstract.
You missed the point, completely. I don't see how this is so hard to see. Even if the weapon was made disposable and could only be used in one round before it was destroyed, as I stated before, it would still be the most overpowered item on the field.
I think I know why this is so hard for you to understand, you're trying to simplify "balance" way too much. Throwing rocks are indeed balanced when we look at the larger picture, not when we look only at your example. Your example would have us believe that to be balanced, one must be able to pick any item at random and be just as likely to kill any other person in a 1v1 situation. This is not how the game was balanced, nor is it, to my understanding, ever going to be. High tier weapons are balanced with other high tier weapons, weapon types are balanced with other weapon types.
To think that 200 cut damage for a melee weapon isn't excessive is a bit...
YOU MISSED THE POINT ENTIRELY.
A 200c flamberge will never exist BECAUSE to be believably "200c" it would have to be modeled as a light saber or some shit and THAT DOESN'T FIT with the game aesthetically!
Physically/historically a weapon can only be so powerful. THEREFORE, no super-crazy-death weapons would ever be a problem.
On your second point: Just because some fighting style can be made distinct from another fighting style doesn't mean it has to be "balanced" with all the rest. Maybe throwing weapons just suck dick, and you have to be poor peasant or a chucking badass to use them, huh? Gold cost and leveling limit the use of stronger fighting styles.
You're assuming that this game is following a 100 % realistic standard when designing it's items.
They are somewhat based off of realism, but at the same time, it's far from an exact trade. I find it hard to believe that items such as the barmace or even the long maul could be swung around with such ease as they are in the game.
YOU MISSED THE POINT ENTIRELY.It'd be balanced if you could only swing it once every 4 seconds and you were totally helpless and immobile during those 4 seconds while reeling your arm back to swing again.
A 200c flamberge will never exist BECAUSE to be believably "200c" it would have to be modeled as a light saber or some shit and THAT DOESN'T FIT with the game aesthetically!
YOU MISSED THE POINT ENTIRELY.I didn't miss the point, I chose to completely ignore it as it holds zero relevance to what I was talking about. Go back, read what I first quoted, then read my reply to it. You need to either take back your gold balancing statement, or actually defend it as that is what I have been arguing against.
A 200c flamberge will never exist BECAUSE to be believably "200c" it would have to be modeled as a light saber or some shit and THAT DOESN'T FIT with the game aesthetically!
Physically/historically a weapon can only be so powerful. THEREFORE, no super-crazy-death weapons would ever be a problem.
On your second point: Just because some fighting style can be made distinct from another fighting style doesn't mean it has to be "balanced" with all the rest. Maybe throwing weapons just suck dick, and you have to be poor peasant or a chucking badass to use them, huh? Gold cost and leveling limit the use of stronger fighting styles.Throwing weapons are currently in a shitty position for dedicated throwers. If you're suggesting that they're not balanced for casual players but they are for competitive players; well that's you speaking, not me. You should be a bit more clear here with what you're implying.
Gold should never be used as the main balancing factor for items. Were this the case you could essentially add a machine gun to the game that you have to buy for 1,000,000 gold and a stack of bullets costing 100,000. It wouldn't change the fact that while in use, during the battle the item would be blatantly overpowered.
Lol archonAlarion you clearly dont wanna lose your lol hybrid weapon we get it now your arguments are a joke :lol:
but we dont care because we want range spam fest to end so we will keep on trying to make the normal xbow 2 slots until they give in..
"Skills should never be used as the main balancing factor for items. Were this the case you could essentially add a machine gun to the game that you have to have a 100 skill points to use and a stack of bullets would require 50 skill points. It wouldn't change the fact that while in use, during the battle the item would be blatantly overpowered."First of all, this argument isn't the same as my argument, at all. If you're actually talking skill points, then simply because of game mechanics, you'd never even be able to equip the weapon, thus it's essentially not in game. Second, gold has no relation to ones character aside from a mild increase in the average amount of gold one has, per gen of one's character. Skills on the other hand, are obtained through levels and are limited in supply. Gold has no cap. Because skills are limited, if you pump all of your skills into one thing, you're nerfing your character in several different aspects. There is no comparison here for gold.
Gold cost is not the only way to limit the use of more effective items. Generally, harder hitting melee weapons will be heavy (If they are based on reality), so a low lvl char is not only slower swinging them, but also softer hitting; it may be more effective for them to take a 1h+shield, spear, throwing, or crossbow. Incentives to regenerate chars can be used to continually refresh the supply of lower level chars.I kind of agree with the emboldened statement, it would indeed be nice not being confined to one playstyle. This is an "rpg" though, so classes will be inevitable. Without classes, crpg would truly be native, but with more equipment.
Much of the problem is the artificial division of weapons into "classes", which is partially the fault of the skill system and partially the fault of faddish conceptions about "medievaly" multiplayer games. If I'm a built, dexterous knight, why can't I draw a goddamn nomad bow? Really? What the hell is "power draw" anyway? I can wield a halberd, but I'm gonna struggle with bow that a peasant can use? Isn't power draw based on strength? Why is shield agility? What is the difference between a big 2h axe and a smallish poleaxe? A whole different proficiency category?
So much bullshit that boxes chars into class "paths," which forces the weapon styles to be equally effective for the bbbbbbbaaaaaaaallllllllllllllaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnncccccccccccccccceeeeeeeeeeeee.
There are no classes. Free yourself from the oppressive class system!!@!@!@
If you are strong you can wield a bow, hurl a spear, strike with an axe, and lift a shield. If you are a weak peasant, take a crossbow!
First of all, this argument isn't the same as my argument, at all. If you're actually talking skill points, then simply because of game mechanics, you'd never even be able to equip the weapon, thus it's essentially not in game. Second, gold has no relation to ones character aside from a mild increase in the average amount of gold one has, per gen of one's character. Skills on the other hand, are obtained through levels and are limited in supply. Gold has no cap. Because skills are limited, if you pump all of your skills into one thing, you're nerfing your character in several different aspects. There is no comparison here for gold.
Currently, yes you are right about gold being relatively unlimited. Would you agree that gold gain could be modified to make what I'm describing possible?
I kind of agree with the emboldened statement, it would indeed be nice not being confined to one playstyle. This is an "rpg" though, so classes will be inevitable. Without classes, crpg would truly be native, but with more equipment.
-1 to this topic.
The flexibility and versatility of builds really makes cRPG interesting.
Making all xbows two slots will just limit the variety of builds we have in the game.
Sure, balance matters, but in the end it still comes down to the skill level of the player AND the coordination of the team..
Signed,
Kolee
Instead, imposing a WPF requirement to USE the x-bow would stop the 1 wpf x-bow users which seems to be what you are really hating on.
I know this was a few pages ago but, no! Good god, what? You were saying in the throwing thread that the wpf requirement system was stupid and should be abolished and I agree with you. We finally found some common ground man!I said this in response to the retarded idea of imposing some asinine PD requirement to x-bows, which would kill their entire purpose and validity as a weapon. Why not just use a damn bow then, which is faster, just as accurate (if not more so depending on the bow) and is able to be used on the move for proper kiting instead of standing there with your ass towards the sky waiting to get fucked during the reload.
What would stop the 1 wpf x-bow users would be to make x-bows innacurate as hell at 1 wpf and actually make the accuracy vs wpf a reasonable climbing curve.
I find them to be completely innacurate as hell with 1 wpf for anything other than close range shotgunning as is.
I donno man. Even at 0wpf I felt it was pretty accurate. Tight crosshair and with a little compensation for distance you can hit people at a decent distance. It didn't seem anything close to inaccurate and the blots almost always travel into the center of the cross-hair. Maybe it just seems so nice because I'm used to throwing, where the reticule is wide and the shots don't even fall inside it a lot of the time.Maybe I'm just biased, but I have for 3 generations had ~100 xbows pretty early in my career. This time I got my 1h up first and rolled with 1 proficiency for a lot longer. Maybe I was just babied by the greater accuracy, however, I found that with little to no investment (less than 50 or so wpf) I couldn't reliably hit anything that wasn't in my face with my xbow. Usually, I'd barely have time to switch to my sword and shield before they took my head off or crushed my skull in (and often they would close fast enough to do just that).
I find them to be completely innacurate as hell with 1 wpf for anything other than close range shotgunning as is. Which is true of all of the ranged weapons as well. Ask Dark and Weebo. I rocked the x-bow for a while before the recent x-bow spam fad kicked in. I was a firm supporter of making wpf do something for x-bows unlike back in the plate+pike of tears (danish 2h)+ sniper xbow dark age of yore. I don't even find an x-bow worth it until 100 wpf because, at least to me, it's meant for sniping. Other than random luck I have never seen anyone with 1 wpf in x-bow connect a shot at range, it's always a shotgunned shot.I've gotten many kills with a zero wpf crossbow at a good distance further than shotgunning range. Right now I could get an arbalest or heavy crossbow and go on to a battle server and wait for sucker cavalry to come at me then down either their horse or them in one shot when they get close. No other weapon is THAT effective with zero investment. I can't pick up a 1h, 2h,pole, bow, or throwing weapon with no skills invested and expect anything other than total failure with the extremely low low chance of success. Crossbow doesn't follow that simple principle that all the other weaps do. I agree with your new wpf suggestion though. Seems like a reasonable effectiveness curve though the exact numbers may need adjustment. I'd go for 140+ wpf = Annie Oakley since crossbows really should never be super pinpoint accurate.
HOWEVER, I'm all for making the wpf curve much steeper such as:
1wpf = utter garbage
50 wpf = current 1 wpf
100 wpf = pretty slick
120 wpf = Annie Oakley
I've gotten many kills with a zero wpf crossbow at a good distance further than shotgunning range. Right now I could get an arbalest or heavy crossbow and go on to a battle server and wait for sucker cavalry to come at me then down either their horse or them in one shot when they get close. No other weapon is THAT effective with zero investment. I can't pick up a 1h, 2h,pole, bow, or throwing weapon with no skills invested and expect anything other than total failure with the extremely low low change of success. Crossbow doesn't follow that simple principle that all the other weaps do. I agree with your new wpf suggestion though. Seems like a reasonable effectiveness curve though the exact numbers may need adjustment. I'd go for 140+ wpf = Annie Oakley since crossbows really should never be super pinpoint accurate.I get plenty of polearm kills with 1 wpf.
I get plenty of polearm kills with 1 wpf.Yeah but you invested in powerstrike right? No powerstrike = good luck. No powerstrike (or anything else) while using crossbows = no big deal.
Yeah but you invested in powerstrike right? No powerstrike = good luck. No powerstrike (or anything else) while using crossbows = no big deal.Powerstrike wouldn't matter since I mainly couch.
Lichen 0 - 1 Damug
Yeah but you invested in powerstrike right? No powerstrike = good luck. No powerstrike (or anything else) while using crossbows = no big deal.
Powerstrike wouldn't matter since I mainly couch.
Powerstrike wouldn't matter since I mainly couch.Well that's a different matter the no (or low) wpf/ps couching.
Well that's a different matter the no (or low) wpf/ps lancing which should be changed as well.I imagine you could do a serious number on a horse or it's rider with a 1 wpf pike/long spear due to the speed bonus too.
I imagine you could do a serious number on a horse or it's rider with a 1 wpf pike/long spear due to the speed bonus too.1wpf + pike + 0 ps = sure go for it. Against anything else you might be a bit useless. Unlike the 1wpf crossbow.
Damug you do know you should ride in the shortbus we talking about general gameplay u dumb or something??Much like gorath, I think it is impossible for you to respond to anyone who has an opinion that is not your own without making a personal attack.
He meant that people cant use a elegant poleaxe fx. with 0 power strike investment he weren't talking about noob couching....
Damug you do know you should ride in the shortbus we talking about general gameplay u dumb or something?
Make the damn things unsheathable. I don't care. :twisted:That would be a bit silly, but another factor that makes crossbows so popular as a sidearm is the fact that they are functionally guns. You put them away loaded and they are still loaded when you switch back to them, enabling you to reload when you have a quiet moment and then do like Indiana Jones when you see a shieldless target approaching you. Unrealistic and arguably unbalancing too.
That would be a bit silly, but another factor that makes crossbows so popular as a sidearm is the fact that they are functionally guns. You put them away loaded and they are still loaded when you switch back to them, enabling you to reload when you have a quiet moment and then do like Indiana Jones when you see a shieldless target approaching you. Unrealistic and arguably unbalancing too.
True true true :?Lol the thing about that gif is it shows how awesome and kewl Indiana Jones is... you don't sympathise with the sword dude...
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Also the main problem is that cRPG dont have class restriction like most games in their servers thank god for that but....
Atleast you will have to dedicate yourself into one build and thus it corrects the above statement i made.
But here is the problem the xbow goes in and turn the entire server into range mayhem thx to having no skill investment.
That sword dude must have had atleast 199 wpf in 2h look at hes awesome technique :lol:
I think it's official, Tzar is the Native_ATS of the European servers as far as forum discussions go.
A 12 year old could load and shoot a crossbow. They don't take much skill OR strength to use. Crossbows should be expensive. If done right, then people will be wary of taking too much armor or too much melee weaponry with crossbows, because they won't be able to maintain the build anyway.
but not as a no skill requirement ranged weapon to make melee on equal footing with other dedicated ranged weapon users.
This actually sounds like the best defense for the existance of x-bows ever. Gives melee something to fire back at the homos
Give me back my 2 hander by reducing all bow slots to 1, and then reduce the wpf required to be effective with a bow down to say, 100 wpf instead of 140 so that I can also put wpf into that 2 hander, and then you may have something.
Nonsense Gorath, crossbow is just as capable of kiting as any other ranged. I've played this pure crossbowman for a while with dual/triple light (or for easymode sniper) crossbows, you just need to make enough distance to reload savely. Or stay behind teammates, really.
Not that it isn't just for trolling...
And you can kite with a crossbow/light people do it to me all the time when I'm wearing my plate, it doesn't take long to reload either of these bows, even at 1 wpf.
Put on a crossbow earlier today with some masterwork steel bolts I picked up off the market, got enough kills with it to feel like I was a dedicated crossbowman except with 1 wpf. And you can kite with a crossbow/light people do it to me all the time when I'm wearing my plate, it doesn't take long to reload either of these bows, even at 1 wpf.
So, how many of these 1 wpf exploiters can we say are even honestly on our radar when it's raining? Oh yeah, none. Because rain effects crossbows to a point where if you're even heavily invested in xbows they will totally suck compared to when the skies are clear. It also rains a very good amount of the time. Bows and throwing aren't effected even half as badly as crossbows, which is fine with me, as they take more of an investment than xbows. You get a simpler to use weapon in crossbows, that's for sure; but they are VERY situational, especially if you're going to be some side arm using douche bag.Stationary targets take player skill out of the accuracy equation in which case it becomes almost entirely about the crossbow. I won't argue the K:D bit as I'm not a crossbowman. I'm satisfied with "sub-par" the first time I pick-up a crossbow in two months and only have 1 wpf. I've never thought crossbow damage was the issue, which would probably be the largest contributing factor to K:D. I honestly had at the very least, a 40% accuracy rating with the crossbow but that can't be seen without an assist counter. I was hitting people but not dealing deadly amounts of damage per shot, not like I was using a Heavy or an Arbalest either though.
Tydeus, I like you alot, but I was in that game. Even by hybrid user standards, you were sub-par at best. You had one impressive mid range shot on a character who was standing still to type out in the open and around a 5-3 KD ratio for the majority of the time you were using said xbow(assuming all of those kills/the majority were xbow kills), which is very possible at yours and my character levels. I've done a similar thing with 2handed swords of Karma's 30+ xbower builds. Now if you were regularly doubling deaths with kills with o wpf, then ok, you'd have a point. But it's just not possible these days, especially with the horrid weather.
Nerf crossbows or bring back throwing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
give them a crappy 0 slot shield that can take arrows (high armor) but gets wrecked by melee (low health)
Stationary targets take player skill out of the accuracy equation in which case it becomes almost entirely about the crossbow. I won't argue the K:D bit as I'm not a crossbowman. I'm satisfied with "sub-par" the first time I pick-up a crossbow in two months and only have 1 wpf. I've never thought crossbow damage was the issue, which would probably be the largest contributing factor to K:D. I honestly had at the very least, a 40% accuracy rating with the crossbow but that can't be seen without an assist counter. I was hitting people but not dealing deadly amounts of damage per shot, not like I was using a Heavy or an Arbalest either though.
I find it hard to take the "situational" argument seriously, especially when we're talking about not even having to put wpf into a crossbow to begin with. If you're only talking about rain or maybe extremely heavy fog, I can only imagine that fucks over dedicated crossbowmen far more than one that hasn't put anything into it to begin with, since they can just fall back to their melee spec.
The issue for me has never been damage per shot, it's been the ease at which one can be useful or even good with a crossbow at 1 wpf (I can only assume, had I put my miaodao down and gotten a heavy or arbalest, I'd have been a much better crossbowman). What's to stop a team of 30 people in a battle server from all having ranged, consisting of Archers, throwers and all of the melee using crossbows with 1 wpf? Strategically speaking, it's a solid strategy, especially for a pub. When you can just run from melee indefinitely and wait for a teammate or two to pick the chasing infantry off, the only thing that can stop archers/crossbowers in this situation, is cavalry. The problem with cavalry being a viable counter to this strategy is that you'll never have enough people on your team as cavalry(most people don't have 3+ riding) and if you run with fewer than that, your horses are going to be sitting ducks due to the number of ranged they have to go up against. But even then, that example assumes the best case scenario for cavalry, flat ground with little to not trees or buildings(There are very few of these types of maps in actual play, if any). Worse still, is that for the crossbowmen, they're actually dedicated melee, not crossbowmen at all. Even if you do manage to get the upper hand against "crossbowmen", you didn't against the other weapon they're carrying and also much more proficient with.
I can already hear the screams of how far fetched this is and that it's just theoretical and will never happen. The problem is that I've already seen the NA 80 man become damn close to this, several times. You can attest to this Karma, you were there with Marcus yesterday for the map where it was just about at its worst yet.
On a side note, I did notice that when there were very few people on, my accuracy was perfect. If I missed a shot, it was because I misjudged something. But as the population on the server rose however, my bolts were veering off into random directions quite often. I can only assume this is due to the same issue that fucks my feints, blocks and animations up, under the same playercount, packet loss. This paired with rain could really fuck over crossbows but I don't think this should be used to balance a class.
If you don't want to completely screw over xbowmen who like sword n board, give them a crappy 0 slot shield that can take arrows (high armor) but gets wrecked by melee (low health) and of course cannot be used on horseback, is small but heavy.0-slot shield would be acceptable if it is also "cannot sheath". It will drop to the ground every time you pull out the xbow, but you can pick it up when you move. It is not like you reload on the run anyway.
Reality has nothing to do with game balance.
The xbow has its place, but not as a no skill requirement ranged weapon to make melee on equal footing with other dedicated ranged weapon users.
Gold cost is not an effective balancing tool for a general class of weapons, only for differentiating between lower and upper tier version of that weapon.
It can. Why have crossbows at all? Why do they need a long reload time? Why make them separate from bows at all?
If you have no criteria for determining how a weapon should function, then you can argue for it to function any way imaginable. "Balance" is not criteria. You can eliminate all weapons but daggers and shields and have a "balanced" game.
You cannot use "balance" as an argument for how a weapon should function, because alterations in other areas of the game can "unbalance" the weapon once again, thus making the whole point of your original alteration meaningless.
Realism is a (more or less) set in stone, objective standard to measure changes against. We know from accumulated knowledge that real life has its own balance, and where it is not "fair", limitations can be imposed to ensure all players have a chance to be entertained/empowered. I believe these "balancing" changes should be out of combat limitations, not a distortion of item function itself. Gold cost is a portion of this out of combat balancing action.
That is the entire point of this weapon. It is not a 'crossbow" if it does not function like one.
Why? The Gold cost, weight cost, and slot cost is already enough for me to refuse a crossbow for my melee chars.
On top of this is the hidden cost of wasting my melee chars potential by dinking around with a crossbow instead of using my melee weapons I'm paying for.
ALSO, if the difficulty of bows and throwing were based on Strength, then more hybrids would use them if their strength was high enough for the choice to be effective. Crossbows do not require much strength to be used, but are slow to reload and expensive.
At a certain strength, it would become more effective to use a cheaper bow than a crossbow. Longbowmen were better than crossbowmen, but required almost lifetime strength training. Ideally, crossbows are good for wealthy chars who lack strength (something like a 4th generation peasant).
An extra few thousand gold should not give an untrained infantryman the same competitive range capabilities as the dedicated archers who trained specifically for this purpose.A few thousand extra gold does no such thing. Put a posse of untrained infantrymen carrying crossbows up against a posse of dedicated archers at range in game. The archers will win every time.
A few thousand extra gold does no such thing. Put a posse of untrained infantrymen carrying crossbows up against a posse of dedicated archers at range in game. The archers will win every time.
All 2handers and polearms should be 3 slots, with maybe a few lower tier items being 1-2 slots imo, lances for cav among those. This wouldn't really hurt dedicated PA/2h players, but would kill pocket xbows with no skill investment.
I don't like the idea of items having any other requirement than strength.
If I'm able to wield a great maul, I can definitely pick up a crossbow and shoot it without trouble. If I the player am unskilled at using crossbows, this should be the determinant of how well I fare.
Attributes represent aspects of the character that the player cannot directly control through mouse and keyboard movements (such as a char's physical strength).
Skills are for unlocking/improving certain aspects of the game that are supposed to be complicated, professional activities IRL but which the game has made simple (riding a horse = press f and go).
I do not believe crossbow usage (compared to all other tools/activities in the game) has been simplified enough to warrant a skill barrier. In fact it would be far easier to shoot a crossbow than to effectively swing a poleaxe.
The strength attribute already represents an entry barrier. Crossbows should have a low XP/Strength barrier, but a high Gold barrier, adjusted to an efficient cost. This could mean that crossbows become more expensive, I haven't looked into it too too far.
I don't like the idea of items having any other requirement than strength.
If I'm able to wield a great maul, I can definitely pick up a crossbow and shoot it without trouble. If I the player am unskilled at using crossbows, this should be the determinant of how well I fare.
Attributes represent aspects of the character that the player cannot directly control through mouse and keyboard movements (such as a char's physical strength).
Skills are for unlocking/improving certain aspects of the game that are supposed to be complicated, professional activities IRL but which the game has made simple (riding a horse = press f and go).
I do not believe crossbow usage (compared to all other tools/activities in the game) has been simplified enough to warrant a skill barrier. In fact it would be far easier to shoot a crossbow than to effectively swing a poleaxe.
The strength attribute already represents an entry barrier. Crossbows should have a low XP/Strength barrier, but a high Gold barrier, adjusted to an efficient cost. This could mean that crossbows become more expensive, I haven't looked into it too too far.
I've never shot a crossbow, so I can't comment on the amount of skill needed to shoot one. I don't think just anyone would be able to pick up a crossbow and use it efficiently.
. Cost is a terrible balancing mechanism. We should never allow people to just buy kills. The playing field is quite uneven when it comes to gold, and an increase in cost would only dissuade the poor.
Cost is a terrible balancing mechanism. We should never allow people to just buy kills. The playing field is quite uneven when it comes to gold, and an increase in cost would only dissuade the poor.Horses and plate - spend the cash get the kills.
Default native damage is by default set to 50% only against you.
I can use a Sword of War on horseback in native. Please, if there is one change I could have, it'd be to let me use my two-handers on horseback. Would be so much fun. :twisted:
first off, in native crossbows don't do 98 damage a pop.
Secondly, Crossbows were not nerfed at all, and they are in fact more accurate than bows. I should know, I have an archer and a hybrid crossbower. The crossbow-woman is more accurate than the bow, despite the fact she has 30 less wpf in xbows than my archer has in bows.
Yeah, I'm tired of stupid crossbows one shot killing me. They're also super accurate for an infinite time, and you can be relatively accurate with them while running.Weren't crossbows created to be stronger than bows, require hardly any skill, and take human error out of the way when it comes to accuracy?
NERF
Yeah, I'm tired of stupid crossbows one shot killing me. They're also super accurate for an infinite time, and you can be relatively accurate with them while running.
NERF
The regular xbow regularly fails to kill people with peasant armor with a single body shot. I'm sure a pure peasant would die in one shot but someone with any strength at all and no armor certainly won't. And that's not even including rain, which means if you have an xbow you might as well not play at all.
It's great having random weather effects that arbitrarily render your character pointless to play. It's a great gameplay element. I propose that anyone with a 2hander and plate armor should fall over every 10-15 seconds from heat exhaustion whenever it's sunny out.
But I don't really see how shotgunning can be prevented/nerfed other than a pure damage nerf. (Although crossbow looms NEED a nerf right now imo)
Different wpf requirement for the different xbows sounds a nice option. Also, AFAIK, crossbow heirlooms will be nerfed slightly.
Lol umad?
Why the heck should a regular crossbow one-shot people in light armor? O.o
The problem with xbows it that so many people are carrying them as a sidearm, mostly for "shotgunning" which is brutally effective. (And requires no wpf investment whatsoever)
It's just so annoying that you will never survive facingmore than two-three "melee" infantry per round as pure melee due to the xbow shotgunning guranteeing you will lose 40-50% health each encounter.
But I don't really see how shotgunning can be prevented/nerfed other than a pure damage nerf. (Although crossbow looms NEED a nerf right now imo)
"shotgunning"
I've seen the xbow with 1 wpf lately and it's horrifically bad.
If you're getting shot by it at any range then you're awful.
I didn't say light armor, genius, I said peasant armor!!!
The regular xbow regularly fails to kill people with peasant armor with a single body shot.
more derpderpderpderp...