For me, the only truly rage-inducing thing about ranged is having a good fight interrupted by a 3 damage stun-arrow that cancels a critical block/attack.
A high damage arrow shot absolutely should stun. A peashooter? not so much.
Solution:
Arrows that do more than 25% of a player's health in one shot will stun. Others will not. (The exact damage/stun threshold will have to be fine tuned, of course).
A couple of possibilities:
Damage over X% Target's Max HP to stun.
Makes HP stacking much better against range.
Damage over X% Target's current HP to stun.
Gives you 1-2 free "resist arrow stuns" at high HP, but not at low HP
Damage over X% of Target's Max/Current HP where X is calculated from their armor value (eg. no armor = 10%, full tincan = 40%)
Gives high armor players an ability to resist arrow CC, but not damage.
Damage over X flat value.
Crudest and simplest option
Copy pasted from another thread:
Raise bow STR requirements so that players can't have those 18/24+ builds anymore.
How about a compromise? To me, the annoying archers are the ones with tatar and nomad bows. With high proficiency (agi-whore build) they can shoot extremely fast, extremely accurate AND do good damage. They shouldn't be able to stun people as well. On the other hand, I doubt anyone would be able to take an arrow from a long bow and not stagger for a moment. I propose that ranged stun should stay for the more powerful bows (long bow, bow, rus bow, and MAYBE horn bow and yumi). This would encourage people to use strength archer builds instead of agi builds, therefore decreasing the number of people making STF archers with 9 athletics.
How about a compromise? To me, the annoying archers are the ones with tatar and nomad bows. With high proficiency (agi-whore build) they can shoot extremely fast, extremely accurate AND do good damage. They shouldn't be able to stun people as well. On the other hand, I doubt anyone would be able to take an arrow from a long bow and not stagger for a moment. I propose that ranged stun should stay for the more powerful bows (long bow, bow, rus bow, and MAYBE horn bow and yumi). This would encourage people to use strength archer builds instead of agi builds, therefore decreasing the number of people making STF archers with 9 athletics.
Remove it completely with no compensation in buffs or exceptions for the high tier bows or throwing. No excuses to leave it in, balance or "fun gameplay" wise.
Suggestions to do anything else are from Bad players with Bad ideas.
Say what? Do you know what the word compromise even means? The OP proposing a nerf request with no offsetting bonus and then you posting to nerf only one slot bows with no offsetting bonus is not a compromise. A compromise would be "nerf stuns but increase missile speed" or "nerf stuns but increase accuracy so it doesn't take as much WM to shoot someone at far range". Those are compromises, not what you are proposing.
I think the stun should stay, it gives archery a purpose especially for team work, instead i think the dmg should be nerfed. Arrow stun is realistic and fun.
Any good skilled archer should use the stun on his advantage instead of just spaming arrows to inflict dmg.
Arrow stun is realistic and fun.
realistic and fun.visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Copy pasted from another thread:
I much rather get stunned than lose half of my hp from a spam arrow, however, you cant nerf both things (stun or dmg), archers need to be efficient some how, so go ahead and choose one, would you rather die from a skip the fun archer in siege, or would you rather get stunned. And ofc the stun is realistic, have you ever got shot by an arrow?
oh it stuns you alright, unless you are an orc from lord of the rings.
And one more thing, nerfing the dmg would make most noob archers give up and only the truthful ones stay, those who fight with tactics and team work (hence the "fun").
Have you ? Have you ever been shot by a handgun while wearing a bulletproof vest ? Without ? Stings like a bitch either way, but there is nothing pushing you five meters away. Anyway if that was the case, the archer would be pushed backwards 5 meters too when firing.
You forgot get a shield lol after tactics and teamwork
You can't look at realism in a vacuum. A Bardiche would cleave your head open in one hit regardless, or at least knock you out. Chainmail with padding was actually really good against arrows, plate even better.
Just saying, a semblance of reality is all thats needed, beyond that its gameplay all the way. Getting rooted to the spot by any projectile while any melee hit doesn't makes no gameplay sense and why have realism for one weapon and not for another?
IDK, I feel like maybe having the bows have stagger is a bit OP but as a dedicated crossbow man I thrive on that stagger. It takes me 5 seconds(I just counted) to reload my arbalest with 123wpf. The stagger is one of the few pluses to it(gives me time to reload which i desperately need) besides the high damage output. Just my opinion since everyones just talking about archery and not about crossbows.
Any chucklefuck with 0 WPF who picked one up in a Strat battle
Your opinion about ranged stagger is only valid if you have an archer char with 10:1 or better kd rating(with a minimum of 10k kills). Anything else is ignored.
I didn't bring up realism, so don't make it my argument.
Theres nothing wrong with archery, the only thing wrong is that there are to many archers in the battlefield, i dont mind the stun or anything else.
So focus on decreasing the number of arrow spammers instead of making up excuses to justify your raging behavior when you get shot on EU1/NA1.
IDK, I feel like maybe having the bows have stagger is a bit OP but as a dedicated crossbow man I thrive on that stagger. It takes me 5 seconds(I just counted) to reload my arbalest with 123wpf. The stagger is one of the few pluses to it(gives me time to reload which i desperately need) besides the high damage output. Just my opinion since everyones just talking about archery and not about crossbows.
Especially a weapon like Arbs should be long-distance sniper weapons. Any chucklefuck with 0 WPF who picked one up in a Strat battle can tell you how OP they are in close range since you never miss and you rack up kills with little to no threat for your own safety like no other weapon. I've had plenty of 30+ kills 2 death matches with 0 WPF. Staggering to give you more breathing room in close quarters is the opposite of how that weapon should play. If someone is close enough that a stagger is the difference between kiting/reloading and death you should be pulling out a melee weapon.
Stagger is stupid and sometimes gamebreaking. Try to fight in a melee line when a handful of throwers, archers, and whatever else open up on you at once. Since you can't juke mid stagger, you get focus fired and are stuck in place like an epileptic idiot. They do enough damage as it is without needing that crutch. Being locked in place because of ranged fire and having no way to counter it has no semblance of skill, fun, or competitively balanced gameplay.
Nerf unloomed bows and arrows - decreases the number of effective archers while leaving the dedicated archers alone.
If you nerfed unloomed stuff all you would be doing is nerfing new players with no access to +3s.
If you nerfed unloomed stuff all you would be doing is nerfing new players with no access to +3s.
So, if this were removed and I were to get hurt by a ranged weapon, I would be hit but still able to move?
[...]Staggering to give you more breathing room in close quarters is the opposite of how that weapon should play. If someone is close enough that a stagger is the difference between kiting/reloading and death you should be pulling out a melee weapon.
Stagger is stupid and sometimes gamebreaking. Try to fight in a melee line when a handful of throwers, archers, and whatever else open up on you at once. Since you can't juke mid stagger, you get focus fired and are stuck in place like an epileptic idiot. They do enough damage as it is without needing that crutch. Being locked in place because of ranged fire and having no way to counter it has no semblance of skill, fun, or competitively balanced gameplay.
A good archer saves a bloody rambo on their team, or the lone survivor of a small scrum from 3-5 enemy trying to run him down until he can make it back to the main body. It happens every round, but people are so wrapped up in their melee-centric world that 95% of the time, they don't even notice that their ass was saved. Most of them don't hit teammates more than 5-10% of the time and if they do, press the mutha fuckin ctrl-M every time and they will get their asses booted.
The difference between ranged stagger and pole stagger is that ranged can't keep you stun locked. It takes too long between shots. Unless of course you want to talk about multiple ranged, and then I will just say gtfo arguing about a 1vs2-5 situation.
[...]
[...] Most melee want ranged stun to be removed completely, but most ranged want it to be left alone. So I said remove it on the lower tier bows but keep it on the higher tier bows. [...]
I voted "stay" of course, but would love to see 2 changes:
- overall slight nerf of the stun intensity
- make stun dependant on PD and shot distance
Your opinion about ranged stagger is only valid if you have an archer char with 10:1 or better kd rating(with a minimum of 10k kills). Anything else is ignored.
So, if this were removed and I were to get hurt by a ranged weapon, I would be hit but still able to move?
Today, that annoying YuRneRO fellow hit me so hard that I was pushed five meters back and fell from a wall. This "stun" is just silly.
It is great for ranged, especially low level ones. Also precise archers can make good use of it. It's bad for everyone else. Without ranged stun, low damaging projectiles will become pointless. Right now they are used to interrupt enemy attack and stop him in his tracks.
What is the point of a pointless weapon? If taking away stun will make them pointless, then a damage increase to make them not pointless is called for.
For Steevee...No, no amount of armor should make you totally immune to damage from a weapon.
What is the point of a pointless weapon? If taking away stun will make them pointless, then a damage increase to make them not pointless is called for.
For Steevee...No, no amount of armor should make you totally immune to damage from a weapon.
Maybe it should. There already is such a thing as glances, especially in melee. So maybe the very best armors should glance most of the weaker arrows. It would be better than taking this mod further into the fantasy realm with no arrow stun overall.
No, no amount of armor should make you totally immune to damage from a weapon.
You can block after being hit by one, but polearm attacks still interrupt movement, which makes them king of ganking.
Any weapon type can interrupt your movement... I just yesterday jumped away from a guy with a short warhammer... it managed to hit me midair, and my character just stopped right there, above the ground, all momentum canceled, and fell straight down. If people are running away from me and i catch up and overhead them they are stunned no longer than if I do the same with a 2hander.
I think the reason melee bounces are inacceptable (and why weapons that are highly subject to those are extremely unpopular) is because having this randomly happen to you means your opponent gets a free hit.
I agree, the amount of glances is ridiculous and the measure of a low damage weapon should be its low damage, not its inability to do any damage at all due to "glance".
Honestly, I think the game was far better balanced when cut weapons had a good chance of actually glancing against high armor values back in older cRPG. So people used fast swords to kill light infantry and often had backup hammers or picks to deal with heavy armor. Totally reasonable.
A couple years ago they totally fucked the soak/whatever values for armor that basically made cut do one half as much damage and pierce/blunt be way way stronger, but removed cut glancing. So in turn people went to full STR builds with great swords and bardiches to do similar damage and were the best in every situation (often still are.)
Now they nerfed WPF so basically everyone takes a million hits to kill regardless of build or IF because most weapons do pathetic damage against armor, unless you are using an awlpike type weapon or pierce ranged, which do relatively far too much damage on top of their other benefits.
Akanerfbufffix armor penetration/soak values and you will find yourself with a more balanced game overall.
Honestly, I think the game was far better balanced when cut weapons had a good chance of actually glancing against high armor values back in older cRPG. So people used fast swords to kill light infantry and often had backup hammers or picks to deal with heavy armor. Totally reasonable.
A couple years ago they totally fucked the soak/whatever values for armor that basically made cut do one half as much damage and pierce/blunt be way way stronger, but removed cut glancing. So in turn people went to full STR builds with great swords and bardiches to do similar damage and were the best in every situation (often still are.)
Now they nerfed WPF so basically everyone takes a million hits to kill regardless of build or IF because most weapons do pathetic damage against armor, unless you are using an awlpike type weapon or pierce ranged, which do relatively far too much damage on top of their other benefits.
Akanerfbufffix armor penetration/soak values and you will find yourself with a more balanced game overall.
Without ranged stun, low damaging projectiles will become pointless.
Right now they are used to interrupt enemy attack and stop him in his tracks.
Essentially, it's RNG bullshit. It needs to be removed, and any ranged balance changes after that can be applied if neccessary.
Yes, of course. We ought not to remove a bogus, unfun and inconsistent mechanic because people will complain about marginally related changes when they happen at the same time as the removal.
Or it could just be removed like polestagger was without any kind of statistical compensation.
Did I see someone use a slippery slope argument?
A great number of the players in the community don't buy your characterizations of that feature. A great number may, but it may simply be the very vocal minority that has always existed in the anti-ranged lobby.
And if it does get removed, it sure as hell better not be replaced with "marginally related changes".
If people complained about ranged after it received a mechanics nerf, it would be because of a noticeable statistical change to an item or several items occurring at the same time as the removal of a game mechanic
That's really an assumption that 3 years of cRPG has proven to thus far be mistaken. Anti-ranged will always be here asking to reduce its effectiveness, no matter what you do. Even if you reduce it to exactly what they ask for, they will be back in a month asking to reduce it more.
And I will always be here just as loud as they are.
Anytime you aren't, changes get ramrodded through because apparently everyone must agree since nobody is in opposition. I'm not even making this up, many of them have admitted on these boards that the removal of ranged is their ultimate goal. In the meantime, actual issues are not addressed because they are given what they are clamoring for instead of what the game needs.
.(click to show/hide)
and here is a diference, on EU long and rus bows are still popular, and i can see lots of ppl using them.
I was confused earlier when reading this thread, I thought you were trying to remove all of the stun completely... after I gave it a second look I'm fairly certain you are aiming to remove Stagger and keep Stun
Stagger - the thing that locks you in place for a half a second as if you were kicked *some times moving you back or to the side* (kinda bs can go I would understand)
Stun - Cancels blocks as if being hit by a melee weapon. (Needs to stay)
I think the best suggestion in this thread I have seen to be honest is the recommendation of making stagger determined by damage dealt by the shot. That way good shots are still rewarded for spammy archers. While making it harder for them to "lock you in place."
We could just drop the argumentative "THE ___ LOBBY SUCKS" attitude and go back to the merits of changes and stop being so dismissive.
Is your argument really to never nerf ranged at all because people will complain about it whether it's nerfed or not? I am having trouble accepting the credibility of what you've been saying based on some of your posts I've been reading.
The people who actually make balance changes haven't said any such thing, and they've typically ignored baseless and nonsensical lobbying as much as you're dismissing any proposed negative change or rebalance to ranged weapons based on some overblown strawman lobby.
I'm curious as to what "actual issues" haven't been addressed, in your opinion. Several changes, most within the last few months, have gone leaps and bounds to improve broken mechanics and remove outdated flaws the game engine has had since its inception. Balance changes are actually being discussed and implementation of changes are not subject to rare whimsy and select opinions without discussion any longer. Here you're not only dismissing the idea that someone might have a valid opinion because of what extreme view their idea might align with, but you're also dismissing the actual process of game balance that goes on and the changes that have been made and are being made.
As for the balance team, I've seen the thought processes shared a hell of a lot more with Tydeus and he is making logical arguments. But it still appears to be that the balance team is only considering what the anti-XXX lobby suggests and not some of the better solutions proposed by several members of the community (I'm not just talking about me). There have been several excellent proposals that have gone ignored (no, I'm not going on a forum hunt for them now, they will pop up again.) Additionally, other complaints are ignored. The community has been complaining forever about how lame it is for xbows to be able to invest nothing, absolutely nothing into the xbow, have a ranged weapon with great damage, and still be able to roll a melee character on par with a pure melee character.
I think I have plenty of cause to have my opinions. :idea:
It is enabled for three classes of weapons universally. There is no defensive maneuver to avoid its results like there is with knockdown. The only active ways to avoid it are the same as they are to avoid any ranged attack: to try and dodge it, to hide from it behind scene objects or terrain, or to invest in shield skill and a shield to use and block in the direction of the person shooting. I feel that ranged stagger simultaneously presents too big of an annoyance and group benefit when enabled and won't change the way that ranged players operate or significantly impact their individual performance should it be disabled or nerfed somehow.
With all this in mind, how drastically would the game really change if ranged hits only stunned for around half a second every time instead of sometimes stunning for around one entire second?
You'd still be able to help your teammates by shooting an enemy who is then vulnerable because they are no longer able to attack or block for a short duration.
True, but not as much as if they are rooted in place. I think shortening the stun would be a sufficient nerf to start with, plus they could always remove it entirely in the following patch if .4-.5 seconds is unbearable for people.
True, but not as much as if they are rooted in place. I think shortening the stun would be a sufficient nerf to start with, plus they could always remove it entirely in the following patch if .4-.5 seconds is unbearable for people.