Was about to join EU_1, thank to you Panos I am going for a beer.
Get a shield :P
Adding a cap is a shit way to deal with ranged
No way man, ranged is perfectly fine and fair, what they should really be doing is nerfing cav again.
Being ranged is a shit way to play this game.Agreed. The way ranged works is not really that unique, it is seen in countless other games, but the melee system in this game is by far more unique.
Somehow (no idea how, it is point&click after all) playing ranged should require some skill from the player's end too.
why do we have to get shields? why cant the range stop being pussies and fight.
I dont want to change my style of fighting because people are too scare to get dirty.
Lower the missile speed.
Buf.. bring back heavy cav, to deal with the ranged. Nerf horse ranged that makes playing cav pretty close to impossible. Give us maps with less roofs and other protection from cav. It will balance itself out in the end.
Lower the missile speed.
EVERY LITTLE UNSKILLED FUCK, WHO CANT BLOCK MORE THAN 2 HITS IN A ROW, GRABS A BOW AND BECOMES A HERO OF THE BATTLEFIELD(click to show/hide)
EU1 PRIME TIME, 32 PLAYERS, AND THE MAJORITY IS FUCKING RANGED.
JESUS FUCKING CHRIST ADD A RANGED CAP ALREADY
Hey, Hey listen. Panos listen. Theres a secret i want to tell u.(click to show/hide)
defence*
Yep, even I am playing EU2 only in the last days (and I am a battle lover). Much more players even in primetime, and like 20-30 % less ranged players. No cav at all. And alot of the people playing melee are also noobs. For a dedicated melee player it's basically heaven compared to battle.
A demigod on EU2, while nothing more than 'bump&shoot cannon-fodder' on EU1. Sad. :|
Shall i edit it?
I just made my new archer-character though :(
JESUS FUCKING CHRIST ADD A RANGED CAP ALREADY
Should I *
There are no classes in cRPG though, only heroes.
A different mod of this game, Napoleonic Wars, has a cap for certain types of troops which I think would work well. They should probably use the character chooser NW uses too so when you join the server and your class is capped you can just pick another build.
Class limits are lame, nerfs are unnecessary since Ranged isn't really OP, and adjusting stats would never fix that.
If Tydeus and friends want to get a little more ambitious instead of spending their time tweaking cRPG by skullfucking animations, they should try to polish up Siege 2.0, or rework it into a more proper Conquest/Domination gametype with respawns, three flags, and ticket respawns.
I still can't imagine it being THAT complicated. Take Field by the River or some other popular, open map. Add three siege flags, around both spawns and in the middle. Import Strategus tickets, and make them drain both from deaths and from not holding enough flags. Tune it for 5-10 minute rounds, with the same XP system.
There, 90 percent of all complaints about the game go away. All classes have their place. HA harrass infantry traveling to flags.. ranged defend a flag or suppress defenders. Infantry take and hold ground. Cav be cav wherever they want. Fun, full battlefield from the beginning to end of every round. So much less rage at the game. Much more fun for casual playing.
Fucking do it instead of retweaking the Sweet Spot Animation Hilt Density Algorithim of the pitchfork for 100 hours
There, 90 percent of all complaints about the game go away. All classes have their place. HA harrass infantry traveling to flags.. ranged defend a flag or suppress defenders. Infantry take and hold ground. Cav be cav wherever they want. Fun, full battlefield from the beginning to end of every round. So much less rage at the game. Much more fun for casual playing.
What about the HAs that destory half the team? Harassing is not killing but more like delaying. What about 3 range that's take out the other half has didnt get?
SMART IDEA MAN!!!
KILL THE FAVOURITE MODE OF THE MAJORITY , BECAUSE OF RANGED!
GENIUS!
I remember some Native servers had a ranged cap. It actually worked out pretty well.Yeah, but the small difference with cRPG is that you can't just choose another class if there's too much ranged on the server. So no, it's not a good idea for cRPG.
i remember good old times when heavy cav wasnt fucked up, oh boy it was fun decreasing ranged numbers and watch them rage and than GTX but those days are long gone since some people thing heavy cav was OP and had to be killed. R.I.A. ( rest in armoury) my sweet plated charger.
I'd rather be fighting a team of ranged than a team of heavy cav(prenerf).
I don`t know why people whine so much about cav, with basic footwork you can easily kill a mounted enemy, due to the speed bonus.
But yeah, you`re right, I also prefer getting killed from a shitlord who thinks that he`s Robin Hood and cant block more than 2 hits in a row, rather from a guy who needs to think before attacking, because he risks getting killed from a single blow
I don`t know why people whine so much about cav, with basic footwork you can easily kill a mounted enemy, due to the speed bonus.
But yeah, you`re right, I also prefer getting killed from a shitlord who thinks that he`s Robin Hood and cant block more than 2 hits in a row, rather from a guy who needs to think before attacking, because he risks getting killed from a single blow
why do we have to get shields? why cant the range stop being pussies and fight.
I dont want to change my style of fighting because people are too scare to get dirty.
why do we have to get shields? why cant the range stop being pussies and fight.
I dont want to change my style of fighting because people are too scare to get dirty.
Just make stf shielders, suddenly archers not that stronk anymore.
It baffles me that people so seemingly experienced still pretend that's true.
Class limits are lame, nerfs are unnecessary since Ranged isn't really OP, and adjusting stats would never fix that.
If Tydeus and friends want to get a little more ambitious instead of spending their time tweaking cRPG by skullfucking animations, they should try to polish up Siege 2.0, or rework it into a more proper Conquest/Domination gametype with respawns, three flags, and ticket respawns.
There, 90 percent of all complaints about the game go away. All classes have their place. HA harrass infantry traveling to flags.. ranged defend a flag or suppress defenders. Infantry take and hold ground. Cav be cav wherever they want. Fun, full battlefield from the beginning to end of every round. So much less rage at the game. Much more fun for casual playing.
Maybe if our maps were not so god damn open in 90% of the battlefield, we wouldn't have such frequent imbalances.The only two posts I find truly agreeable in this entire thread.
The only two posts I find truly agreeable in this entire thread.
I might start (meaning I've never looked at the scripts before) checking out conquest, but don't hold your breath.
The only two posts I find truly agreeable in this entire thread.
I might start (meaning I've never looked at the scripts before) checking out conquest, but don't hold your breath.
We also have a game mode (Siege) that is the absolute historical reason why range became so godlike and important, and promotes that style of play.
So from what I've read on this thread, there isn't enough range on eu2.
Cheers guys, i'll let my archer buddies know.
Hmm, I find archer spam on siege far less irritating, but thats probably due to objects and stuff to hide behind, as you said.
4) PS and PD are connected - More PS/PD resolves in less effective PD/PS - (statwise, not touching the requirements for bows) - More Melee damage, less ranged damage - more ranged damage, less melee damage.visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Maybe if our maps were not so god damn open in 90% of the battlefield, we wouldn't have such frequent imbalances.
We also have a game mode (Siege) that is the absolute historical reason why range became so godlike and important, and promotes that style of play.
The only two posts I find truly agreeable in this entire thread.
I might start (meaning I've never looked at the scripts before) checking out conquest, but don't hold your breath.
Should I *
I might start (meaning I've never looked at the scripts before) checking out conquest, but don't hold your breath.
people should only be using those STF anyways for the tournaments tbf, it's ridiculous seeing people with level 35/36 chars against people with level 30 chars (most of the builds are relatively complete at level 31)
Sure so we just play a whole different game just because of ranged..kind of like people are doing anyway
People don't want conquest, they want less OP ranged
Those are the main problems if u ask me:Grumbs, I love battle, I've probably spent 95% of my time in crpg on battle. Nevertheless, it has its flaws. We have understood for quite a while now that the issue with battle is that melee doesn't actually have a legitimate role. This is problematic because it means they're just fodder. It leads to all the issues we've ever had with melee vs cav or melee vs ranged, on a large scale. Furthermore, the only tangible solution, is to give melee a role to play, which is where conquest comes in.
1) Most of the Archers are able to outrun Infantry, or are just camping roofs, hills, towers.
2) There's just too many Archers - and most of the time even UNbalanced to one team, while the other team gets cav.
3) Archery is way too easy - that's no offense vs. our Archerpro's - hitting heads etc. IS hard - and always will be, but the pinpoint acc. makes this class quite alluring to new players. Maybe they won't kill everyone, but they can ineed stun / interrupt players - because hitting the body isn't really hard - even on high distance.
4) High Lvl Archers don't need to "specialize" - the hybrid builds are far to viable.
5) Archery doesn't have any true counter
6) The Flag system forces Players to leave their cover - which is nothing else than a forced death.
Ahhhhh I missed one of these.
Battle players should know better by now, adapt. Having a shield with you, or shield skill isn't a sign of weakness, nothing to be ashamed of.
Of course everyone wants to be the perfect melee killing machine, but you can't have everything on this game, the same way ranged can't be using decent melee weaponry/armor without giving away ranged capacities.
Ranged is only a problem in battle anyway. Who cares about ranged in eu_2? "Oh no, I've been shot, no worries, I'll just respawn anyway so fuck it".
High levels (past 32+) are perfect for adapting your build to all these scenarios.
Grumbs, I love battle, I've probably spent 95% of my time in crpg on battle. Nevertheless, it has its flaws. We have understood for quite a while now that the issue with battle is that melee doesn't actually have a legitimate role. This is problematic because it means they're just fodder. It leads to all the issues we've ever had with melee vs cav or melee vs ranged, on a large scale. Furthermore, the only tangible solution, is to give melee a role to play, which is where conquest comes in.
How about reducing upkeep on heavy armors for dedicated melee-classes?
I mostly roll in light armor to break even or make money, and die after 1-3 shots. Using heavier armor would compensate for that. And should heavier armor not be an advantage of dedicated melee?
You get caught in a loop there though. You get heavier armor to tank shots but cant catch the archers so you wear lighter armor. The lighter armor lets you catch the ranged but you die way faster. You get fucked either way.
And because surviving is not your main objective & you have more lives.
It just needs to be nerfed even more. Few people does as well as Bagge and Stevee, often with 20:1 KD ratios. Justfixed. (might be possible for cav, but the possibility of that happening is low. 2h? no way).as good asbetter than any top 2h or cav can manage.
They represent the current apex of what is possible with an archer. Based on that, I'd say they are NOT UP, and can take another nerf. Archery must be kept UP, because if not the servers slowly gets infested with more and more of them, destroying the mod.
Reducing the amount of arrows archers get is the best solution imo, to eventually force them into melee.
read again switchThis :lol:
You are right, but isnt winning the real objective of Battle? Or is it so trivial compared to having a good k/d on the website?
For most player it is i guess. At least not "in the moment" of playing. When you're running around on a battleserver, you wanna kill as many opponents as possible, and, if you're not able to steamroll the server with your clan, you're just trying to survive and maybe get a few kills. I'm talking about how it feels - not about what its meant to be. I doubt theres many solo players on battle thinking "i so wanna win this round" - it's more like "damn archus. Ima hide and fight the unaware when i'm last... maybe i get valor". Battle kinda forces you to think in survival ways, cus it punishes your death with long waiting time (and bad K:D - which is important to some poor creatures too).
Siege is way more casual and arcade even... you're much more careless about your own life, cus you've got plenty and can focus more on objectives.
So whenever an archer wants to join it just says "Maximum amount of archers reached. Please try again later"?
Pretty shit solution in my opinion.
I guess improving and rewarding teamwork and balance would be the best way. Removing valor would be one step in the right direction... there should be something like a teamvalor..... ooooh wait! There is :D .If I recall correctly valour was meant to reward those who actually do well (in comparison to the rest), not those who are valorous. Turned out to be a poor choice of words. Now, whether or not that's what we want "valour" to actually be, is debatable.
The valor system isn't working the way its supposed to anyway... i mean every HA can easily get valor if he's delaying long enough, shooting horses while infantry pretty much fucked facing 3+ enemies. Wouldn't entitle that valor. Rather call it unfair ranged bonus.
add melee server back for crybabys
If I recall correctly valour was meant to reward those who actually do well (in comparison to the rest), not those who are valorous. Turned out to be a poor choice of words. Now, whether or not that's what we want "valour" to actually be, is debatable.
(click to show/hide)
"Rewarding those who do well" is absolutely what i was talking about - not that it's got the wrong name. Maybe i didn't make that clear enough. A system, that's rewarding players who have an advantage over other players is kind of not rewarding those who do well, but rewarding a class. There should be a new "layer of valor", treating ranged seperated from melee players - someone in this thread suggested adding valor for archers who attack enemy archers - this might actually at least counter some of the delaying, also enable melee players to be rewarded for doing well, AND encouraging archers to attack other archers - which would also result in better balance.Valour for archers who attack enemy archers? That's not actually rewarding those who do well and could potentially be less effective than actually shooting melee or horses. As stated in another thread recently, due to score functionality (which is relevant, because that's the ONLY thing valour is based on) a person who gets valour is actually accomplishing a fair bit in comparison to the rest of his team. Recognize that score is generated by the amount of health an opponent loses, modified by their score offset, which increases/decreases based upon how well they have done in previous rounds. Thus peasants are often worth much less than the "Pros".
Damnit switch, read my post not the topic title!
Again all this fancy dreaming. The only things that are realistic are nerfs! It has worked in the past, and it will work again.
Proximity based xp/gold system. Forces them to be close to the battle. The tick system had its run, now bring back the fun side of crpg again.
Again all this fancy dreaming. The only things that are realistic are nerfs! It has worked in the past, and it will work again.I smell katana buff :lol:
Core game mechanics changes are off limits. This is partially why there's never going to be an easy solution to ranged balance.
Grumbs, I love battle, I've probably spent 95% of my time in crpg on battle. Nevertheless, it has its flaws. We have understood for quite a while now that the issue with battle is that melee doesn't actually have a legitimate role. This is problematic because it means they're just fodder. It leads to all the issues we've ever had with melee vs cav or melee vs ranged, on a large scale. Furthermore, the only tangible solution, is to give melee a role to play, which is where conquest comes in.
If it worked in the past why is it a problem now ?
I think it was a mistake to give more ammo to ranged, to reduce their weight and I think 0 slot 1 handers are too good. 1 handers in general were way over buffed. I don't know why but ranged seem to take more armour than they used to. Why do they need to have pierce damage? Meh, theres a whole lot that could be done
This is why you NEVER give ANY NA player ANY power or say in ANY melee game EVER.As usual, you fail to see the larger picture. Also, I said "we" because it's not just me, it's everyone on the dev team as far as I know. The problem is that while melee can choose who to chase, chasing is all they can do until their opponent chooses to engage them. This is due to the fact that the only way melee can work towards achieving the round goal (otherwise known as winning), is to be in melee range, yet there's nothing to force these other classes into melee range (even MotF often fails to do that).
I am Melee you idiot, I break the lines, I make the breaches, with out me and the rest of the infantry you dont HAVE a battle, the Archers soften my targets, and the Cavalry gives me bumps, or fucks off and gets stragglers.
They have their role, TO SUPPORT BRAVE WARRIORS WHO PLAY INF, while my job as inf, is to fight the battles archers and cav are to scared to fight, and ultimately win the rnd for my team. THATS INF ROLE, you fucking moron.
FFS chadz, when the fuck are you gonna fire Tydeus?
1h stab is too good. It doesn't really glance and still does plenty of damage with low PS. It's too fast and there's almost no limitation on rotation.
Something off topic, click on my signature and give our mod a view.
true, true, true, true and true.
Yes, and what MURDERTRON said. :D
As usual, you fail to see the larger picture. Also, I said "we" because it's not just me, it's everyone on the dev team as far as I know. The problem is that while melee can choose who to chase, chasing is all they can do until their opponent chooses to engage them. This is due to the fact that the only way melee can work towards achieving the round goal (otherwise known as winning), is to be in melee range, yet there's nothing to force these other classes into melee range (even MotF often fails to do that).
This is a flaw with the NATIVE battle system lacking an objective outside of "kill each other", and a major reason many players chose to play crpg over native (ranged is rather tame, by comparison.)
As usual, you fail to see the larger picture. Also, I said "we" because it's not just me, it's everyone on the dev team as far as I know. The problem is that while melee can choose who to chase, chasing is all they can do until their opponent chooses to engage them. This is due to the fact that the only way melee can work towards achieving the round goal (otherwise known as winning), is to be in melee range, yet there's nothing to force these other classes into melee range (even MotF often fails to do that).
This is a flaw with the NATIVE battle system lacking an objective outside of "kill each other", and a major reason many players chose to play crpg over native (ranged is rather tame, by comparison.)
a good solution would be to disable the movement of an archer if he has his bow stringed, right now a lot of archers can run, and then do a 180 turn while they string their bow and shoot.
Another thing about flags is if there are more than 1 ranged you can get shot to pieces even with a shield. What if flags spawned with some cover around them? Maybe drop some siege shields or make a box around them with a few entrancesBecause ranged can just as easily use that to their advantage. I've seen ranged get pushed off of flags quite a bit, and I've also seen cavalry retake flags. You do something like that and cav will have to dismount once MotF spawns. We talked about stuff like this when we were first discussing the change to MotF spawn mechanics, it's clear what the result of that discussion was.
Ideas aren't the problem. There are hundreds of things that "could" address the issue, unfortunately very few are actually feasible (developer activity/motivation/interest, engine modability, etc.) While your example would work, it would completely change what we think of as "battle", and is therefore not a real solution capable of "fixing" battle. Just as Conquest would completely change that as well (why I said I'd look into conquest). Battle is flawed by design. Yes, it's fun and far more rewarding than siege, but that doesn't change the fact that it's still clearly flawed. If we didn't have a pub(na/eu1) and cRPG Battle was only a gamemode played competitively, there wouldn't be much of an issue. But this just isn't the case.(click to show/hide)
Proximity based xp/gold system. Forces them to be close to the battle. The tick system had its run, now bring back the fun side of crpg again.
false, false, false, dubious and false.No. Which direction is stab?
Have you actually tried to 1h stab once in your life ?
missile speed just nerf it,
in planetside 2 some carbines and most of the tanks have slower missile velocity than most of the bows in crpg
like seriously!
then all cod cs kids will swich to melee masterace lifestyle
Almost 70 players right now, and its very late. You guys are just pulling these low population numbers out of your ass, probably when there are strat battles.
Yes, it's fun and far more rewarding than siege
The get a shield argument doesn't really apply, you'll still get shot to bits in melee or if there 2 archers targetting you, you're dead.
Warn us when the "ADD A FUCKING MELEE CAP ALREADY" thread reaches 11 pages of almost unanimous "yes please".
Chase is good in everything. But I see them getting Chase like scores all the time, so archery can't be that terrible. And to repeat myself: Archery needs to stay a bit overnerfed, or we see the growth of archers reach critical levels, game gets boring, people leave the mod.
Same cycle has happened many many times before, and the medicine is to nerf ranged. And the medicine has worked before many times too.
What's so hard to understand about this?
The CYCLE:
1. Too many archers, players leave
2. Archers get nerfed, players come back
3. Archers cry for their UP class and gets buffed to reasonable levels.
4. Some time later, we are back at 1.
To stop the cycle is simple. Stop at no.2. We cannot let archers get to reasonable levels of power. They will breed and multiply and dominate us all. They need to be kept weak. Sad and unfair, but it's the only thing that really works, other than perhaps fancy ideas that will never get implemented.
Welcome to NA_1I can't foresee a ranged cap ever happening, that's too artificial, too arbitrary of a solution. Unfortunately, legitimate nerfs aren't exactly desirable either. What's more unfortunate, is that nearly every proposal to disincentivize ranged without touching effectiveness, must be done at the level off the website (basically meaning it's a no-can-do.)Red = Archers(click to show/hide)
Yellow = HX
Blue = Throwers
Green = HA
Was too lazy to do other team but keep in mind the #1 on their team is Kelden and he is an archer.
This is why we need a ranged cap or archer nerf or something.
No wonder the current dev team sucks, they only take their opinions into account and try to pass it off as widely-accepted facts.I didn't, but that's okay, you can go on believing whatever you want to believe, regardless of what's actually rational; rational, meaning not assuming that someone's use of a subjective term without the use of the implied, redundant phrase "imo", was trying to be passed off as something more than it actually is.
We're all wrong at times, get over it.
Welcome to NA_1Red = Archers(click to show/hide)
Yellow = HX
Blue = Throwers
Green = HA
Was too lazy to do other team but keep in mind the #1 on their team is Kelden and he is an archer.
This is why we need a ranged cap or archer nerf or something.
yeah, and you aint one :wink:
Furthermore, the only tangible solution, is to give melee a role to play, which isAlso lower the amount of arrows in zeh bag. 2 bags of unloomed bodkins provide plenty of arrows already. The less arrows around the less careless pewpew, or at least some arrows like normal arrows and barbed arrows would actually have a role other than "leeching archer's gear role".where conquest comes in.:get to all thy places where the damn cav can't go and kill those archers, also fight other melee and cav for variety and enjoy the melee system.
I can't foresee a ranged cap ever happening, that's too artificial, too arbitrary of a solution. Unfortunately, legitimate nerfs aren't exactly desirable either. What's more unfortunate, is that nearly every proposal to disincentivize ranged without touching effectiveness, must be done at the level off the website (basically meaning it's a no-can-do.)
To be completely honest i think people are making ranged look stronger than they really are. Very rarely do i see ranged winning a round, most of the time its infantry demolishing the other sides infantry. I think ive lost more rounds due to having less infantry and more ranged on my team compared to winning due to having a higher amount of ranged.Omg :shock: what ? :shock:
[...]
I think the problem starts when they decide to change heavy cav difficulty...
Back in the days when Fallen have more than 3 members we were making FALLEN_ARCHER_DEATH_SQUAD nights and invade servers. But there were one server we never invade. It was Eu1 with Great Khans members on it. Cos when we do join it with our FALLEN_ARCHER_DEATH_SQUAD we were fucking trembled to pieces by GK members switching from donkeys to hipopotams. And becouse there is no good cav on NA server we preffered that one.
Unfortunately, legitimate nerfs aren't exactly desirable either. What's more unfortunate, is that nearly every proposal to disincentivize ranged without touching effectiveness, must be done at the level off the website (basically meaning it's a no-can-do.)
The only two posts I find truly agreeable in this entire thread.
I might start (meaning I've never looked at the scripts before) checking out conquest, but don't hold your breath.
Some are wrong more often than others. :rolleyes:This is specifically what I'm talking about, Jona. You go and do the very thing you complain about. You start out by saying "people being wrong... when they are too stuck up to admit it" and then follow up by passing your opinions off as fact "kinda like when..." Jona, I beseech you, you're too intelligent of a person to be doing this stuff, please reflect upon the ideas you have, before you go and publicize them.
The only problem I have with people being wrong is when they are too stuck up to admit it. Kinda like when you buffed agi for now reason, decided to ban allers for not trying hard enough, decided to keep HA and HX as viable classes in this mod... yeah I could go on, but I wouldn't want you to cry yourself to sleep too hard tonight.
Valour for archers who attack enemy archers? That's not actually rewarding those who do well and could potentially be less effective than actually shooting melee or horses. As stated in another thread recently, due to score functionality (which is relevant, because that's the ONLY thing valour is based on) a person who gets valour is actually accomplishing a fair bit in comparison to the rest of his team. Recognize that score is generated by the amount of health an opponent loses, modified by their score offset, which increases/decreases based upon how well they have done in previous rounds. Thus peasants are often worth much less than the "Pros".Although you might find it a bit cryptic, I am in fact suggesting that they should be nerfed and that the conversation should shift its focus more towards that.
Pause and think about this for a second. Next, for the sake of argument, assume my next two statements are true (the first of which can't actually be debated.) If valour is based on damage dealt, and HA get valour easier than anyone else, doesn't this mean HA are overpowered with respect to how much damage they deal in comparison to everyone else? The answer should be obviously, yes. Now why is this relevant? Because I'm trying to change the conversation into something more meaningful.
Not all classes are meant to have the same killing potential as the rest (this is partially where proximity bonus comes in), but it's certainly not the case that mounted ranged should be found as the most deadly.
Simplest thing to do is to just nerf archery. Steve himself thinks it's way to OP and regularly plays on his melee char instead.
I think removing pierce from bows would be a GREAT start. It would still make you effective vs meduim armour, but those in plate (and rightfully so) would be more protected.
Can we expand on this a bit please?Aye. I've said in the past, I think projectile speed could be reduced slightly(1-2 points) for the 1s bows. The problem though, is that this is a fairly minor thing, and if you already have a build and items, it's going to take more than this to convince you to switch to something else. We have talked about ammo and particularly weight, significantly; I don't think the votes are there to get these changed.
Disincentivising ranged without touching their effectiveness? Effectiveness for whom though and in what situations? I think you can adjust some stats without making them much less effective for the genuinely good players. They will adjust while the random ranged may have an incentive to play another class because they can't reach the skill level needed. That will reduce the amount of ranged without them necessarily being less effective in the right hands.
We still have...
Missile speed. Good players will judge for the distance better, good melee will dodge the shot
Ammo. Good players will choose their shots wisely, there will be less projectile spam in the hopes that you or a team mate hit a target
Weight. Good players will think about their positioning more and the bad players get forced into melee
People still have a good incentive to go ranged in order to kill melee (or any other class). If melee has more effective armour ranged will simply have to switch who they target. Ranged shouldn't really have pierce damage, but you can adjust armour soak again (if that was what you did). A problem is that medium armour is used by ranged as well (especially xbowers)..there isn't really enough difference between melee and ranged in melee range
There are probably more things that could be done just by adjusting weapon stats so that people don't just play ranged because they are bad, and the good ranged are still rewarded
Btw, i have unloomed light kuyak + heavy gaunts and I can take 4 arrows, 4 arrows! That is ALOT of arrows.
It is safe to say that damage isnt the problem here, its the freedom archers have to play like they do, and being able to carelessly spam arrows around for 4 min( average round time) without having to worry about going empty before its almost over already.
Light kuyak and heavy gauntlets both at +3 is a decent amount of armour. You can wear that gear and still do ranged
If melee hits showed up on your character you wouldn't mention about 4 arrows :D . Plus you can block melee hits indefinitely. You can't really stop a random projectile hitting you, and any hit in the head either kills or puts you 1 hit from death
BTW xbowers with shields and decent armour have too much protection and versatility both from ranged and melee
We should really have more of a clear line between melee and ranged. Play ranged and you have very weak protection against ranged and melee. Play melee and you have better protection from both
In EU 1 every archer is wearing more armor then me.. I'm not even kidding. :SStop chilling around naked you perv ! :shock:
[...]
Stop chilling around naked you perv ! :shock:
Archers can draw their bow AND move
Biggest Str-whore EU supports this claim, i'm probably in the 2% of any server with less than 40 body armour at any one time. Agi-whores and pick spammers and ninjas all got more than me lol, this mod.
Then again, you wanna QQ about ranged it really is mainly an issue with vanilla warband that they added ranged classes as a 'sniping' class rather than a spray + pray class which is how i always perceived medieval warfare with archers - you line the archers up and all fire in roughly the same direction, you suppress and hit infantry but with no knowledge of your individual confirmed kills or not. Play native for 10 mins and you'll QQ less about ranged in this mod.
However, the current state of armour in crpg is a joke, everyone and his mother has more armour here than they would after a 50-kill streak in native multiplayer. It doesnt stop because some bright spark somewhere invented the ludicrous rumour that more armour is not inherently better, it's just a tradeoff, and 50% of the community was dumb enough to believe them.
Can bodkins damage be reduced while still changing the damage type to pierce? Alternatively, you coulda drop the damage of all bows and raise the damage on cut type arrows. This would at the very least create a reason to ever not use bodkins over other types of arrows. ie: cut arrows doing more damage to lightly armored and bodkins doing more consistent damage overall. Infantry players have to make this decision every round, but it seems like archers never do.This can only be done properly through a long series of changes that would include alterations to the soak/reduce values. I realize it may seem like an easy thing, but it's a delicate system. For example, depending on your bow, bodkins might NEVER do enough damage to warrant using them, and you're suggesting lower bodkin damage further? On the other hand, if you're using a Rus or Long bow, you have no reason to be using anything other than Bodkins, unless you just want to be able to spam more, while having lower damage potential per quiver.
Let archers wear heavy as shit armour if they want to.The wpf penalty from armor used to be 1/2 what it is now(and even lower, before that) yet armor usage hasn't changed since the retirement wpf shenanigans were removed over 3 yeas ago.
They are far less manoeuvrable than someone wearing light armour and their weapon proficiency punishment is higher.
Every "über-archer" who was mentioned here wears light-ish armour. Bagge, Nebun, Steevee. Never really seen any of them wear heavy armour.
Blunt arrows would be a step in the wrong direction as blunt has the best armor penetration.
Let archers wear heavy as shit armour if they want to.
They are far less manoeuvrable than someone wearing light armour and their weapon proficiency punishment is higher.
Every "über-archer" who was mentioned here wears light-ish armour. Bagge, Nebun, Steevee. Never really seen any of them wear heavy armour.
Agi was buffed for several reasons, whether or not you agree is irrelevant, the truth of the matter is that nearly all of the skilled, long time players were in agreement that STR was far better than AGI.
I'm sure you don't actually mean to say I banned allers, because I had nothing to do with that decision and haven't even taken the time to look at anything more than the logs San posted (which would seem to support the ban.)
We don't necessarily need to target nerfs at the best players. To me the idea is to make sure there are fewer safe havens for players who don't want to learn to get better at the game. HA/HX is a clear one, uber hybrid mode (no real drawbacks) is another especially with xbows (shield, 1 hander, xbow and decent armour)
The moment arrows are knocking people down i'm done. :lol:
Would be hilarious though :lol:
Knockdown, crushthrough and Bonus against shields: make it happen!And when you get 5 kills in one round you get a tactical arrow nuke 8-)
Nerfing HA/HX would be easily done by reducing their angle of firing significantly.
This is highly unrealistic though, but I believe there is a realism answer that could work!I think horses should be slower and less maneuverable in general. The "realistic" aspect of horses in warfare is also missing, considering none panic and throw riders, break legs, or fall and crush other men.
Instead of nerfing the firing arc of the rider, make it that there is a responsiveness penalty to the horse, as well as a reduction in the maneuverability of the horse. Reason being is that control of the horse with only your legs is rather difficult to do, and also not as effective of a way to get the horse to do what you want. This way HA can still move around normally IF they have a normal weapon out, but while they are firing it will be more difficult for them to dodge around.
Since when does anybody care about realism in cRPG when considering nerfs/buffs?
I think horses should be slower and less maneuverable in general. The "realistic" aspect of horses in warfare is also missing, considering none panic and throw riders, break legs, or fall and crush other men.
I'm also for the reduction of acceleration/deceleration of horses, so that HA's who try to start and stop all day and cav that gets caught in a mob have a harder time getting out of sticky situations.
Aye. I've said in the past, I think projectile speed could be reduced slightly(1-2 points) for the 1s bows. The problem though, is that this is a fairly minor thing, and if you already have a build and items, it's going to take more than this to convince you to switch to something else. We have talked about ammo and particularly weight, significantly; I don't think the votes are there to get these changed.
I have no respect whatsoever for players who choose to play ranged cav in a medieval game where majority is on foot and melee. I have no respect because i know they only play it to cause misery and grief/troll. There is close to no teamwork. Riding around "supporting" your team shooting arrows into random enemies is not teamwork. Helping a mate by bumping an enemy over and over again is not teamwork.
I have no respect for you, you are shit gamers with a shit mindset and shit attitude towards your co-gamers.
U R SHIT.
Helping a mate ... not teamwork.
i fear you dont know what "out of context" means :|no u
I hate to quote Daruviancause it will just go to his already inflated ego of himselfbut he made a good point about why he plays 1h cav with some shit lord build and it applies to ranged as well. He said he plays cav because it allows him occasionally kill players who are much more skilled than he is and when he does it makes him feel all warm and fuzzy inside. That's basically why I think there are so many ranged currently. If you aren't level 34 melee you're going to get shit on a lot unless you possess a lot of skill. Ranged you still need to be a decent player but you can have a much better direct result to your team winning and a higher chance of hurting the enemy so your team can finish them off. Yes it's frustrating for pure melee builds but it's also frustrating hitting someone five or six times just to glance and get one shot.
Or you play ranged cuz you are a shitlord scumbag :wink:(click to show/hide)
Or you play ranged cuz you are a shitlord scumbag :wink:(click to show/hide)
Or you play ranged cuz you are ashitlord scumbagguy that doesn't want to be some food just to please other tryhards/plated scrubs/cavs and eventually get some kills regardlessly about the target's skills. Despise the fact I dislike those who take no PS and simply run instead of fighting, I'm also tired to die in melee to a noob that got 70 body armor but kills me because I glance on him.
Some changes are needed about ranged (accuracy and missile speed), but the class in itself isn't OP at all. I loved when Panos told me that I should prepare to GTX because he was about to make an archer char. The result was simply another respec back to cav/melee, probably because he had a shitty ratio as archer.
i fear you dont know what "out of context" means :|
I think people should stop thinking the game should accommodate for themselves instead of the opposite. Like, how lightly armored 2h/pole expects to rek archers/xbow/cav by charging them instead of using a shield for once or maybe staying out of the danger zone. Everyone is going to be more vulnerable to one playstyle than the other and should not expect to fare just as well against said playstyle.
I think people should stop thinking the game should accommodate for themselves instead of the opposite. Like, how lightly armored 2h/pole expects to rek archers/xbow/cav by charging them instead of using a shield for once or maybe staying out of the danger zone. Everyone is going to be more vulnerable to one playstyle than the other and should not expect to fare just as well against said playstyle.What if there is 2 or more ranged? Your shield isn't an impenetrable barrier around you.
What if there is 2 or more ranged? Your shield isn't an impenetrable barrier around you.
Positioning and awareness of where archers are, basic stuff..If you get a shield, you might be able to avoid getting shot for some time then, if you don't try to actually go towards the archers. If you go towards the archers, you will most likely be shot in your sides or even your back, because they will start splitting up. Ontop of this, archers are usually way in the back, so you will most likely also be fighting melee, which is a possibility for a 1h/shielder, but not really for a 2h/polearm with a shield, since they can't both fight and stay protected from archers at the same time, not properly.
I think strategucly the only way to effectively counter archery is a combination of shielders putting pressure on them driving them back and heavy cav to negate skirmishers that try to x-fire.And you get your average group of random on EU1 to pull that off.
Play on EU2 instead.I know, I am late but this really. Ranged is way less dominant. It's the better place to be when you fight with real weapons vs real men 8-)
If you get a shield, you might be able to avoid getting shot for some time then, if you don't try to actually go towards the archers. If you go towards the archers, you will most likely be shot in your sides or even your back, because they will start splitting up. Ontop of this, archers are usually way in the back, so you will most likely also be fighting melee, which is a possibility for a 1h/shielder, but not really for a 2h/polearm with a shield, since they can't both fight and stay protected from archers at the same time, not properly.
If we however imagine that there is no melee around them, then you still have the problem with the split archers, which means that if you have chase one, then the other one will shot you in the back. This of course goes on, while the archer you're chasing is running away. This is why just ''get a shield'' is far from enough. A shield might be able to delay your death, but it won't really change the result by much.
If you get a shield, you might be able to avoid getting shot for some time then, if you don't try to actually go towards the archers. If you go towards the archers, you will most likely be shot in your sides or even your back, because they will start splitting up. Ontop of this, archers are usually way in the back, so you will most likely also be fighting melee, which is a possibility for a 1h/shielder, but not really for a 2h/polearm with a shield, since they can't both fight and stay protected from archers at the same time, not properly.This is a MEGA +1.
If we however imagine that there is no melee around them, then you still have the problem with the split archers, which means that if you have chase one, then the other one will shot you in the back. This of course goes on, while the archer you're chasing is running away. This is why just ''get a shield'' is far from enough. A shield might be able to delay your death, but it won't really change the result by much.
If you get a shield, you might be able to avoid getting shot for some time then, if you don't try to actually go towards the archers. If you go towards the archers, you will most likely be shot in your sides or even your back, because they will start splitting up. Ontop of this, archers are usually way in the back, so you will most likely also be fighting melee, which is a possibility for a 1h/shielder, but not really for a 2h/polearm with a shield, since they can't both fight and stay protected from archers at the same time, not properly.
If we however imagine that there is no melee around them, then you still have the problem with the split archers, which means that if you have chase one, then the other one will shot you in the back. This of course goes on, while the archer you're chasing is running away. This is why just ''get a shield'' is far from enough. A shield might be able to delay your death, but it won't really change the result by much.
Because shooting someone isn't pvp. There is no sense of comparing one person against another. Melee is scissors vs scissors when/if you get to melee rangeYeah.
I like to die in melee because I know I made some mistake or I at least had a go at fighting back. Getting shot is something you can't necessarily avoid, and you get the feeling you got shot by some bad player who can't really play the game unless he has rock vs scissors
Whats wrong with 2 archers killing 1 infantry anyways, 2 infantry kill 1 archer so :?
why do we have to get shields? why cant the range stop being pussies and fight.
I dont want to change my style of fighting because people are too scare to get dirty.
I'm sure people bitched about ranged in real life too. You know the difference between real life and this video game? People in real life had to deal with it. Either with their equipment they used, the terrain they fought on, or the people they brought with them to battle (aka who you fought with). They weren't able to bitch and cry to God to limit the amount of ranged the enemy brought with them to battle.
Adapt and stop your bitching. Problem solved (because there is no problem to begin with, only the one between your ears).
What I love about crpg is that you encounter so many different scenarios when you fight. Whether it be where the enemy gathers (i.e. terrain and map), what classes they have, and what classes your team has. How the teams work together (or decide to rambo and solo a hill full of archers). It's up to you to adapt, not up to the enemy to make it easy for you to kill them.
Everything has pro's and con's in the game. What is the "pro" for ranged classes? They can hit people from a distance. Stop the fucking derp already.
Class limits are lame, nerfs are unnecessary since Ranged isn't really OP, and adjusting stats would never fix that.
If Tydeus and friends want to get a little more ambitious instead of spending their time tweaking cRPG by skullfucking animations, they should try to polish up Siege 2.0, or rework it into a more proper Conquest/Domination gametype with respawns, three flags, and ticket respawns.
I still can't imagine it being THAT complicated. Take Field by the River or some other popular, open map. Add three siege flags, around both spawns and in the middle. Import Strategus tickets, and make them drain both from deaths and from not holding enough flags. Tune it for 5-10 minute rounds, with the same XP system.
There, 90 percent of all complaints about the game go away. All classes have their place. HA harrass infantry traveling to flags.. ranged defend a flag or suppress defenders. Infantry take and hold ground. Cav be cav wherever they want. Fun, full battlefield from the beginning to end of every round. So much less rage at the game. Much more fun for casual playing.
Fucking do it instead of retweaking the Sweet Spot Animation Hilt Density Algorithim of the pitchfork for 100 hours
Realism argument, adapt, everything has pros and cons...
Problem with the adapt argument is that adapting often means to change clas or incorporate something that works well against the classes that you have issues with. So what do people do? They go ranged themselves. Or they adapt by sucking fun out of the game, hiding, standing around waiting for flags.
Pro's and cons? You mean balance basically, and no this game is not balanced. If it were ranged would get a big disadvantage when it comes to protection or in melee, and they don't necessarily
No points mentioning realism argument..
Am I QQing now? Pretty sure thats were you go next :D
So you build the perfect melee build that is awesome for 1v1'ing other melee, and then you cry when ranged dominates you when they have favorable conditions? I'm not using realism as an argument at all. I'm suggesting that people in real also complained "WAH THEY CAN HURT ME BEFORE I CAN HURT THEM". And they adapted. A person who trained with a 2hand sword their whole life didn't necessarily need to go and learn how to shoot a bow overnight, or learn how to use a shield. They could have just not fought the archers on the favorable terrain for archers. They could have stood behind their buddies who had shields until they got close enough to slaughter the archers.
My point is that there is no problem, except for peoples' inability to adapt to the battlefield conditions. Congrats on min-maxing to best devastate melee infantry, you're now weak to ranged classes. Deal with it.
Then again, you wanna QQ about ranged it really is mainly an issue with vanilla warband that they added ranged classes as a 'sniping' class rather than a spray + pray class which is how i always perceived medieval warfare with archers - you line the archers up and all fire in roughly the same direction, you suppress and hit infantry but with no knowledge of your individual confirmed kills or not.
My point is that there is no problem, except for peoples' inability to adapt to the battlefield conditions. Congrats on min-maxing to best devastate melee infantry, you're now weak to ranged classes. Deal with it.Untrue, the problem lies when the scenery involves a roof which is only accessible from one crazy jump which is then populated by a group of archers. They then have complete domination over the whole map as they are on a roof and no matter how big your carefully organized group of shielders is, you will get shot to pieces trying to get up and the one man with a poleaxe helping the archers is sure to screw you if you finally make the jump.
Untrue, the problem lies when the scenery involves a roof which is only accessible from one crazy jump which is then populated by a group of archers. They then have complete domination over the whole map as they are on a roof and no matter how big your carefully organized group of shielders is, you will get shot to pieces trying to get up and the one man with a poleaxe helping the archers is sure to screw you if you finally make the jump.
Sure, everyone hated archers in real life but they didn't jump on the roof of nearby houses and become almost invunerable. And yes, you can try to shoot them, and they hide over the ridge of the house and shoot you back.
I am starting to believe that ranged is not the whole problem, but that the maps allow for too much abuse of hard to reach places for ranged people to camp out.
To be honnest, i wont understand the guys who decided to play a "point & click" when you are in the best game for medieval melee fight.
Archers in medieval times typically fired in volleys from behind their infantry. They did not use guerrilla spec ops seal team 6 elf ranger tactics.
Feel like we're on the same page here, ranged should be a support/team class, not a 'hero' class.
Getting rid of very long/indefinite hold and tying accuracy penalties with a scaling damage penalty as well would be two nice steps before talking about stats. I find indefinite holding a somewhat broken mechanic, negating any sort of prediction factor. I also find decreases in accuracy (shooting while running/turning/holding bow too long) somewhat useless when there will be some randomization in movement of the opponent dodging (Edit: and effective range of course, but that's tied with missile speed as well). An additional damage penalty would provide more tangible feedback (and maybe a very slight bonus when timed perfectly). Not guaranteeing headshots on an unaware target is the only time where I see accuracy really being a prominent balance factor.
I think only longbow+bodkin users should be able to deal any considerable amount of damage to players who are heavily armored; all the other bow/arrow combos need a damage nerf across the board
There are too many ranged players who cheapen the game with their artless point-and-clicking. Go play another generic fps if that's how you're gonna game.
Simplest solution is to block access to all players to archery and crossbows untill they have a gen 16 character. That way they have to had played enough to apreciate that archery is a thing to do every now and then for a laugh, not to main to lvl 36 and just prove how broken the game balance is.
@Mokou
Exactly, that would weaken them when confronted with close-range encounters.
1)Get up the wall, attacking their archers? NO! GETTING SHOT TO PIECES!
2)Staying down, trying to find cover? NO! FLAG SPAWNS ON TOP OF THE WALL!
3)Trying to reach the flag after it spawned? NOhoooooooo! (see 1) )
4)Wait for our Archers to kill theirs? NO! IF ONE OF OUR ARCHERS LEAVES THE COVER TO SHOOT THEM, HE'S BEING AIMED AT BY 4 OF THEIR ARCHERS --> the pure number of archers in their team basically just nullifies our archers.
5)Get a shield? NO! FLAGS SPAWN ANYWAY - NO CHANCE TO GET UP THE STAIRS, IF THERE'S ARCHERS SHOOTING YOU FROM BOTH SIDES.
6)Teamwork-rush the walls? NO! THEIR INFANTRY IS BLOCKING THE STAIRS WHILE THE RANGED CONFOUND EVERY ATTEMPT OF SOME MELEE ACTION BY INTERRUPTING ATTACKS, DAMAGING PLAYERS, RANDOMLY HEADSHOTTING THEM.
7)Wait until they're out of ammo? NO! 15x50(+) ARROWS AVAILABLE.
8)GTX? Yes.
(click to show/hide)
<puke_hard.gif>
(click to show/hide)
Are you new?Longbow in this game used to be the only bow that does pierce damage. As for my numbers being retarded, please adjust them so they aren't and post your ideas. Every missile speed should be less than the longbow as it used to be.(click to show/hide)
Are you new?Longbow in this game used to be the only bow that does pierce damage. As for my numbers being retarded, please adjust them so they aren't and post your ideas. Every missile speed should be less than the longbow as it used to be.(click to show/hide)
Yes Im new Bronco
BroncoBroncoBronco
(click to show/hide)
Your some newmy old friend from NA, who cares tbh: Know when the mod seriously started to go downhill? When we got NA ppl on the "balance" team... WHY do you guys even play this? You have 5 minutes of martial history, and most of that is in provoking your neighbors untill you can safely claim them as aggressors then murdering their ppl wholesale. Nub, gtfo, get three thousand years of recorded martial history and culture then come back.
Typical EU superior nerd. I expected you to have an intelligent conversation but apparently that is beyond your capabilities. What does your history have to do with anything? What does any of your statement above have to do with anything at all? You can't be that dense can you? I've probably played this mod as long as you have. I've played since pretty much the beginning. You really turned this into an NA/EU debate just like all the other threads this happens too and yet you view me as the idiot. You should be glad that other people play the game other than assholes like you that get angry for no reason. All I'm asking is that you and anyone else, show me what you think the stats should be. Is it that fucking hard? Are you drooling on your keyboard unable to type anything but insults because that's how stupid you are?
Edit: Just saw your signature and the team was right. You are a total twat.
I don't see the part where I claim to view you as the idiot, nor the part where I am angry. But please, continue to make shit up, it really makes ME look like the "dense" one here :D
Your a funny dude, but calm down, I shouldn't be able to see your bloodpreasure through your text buddy.
Poor guy can't even read his own writing. Is the EU education system really that bad? Go reread what you typed to me and tell me it sounds completely friendly.
Your some newmy old friend from NA, who cares tbh: Know when the mod seriously started to go downhill? When we got NA ppl on the "balance" team... WHY do you guys even play this? You have 5 minutes of martial history, and most of that is in provoking your neighbors untill you can safely claim them as aggressors then murdering their ppl wholesale. Nub, gtfo, get three thousand years of recorded martial history and culture then come back.
I'm EU. My dick is small and I have to insult someone because I can't make a valid, proper post defending my viewpoint.
I'd appreciate it if you two stopped your contest for biggest internet tough guy--no one is impressed, and the NA vs EU pissing contest is tired, pointless and unrelated.
To begin with, the issue at hand is too much ranged, not the historic or relative (to each other) power of the bows in the mod.
(click to show/hide)
Now we're back on track!
Edit: Blindguy I never got butthurt and was making a joke with the Bronco thing but you were too stupid to realize it. Thus proving my point.
Insulting me again still wont help your numbers be any less backward. Stop posting this. This thread is about number of archers, nothing to do with bows.
nothing to do with bows.
EU education system
more like
EU eduaction MISSED EM
Archers have nothing to do with Bows! LOL!
You throw rocks?
Lots of proposed changes here that prompts me, a player who's devoted his entire c-rpg life to the art of archery, to ask the balance team; Is this the best you got? Do you really think I can’t handle another goddamn nerf? It’s gonna take a whole lot more than that to break me you fucks. These changes, of course, follow increased arrow weight and no jump-shot, which is really just fine by me. Stat changes, nerfs, change in game mechanics, all I can say is; keep them coming cocksuckers. Do them all again for all I care. In fact, I LOVE IT. I THRIVE ON IT. EVERY STEAMING PIECE OF SHIT YOU THROW AT ME ONLY MAKES ME STRONGER. FUCKING FEED ME, BECAUSE YOU SONS OF BITCHES SURE CANT BEAT ME
Lol, I think you got wrong thread, but even if not: who are you?
ad hominem nice
i still stick with the fact Ranged is a part of the medival battle, so making a cap for it... well i dont know
No, I think you need to check your latin, bro, because as I see it.
1/ This thread about capping the amount of ranged, not nerfing archers.
2/ I don't see any argument in your post, just you saying you can and will take the nerfs to archery.
3/ No-one is trying to counter what you saying, nor discount it
I literally just don't know who you are, that's all. I guess you are an NA archer, but since I've never been shot by you, how am I supposed to know? What's your lvl?
guess you need this
/s
also
i cringed at "since i've never been shot by you" lmao
The fact we need a cap for one type of class should speak volumes about the issue with cRPG meta gaming. People gravitate towards ranged as its so versatile and its a skill equaliser. If people are shield whoring you take an axe..too much cav you take a long polearm..too many 2 handers take ranged. Too much ranged? Take more ranged. You can take more shields but its still better to simply have more ranged as that deals damage. A shield is only a defensive item, like manual blocking. You can take cav maybe, but its very limited in which terrain its useful in, and its equally as good against melee and they don't want their horse to get shot by going to archer nests
Nerfing ranged probably won't change that key issue with the game. Making ranged harder to play (less of a skill equaliser), and less versatile (weaker against some classes) might help somewhat
There are far too many factors that need to be considered in bow draw strength, arrows used, and missile speed to standardize them; your counter-proposal is absolute nonsense. It should take the strongest bow (bodkins only) to kill someone wearing the strongest armor. Then it would actually be balanced. As it is now, any wannabe archer with shit gear can get lucky with a single arrow and kill a lion. The game has devolved into ranged shootout and those without can only dodge so many things at once. Why should I be forced to play a shielder??
This is stupid.
If anything bows should be trended towards more similar damages and then archery damage globally nerfed.
Longbows are already extremely strong damage wise compared to the shortbows, and their slow speed and high accuracy meshes very well with high strength archer builds.
Also I don't even your last statement. Longbows are the most point-and-click of any of the bows, because they are the best suited for sitting back far away from combat and sniping.
How about we have a proper team balance system so one team doesn't have 90% of the ranged players? And then one step further, have a proper conquest game mode that allows all classes to do what they do best.
To remove click and shoot you could also add in another layer.. Possibly press x before you can draw the bow(much like couch but reversed, you need to be standing still for it to be able to be pressed), then aim and press E to release the arrow. Idk really, could work, could not. Idk :mrgreen:
how about, archers have to enter a 16 digit password before they're able to release arrows? :)
There are far too many factors that need to be considered in bow draw strength, arrows used, and missile speed to standardize them; your counter-proposal is absolute nonsense. It should take the strongest bow (bodkins only) to kill someone wearing the strongest armor. Then it would actually be balanced. As it is now, any wannabe archer with shit gear can get lucky with a single arrow and kill a lion. The game has devolved into ranged shootout and those without can only dodge so many things at once. Why should I be forced to play a shielder??
And don't fool yourself, all archery is "point-and-click" regardless of the bow being used.
EVERY LITTLE UNSKILLED FUCK, WHO CANT BLOCK MORE THAN 2 HITS IN A ROW, GRABS A BOW AND BECOMES A HERO OF THE BATTLEFIELD
EU1 PRIME TIME, 32 PLAYERS, AND THE MAJORITY IS FUCKING RANGED.
JESUS FUCKING CHRIST ADD A RANGED CAP ALREADY
lol u say all over again like it aint still happening, try catching agile while he's on foot, he dont shoot too hard, but he will shoot ya dead b4 u ever reach him
If you arent super slow strenght build you should be able to catch up, unless he drops bow and runs but then he also cant shoot.
I tried to deal with op archery again, joined battle several times today and yesterday but left it very soon because of shitloads of arrows flying in the air. I can't breathe arrows, I can't help it. Desperately annoying. Just saying. Nerf archers. Buff horses.
Buff horses? u crazy, cav is way more OP than archers.
But you use warspear, how can cav be any threat to you? :?
I have other alts you know. And having a spear doesnt mean i can see every horse coming, like if im fighting someone.
I have other alts you know. And having a spear doesnt mean i can see every horse coming, like if im fighting someone.
Nor does nerfing horses.
Nor does nerfing horses.
Tbh, this just proves that everything you previously stated is irrelevant. :|
"Nerf horses and make them so slow I have atleast 5 seconds to react, also I have a soear, so I should be able to fight off an entire batalion of cav on my own."
Come on man..
Buff horses? u crazy, cav is way more OP than archers.Here's me simply stating that i dont want cav buffed.
I have other alts you know. And having a spear doesnt mean i can see every horse coming, like if im fighting someone.
(click to show/hide)
Yeah, I feel kinda guilty now, sorry Gravoth.. i actually did misinterprit your post. :|
Where did this come from, i simply said that cav is way more OP than archers when someone wanted horses buffed, i haven said what i would suggest to be done to them.
Since you maybe didnt read the other posts which are also on this page ill just gather them up to make it nice and easy for you.
Here's me simply stating that i dont want cav buffed.
IMO 2 problems with ranged:
1.) They can block/defend very effectively with 0 wpf, meaning they don't have to hybrid
2.) They can outrun people because ath is tied to agi, and since they get a bunch of WM/AGI for the WPF, they can get easy access to ath.
I don't know how to fix those, but maybe a block speed or block stun penalty for WPF under 50 would be a start for #1
GL HF trying to fix #2
just wanted to make sure.
cause I dont know shit about other classes, but they dont seem to have that
Remove the fucking 1 class Bullshit and bring back hybrids.
Ever since we removed hybrids, everything has sucked. Good thing I'm high level and can hybrid as much as I want.
Remove the fucking 1 class Bullshit and bring back hybrids.
Ever since we removed hybrids, everything has sucked. Good thing I'm high level and can hybrid as much as I want.
The server population is so bad recently, especially considering all the new players were apparently getting. I don't even think its because of ranged because when I've been playing there hasn't been that many on the server and yet its still dead :(You must have been lucky then, i get shot to pieces.
Pretty simple solutions.It's working perfectly on M&b : Napoleonic Wars.
[...]
5. HX can only reload if they stay stationary.
[...]
Agreed. The way ranged works is not really that unique, it is seen in countless other games, but the melee system in this game is by far more unique.The combat system of this game is basically a rip off of a mod for Half life1 called "Pirates, Vikings and knights". It also has a source version that is pretty cool. But the original mod is like... 10 years old?. Anyway, Ranged sucks, its unrealistic and its in a thousand more games. The melee mechanis arent half as exploited. Playing this game using a bow or a xbow is like dumping your time in a sinker. Its bad as a ranged game. I would play something else where your "range skills" are really challenged, not this shitty spam fest.
The server population is so bad recently, especially considering all the new players were apparently getting. I don't even think its because of ranged because when I've been playing there hasn't been that many on the server and yet its still dead :(
I think we need to start selectively nerfing pro players because they are the reason no newbie stays around, they just scared shitless 2 rounds into the game =\
Why in this sort of discussions nobody is ever mentioning xbow, the worst most broken bs class of the game?
EVERY LITTLE UNSKILLED FUCK, WHO CANT BLOCK MORE THAN 2 HITS IN A ROW, GRABS A BOW AND BECOMES A HERO OF THE BATTLEFIELD
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
EU1 PRIME TIME, 32 PLAYERS, AND THE MAJORITY IS FUCKING RANGED.
JESUS FUCKING CHRIST ADD A RANGED CAP ALREADY
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
73 in siege and siege is billion times better. archers and cav are shit in siege also no HA to be seen
DONT DO THAT DUDE, THERE ARE 4 HORSE ARCHERS, AND 10 ARCHERS
WE DO OUR BEST TO PROMOTE OUR MOD, AND YOU LET THOSE UNSKILLED PRICKS KILL IT
I don't why you complicate things. Short bow should be worst bow. Long bow should be best bow.