More often than not, I am AGAINST the team that autobalance just put EVERY SINGLE RANGED AND CAV PLAYER on.That doesn't mean balance is just bad, it means balance is biased towards you personally. How would you explain that?
I also think it is game breaking and poor balance that someone can stow a bow & arrow and draw a sidearm in less than 1 second. Stowing a weapon, especially one without a sheath/scabbard needs to take far far longer than it currently does. Insta-stow & sidearm draw negates the value of sneak attack or chasing down ranged players just to have them conjure a sidearm instantly and play rope-e-dope while the multiple other ranged just plink away at you.You can almost always land 2 hits if you get someone by surprise, seems enough to kill most ranged.
Lennu ofc that cav and ranged are a bit easier to get kills with and probably a little more newbie friendly, but problem is that the hard core play those classes too! :D
Also, I believe infantry melee is the way to hook people. Not cav or ranged, which at least I find much more boring to play.
Basically what I'm asking for is not theoretical item balance, but sticking the finger in the ground and see whats happening on the servers.
It's hard to put down in numbers, but there should be a will, a vision of what good gameplay is, that in the end translates into item balance.
In my opinion good gameplay must be anchored in happy infantry.
Both ranged and cav needs further nerfs.Hmm well I keep saying make crossbow bolts cut damage and only bolts that cost more than the steel ones currently do as pierce damage. Also if you are wonder why so many ranged it's because they USED to be melee but got tired of it because it's tedious playing against other good players and every fight can turn into a 5 minute duel that you just want to be over. So people just 'bypass' that hassle with ranged which takes away all the endless pro dueling with every other player. So yeah players are too good and that's part of the problem.
Being shot and bumped to death every round is NOT good gameplay. Both the relative numbers and the power of those classes needs to be kept down!
Just make a decision: This is mainly a melee game. Other classes feed on melee, thus melee must have priority, and more power.
Cause right now it seems the goal is some kind of fairness, the result which is massive unfairness IN PRACTICE against melee.
Hmm well I keep saying make crossbow bolts cut damage and only bolts that cost more than the steel ones currently do as pierce damage. Also if you are wonder why so many ranged it's because they USED to be melee but got tired of it because it's tedious playing against other good players and every fight can turn into a 5 minute duel that you just want to be over. So people just 'bypass' that hassle with ranged which takes away all the endless pro dueling with every other player. So yeah players are too good and that's part of the problem.
Very Simple Solution to all of this:
It's a bit complicated to make battles infantry melee-centric without breaking cavalry/ranged entirely as classes if changes are only done via modifying things like item stats.Good class balance can't effectively come through simply changing numbers in warband; there are too many hardcoded mechanics that you can't touch. The only balance that should be done through item stats, is balancing items of the same type, with each other. Please can we finally acknowledge this fact? Can we accept that the very maps that 1/2 the community wants to play on (open terrain) are the very things causing balance issues?
As long as long non-obscured terrain exists (even worse if it happens to be on a hill/stairs), ranged will dominate shield-less infantry.
As long as infantry do not coordinate and group up tightly so that they outnumber enemy cavalry by at least 3:1 per engagement, cavalry will dominate infantry in any scene that doesn't have a ton of logs/rocks impeding free movement.
As long as foot archers don't have a fortified position, cavalry will dominate them 1:1.
Something like HA/HX is even more complicated, since infantry (especially shieldless) are just helpless against them in an open map as long as they don't take dumb risks, and they're basically only countered by multiple ranged in fortified positions.
Good class balance can't effectively come through simply changing numbers in warband; there are too many hardcoded mechanics that you can't touch. The only balance that should be done through item stats, is balancing items of the same type, with each other. Please can we finally acknowledge this fact? Can we accept that the very maps that 1/2 the community wants to play on (open terrain) are the very things causing balance issues?HA It looks like you hit brick wall of code but angry mob is still pushing you on it and CMP with sledgehammer(WSE) is in another dimension building new universe.
You can't both have your cake and eat it.
i dont know why freelook is even a thing, ive always said from the beginning that shit needed removed, its retarded, the eyes all around you shit is stupid.Eh... what?
Eh... what?
Because cavalry totally needs a buff like that, right? :)
Needing to 360 spin to see the ranged, cav, and gankers around seems pretty bad.lol, guess I've been playing all wrong as I don't use the 'freeview' key except for screenpics. It should be non bindable to mouse at least.
It's time to wake up and realize infantry is the bread and butter of cRPG.
You need to work on balance to facilitate infantry being able to have a good time on battle. Right now this is not the case.
Squeezed between the power of cav and ranged elements, it's getting exceedingly impossible to have a good fight. In EU people are flocking to siege, because they are sick of functioning like ranged and cav fodder.
I've been playing this mod for 4 years, and rarely has gameplay on battle been as lame as it is currently on EU1.
Both ranged and cav needs further nerfs. Perhaps we will loose some ranged players, but we will regain more melee players in return I'm certain.
Being shot and bumped to death every round is NOT good gameplay. Both the relative numbers and the power of those classes needs to be kept down!
Just make a decision: This is mainly a melee game. Other classes feed on melee, thus melee must have priority, and more power.
Cause right now it seems the goal is some kind of fairness, the result which is massive unfairness IN PRACTICE against melee.
I'd prefer an honest 2h/pole/shielder hero any day for the vulture-like gameplay which is ranged and cav. I think a lot of players agree.
Don't have screenshots, but I've played almost every gen of my main and alts as some form of ranged, and almost always reach level 31 w/ a KDR that is below 1. The 1 time I did a 2H build for an entire gen I was at like 2:1 by the time I got to 31. I guess this is just anectdotal evidence, but that's all I have to offer to this discussion is my personal experience. I have noticed that using the "free look" button frequently and just having good overall awareness and scanning the battleground prior to jumping into combat can save you from a lot of unnecessary cav deaths.
Please remind me of the last major buff to ranged. I seem to overlook it among all the crossbow requirement increases, projectile's armor penetration reduction, quiver weight increases, slot usages, STR archer nerfs and stun removal.Melee gets harder over time as the game gets older. Ranged doesn't. Therefore - continuous nerfs. Seems legit.
But that's probably just my biased perspective based on nothing but glimmering salty tears.
* In the past nerfs have kept ranged down to a minimum. Nowadays they often top the scoreboard. If those classes stay competitive, it is detrimental for gameplay, because infantry are squeezed between ranged AND cav. Combos making them even more powerful. (Like getting bumped, then shot)
It is a complete misconception that ranged (or cav for that matter) should be competitive in the first place.
Please remind me of the last major buff to ranged. I seem to overlook it among all the crossbow requirement increases, projectile's armor penetration reduction, quiver weight increases, slot usages, STR archer nerfs and stun removal.
But that's probably just my biased perspective based on nothing but glimmering salty tears.
infantry is the bread and butter of scrublordsFTFY
I say this thread needs to be placed to Chamber of Tears because all I see is crying, mostly from Thomek.
Man up and adopt to newplaystylegay-way, range issuperiornot balanced, melee inferior, now grow some balls and stop whining.
i dont know why freelook is even a thing, ive always said from the beginning that shit needed removed, its retarded, the eyes all around you shit is stupid.
There hasn't been some continous nerf of archers and cav.
OK.
Go ahead people. Make maps yourself. It's not that hard after all. Joker, go ahead and code your conquest mode. Seems fips have gotten something similar to work for siege, so maybe hook up with him.
Anyway.
Unless someone actually starts DOING something, I consider all talk about maps and conquest dreams diverting from the matter at hand.
The point of my post was to show WHY infantry must be more attractive to play compared to ranged and cav, and this should be reflected by item balance. Why ranged (and cav) should be perpetually kept down in power. Because if infantry becomes unbearable to play, the mod very quickly dies.
"If cRPG is an aquarium or a lake, cav and ranged are the sharks and the piranhas. Infantry is the food. When food runs out, predators will also die (leave mod), albeit a bit later. This is why infantry requires good conditions for having fun, more so than cav and ranged. "
And NO. I'm not talking about extreme nerfs or eradicating classes. And yes, I understand the inherent flaws in battle, but to be honest, it cannot be THAT flawed. It has been the most popular mode for the better part of 4 years..
...Keep in mind conquest isn't the only way to solve this problem. Rather than trying to script/help script conquest+battle/xp system, players can simply choose to make battle maps which don't give any advantages to ranged or cav. To clarify, that's not to say you're giving them disadvantages, just that you're not allowing for height advantages, long range shooting or wide open areas.
Honestly I'm the best 1h cav in NA and I legit find it easier to just play infantry.
Polearm is the easiest, most rewarding class in the game. All this stuff you guys are crying about saying cavalry and ranged is nonsense.
... NA... is nonsense.
all that stuff
You think I can't come into EU1 and top the scoreboard? And I'm not even that great by NA standards.
Honestly I'm the best 1h cav in NA.
I'm not even that great by NA standards.??
??
8WM, level 35:
Pre-wpf patch: 168 wpf archery, 75 wpf melee
Post-wpf patch: 170 wpf archery, 76 wpf melee
Am I missing something here with the complaints from archery mixed with melee? If you're having trouble with ranged with 80-100 less wpf than you, I don't know how much more you can be assisted without having the kill handed to you for free. Military Sickle hasn't been changed for years afaik and Mace used to be 99 speed, 30b for the longest time, and it's been in the realm of 31b and 100 speed at some points. It was nerfed because knockdown was untechable, inflating the reward for a single hit, and now that nerf is unneeded.
The average for both NA and EU are low, just how it is. Maybe balance should be focused on low level play.
What needs to be done is simply a realization among balancers that:
* Try to get a feel for how easy it is to actually play infantry in a Range/Cav scenario
I don't think it's me with my Ninja build :)
I seriously believe players will come back and respec to infantry, if the game was more shifted in favor of it, and we will once again see player numbers increase.
* Try to get a feel for how easy it is to actually play infantry in a Range/Cav scenario
Ok, have fun on 30 player EU1.
I'll stop kicking this dead horse.
Rarely will you get a full 30 on eu1 these days bro. Mod really is dieded.
i wouldnt mind the ranged & cav so much if it werent for the completely blind balancing that doesnt take builds into consideration.
More often than not, I am AGAINST the team that autobalance just put EVERY SINGLE RANGED AND CAV PLAYER on. And nearly just is bad is BEING on THAT team, the ranged have killed any and everyone before I get to them so I'm left standing around doing nothing or running from corpse to corpse aimlessly.
I also think it is game breaking and poor balance that someone can stow a bow & arrow and draw a sidearm in less than 1 second. Stowing a weapon, especially one without a sheath/scabbard needs to take far far longer than it currently does. Insta-stow & sidearm draw negates the value of sneak attack or chasing down ranged players just to have them conjure a sidearm instantly and play rope-e-dope while the multiple other ranged just plink away at you.
Keep in mind conquest isn't the only way to solve this problem. Rather than trying to script/help script conquest+battle/xp system, players can simply choose to make battle maps which don't give any advantages to ranged or cav. To clarify, that's not to say you're giving them disadvantages, just that you're not allowing for height advantages, long range shooting or wide open areas.
Might sound boring(these types of maps were among the most popular back in the ATS server days), but each of those grants an advantage to either ranged or cavalry. Arena is one such example of this type of a map (although it's a bit extreme in how straight forward it is). Your choice.
Anything promoting a ranged player fighting in melee instead of turning tail and running away to kite is a great thing.Lots of ppl (ranged) will run away anyway. I don't know why devs decreased quivers weight (irrationat way to prevent kiting but it works) after most of archers get accostumed to it.
Agreed with the first portion completely. Classes are fairly balanced in my opinion currently, but the mod would heavily benefit from some sort of class-balancing between teams. Of course, I've got no knowledge of how difficult (or even possible) this would be to implement.
I don't feel that ranged should have any increased time to draw a side-arm. Anything promoting a ranged player fighting in melee instead of turning tail and running away to kite is a great thing.
Lots of ppl (ranged) will run away anyway. I don't know why devs decreased quivers weight (irrationat way to prevent kiting but it works) after most of archers get accostumed to it.
I don't think that the quiver weight change did that much, most of the archers/crossbowmen I fight just drop their stuff and runIn 90 % when i drop my bow I fight with my OP 0 slot sword and 2PS or run away to find a better weapon. :D
Lots of ppl (ranged) will run away anyway. I don't know why devs decreased quivers weight (irrationat way to prevent kiting but it works) after most of archers get accostumed to it.
Archers already have good 0 slot melee weapons to fight, but stil many of them hardly ever use them.
From my experience i know that tiny 0 slot swords are deadly even with 1 wpf and 2 PS( i have those values). Almost all is about what ranged have in their minds, not options devs can give them.
Why ppl are playing as HA and HX? Because only classes can counter them are other ranged (mounted ranged have huge benifit compere them to foot ranged players: faster positioning and easier way to choose their targets, insane possibility of kiting). If mounted ranged is dying to cav 1v1 its mostly because of their unaware or mistakes them made.
I don't think that the quiver weight change did that much, most of the archers/crossbowmen I fight just drop their stuff and run
Quite strange to me, people on a side wanting ranged to fight instead of kiting like bitches, but on another side, people saying archers are way too powerful at melee. I'd myself love to fight instead of running, but I'm forced to kite, even with 5 athletics, since I can't even face an average melee player who got better weapons/armors than me. I'll die in a stupid way getting spammed, instead of surviving after taking him down in 40% of cases.
Lots of ppl (ranged) will run away anyway. I don't know why devs decreased quivers weight (irrationat way to prevent kiting but it works) after most of archers get accostumed to it.
Archers already have good 0 slot melee weapons to fight, but stil many of them hardly ever use them.
From my experience i know that tiny 0 slot swords are deadly even with 1 wpf and 2 PS( i have those values). Almost all is about what ranged have in their minds, not options devs can give them.
Why ppl are playing as HA and HX? Because only classes can counter them are other ranged (mounted ranged have huge benifit compere them to foot ranged players: faster positioning and easier way to choose their targets, insane possibility of kiting). If mounted ranged is dying to cav 1v1 its mostly because of their unaware or mistakes them made.
I think I shouldn't have quoted Digglez from the first page of the thread. I believe he was the only one with a gripe against ranged drawing their weapons too quickly, which isn't precisely even the same thing as "ranged are too powerful in melee", although tangentially related.
Keep in mind my experience is limited to NA1 and a EU strat battles long ago. It does not seem like the majority of our "dedicated" ranged attempt to kite, perhaps it is more like half. I agree that it is exceedingly difficult to overcome a pure melee as a dedicated archer, especially if that pure melee is high level or skill, both of which are likely. However, it is certainly possible. I see certain ranged players do extremely well against melee, either scoring kills against them even without proficiency or dissuading them from fighting by inflicting enough damage. I've not read the entire thread thoroughly but I does not seem like many people are indeed complaining about ranged having decent melee capability without melee-related stats.
I think it was very wise to make a larger selection of 1h weapons 0slot so ranged could take advantage of them. It may be the case in EU that ranged do not use them, preferring their feet to a sword. As before, I've got very limited experience of EU play.
(Oops, I guess I didn't see that Jona doesn't like the numerous 0slot weapons. Well uh, fuck you Jona, you're wrong or something. But for real, a large thing to consider is the ungodly weapon-stun that 0slot weapons are encumbered by. Fighting multiple targets with a dinky-ass shortsword is very difficult, especially if you've not dropped your bow and are weighed down by that and its ammunition. If you HAVE dropped your bow and are fighting multiple people with a build not suited for melee and overcome these people, they certainly deserve to lose. If you're forced to run or fight for an extremely long period of time, which is likely considering your blocking is not affected by your sub-par melee capabilities, swing speed is only slightly affected, but damage is heavily affected, the enemy team will have successfully prevented your ass from shooting, which is what your main threat is.)(click to show/hide)
I often use my sword against an ennemy I can't kite, since my bow is dealing crap damages with 9 PD (I'm not even joking). Still end up dead because 40 wpf only, which 9 PS isn't able to compensate.
Are you a 27-15 build, with 9 PD and 9 PS? Certainly you'd be able to at least hold your own against a pure melee build unless they're very good. If you didn't drop your bow before engaging in melee, which is quite reasonable to do, you would be at a distinct disadvantage because of the ludicrous movement penalty that arrows inflict, of course. I'm not claiming that you'd be able to easily dispatch any motherfucker that came your way in melee with such a build, but I do feel that you are not at a tremendous disadvantage, assuming you've dropped your ranged equipment. Yeah, it sucks a bit to fight with only 40wpf, but to be frank, wpf does not seem to have an incredible amount of impact on swing speed; it is more important for determining damage.
Don't get me wrong Sandy, I am all for archers choosing meleeing over kiting any day. But the fact that they can have a variety of good melee weapons that enhance their ability to use ranged (by allowing them to have more ammo) is kind of counter productive. Blockstun is an issue for all 1handers, and the 0 slot weapons aren't really much lighter. The knobbed mace is 1.7, for instance. The broad short sword is 1.3, which is a pretty good weight for a shorter 1hander. Also, any strength archer won't suffer from blockstun as much since they might very well have more strength than the opponent they are facing in this day and age.
I don't think your strength counteracts the chance to get weapon stun. I think it's primarily based on the person doing the stunning and the defender's weapon weight.
Siding with Algarn on the disadvantage an archer with melee has.
Buffing ranged? Can you go into more detail when you say "native mechanics"?
give them more accuracy without being pin point/ being able to hold a drawn long/rus bow for more than .1 seconds.
You mean give stagger back?
hell no
I like the slot changes, but it seems extreme. What do any archers feel about increased slots, but more ammo?
the idea behind this is to force ranged players to use 0 slots and to make those 0 slots the original 0 slots. Maker arrows go from 1 slot to 2 slots and ammo to ammo x 2. You get the same thing but you cant evade using the crappier weapons that are specific for ranged(hammer, hatchet, pick). Also you would need to increase the weight of arrows to about 11 so that there isn't kiting. Many ranged have melee hybrid stats and are kiting in NA 1 with 7 weight already. I wouldn't doubt they would change their builds to kiting builds ASAP if it stays at 7 weight.
Sorry for the crappy writing I'm on my phone with autocorrect./b]
Hmm... I could have sworn that the only way to "defend" against stun was to a) bring a heavier weapon or b) stack more strength. Maybe your strength changed the odds of an opponent successfully getting crushthrough, and I go that mixed up with stun?That might be, I just haven't seen the strength part fully confirmed anywhere, it's just what we all believe. I used to get stunned all the time on my 24 strength guy, and I have no problems stunning with my 15 strength guy if I have a heavy weapon.
Good. I really don't even see the point to this argument because if archers had the same melee capability as any pure melee build, everyone would be an archer. What exactly is the point of saying "I decided to choose using ranged weaponry at the cost of some melee effectiveness, but I'm not good enough in melee so please buff?"0 slot weapons did indeed do little to get archers to not kite and fight in melee. I don't think removing 0 slot weapons would help much either. The only "solution" if you can call it that is to tone down the ranged aspects.
give them more accuracy without being pin point/ being able to hold a drawn long/rus bow for more than .1 seconds.
hell no
the idea behind this is to force ranged players to use 0 slots and to make those 0 slots the original 0 slots. Maker arrows go from 1 slot to 2 slots and ammo to ammo x 2. You get the same thing but you cant evade using the crappier weapons that are specific for ranged(hammer, hatchet, pick). Also you would need to increase the weight of arrows to about 11 so that there isn't kiting. Many ranged have melee hybrid stats and are kiting in NA 1 with 7 weight already. I wouldn't doubt they would change their builds to kiting builds ASAP if it stays at 7 weight.
Well Jack1, just do it, and regret it. Just think about the fact archers that are already wearing light stuff and having 9 athl will still kite with 11kilos of arrows on their back.
Also, if it has to happen, I simply hope you know you're going to screw every 2h archer + archers that use a 1 slot 1h (2 slots from bow + 2 other slots for ammo leaves no free slot) + archers that loomed a short sword (if you want it back to 1 slot, or to nerf the shit out of it to make it completely uneffective), and it will end up, as you said, archers taking weapons to block, and will keep running even more.
Thing is, I almost see no one on EU1 with a rus bow, and really, I see 1 archer on 50 with a long bow. They simply stick to the low PD bows, which give advantages when PD bonus is maxed out (i.e : nomad bow and 6 PD, with either bodkins or tatars). And it's all those guys that use low tier bows that got most potential when it comes to run.
bagge/stevee on EU or Agile/kelden/itchy/zlotz on NA. they ALL use 6 pd bows.
Don't get me wrong Sandy, I am all for archers choosing meleeing over kiting any day. But the fact that they can have a variety of good melee weapons that enhance their ability to use ranged (by allowing them to have more ammo) is kind of counter productive. Blockstun is an issue for all 1handers, and the 0 slot weapons aren't really much lighter. The knobbed mace is 1.7, for instance. The broad short sword is 1.3, which is a pretty good weight for a shorter 1hander. Also, any strength archer won't suffer from blockstun as much since they might very well have more strength than the opponent they are facing in this day and age.
Balancers should kill off HA.You could play a class that doesn't run off by itself that then gets targeted by those HAs.
The only archer i know on there who is good (Never seen the NA guys play and stevee sucks imo) is bagge and i know for a fact when he uses a bow less than 6PD he can headshot people all day long.Both archers you mentioned are way better than I am in shooting and in melee, but Bagge isn't playing c-rpg ATM as far as know. I'm a kind o archer that can make a quite good stats in strat battles, I made my 18/27 especially for strat battles.
Also watch druzhina nebun with his horn bow the guy can pull headshots off all day too.
The bows are perfectly balanced, if you want to kill other ranged take less than 6 PD.
Also missile speed in nomad and tatar are a bit too high IMO.I actually don't understand why lower strength bows have higher missile speed. Although, if it were switched so that long bows had faster missiles my character would have a harder time picking off other archers =[
I actually don't understand why lower strength bows have higher missile speed. Although, if it were switched so that long bows had faster missiles my character would have a harder time picking off other archers =[
Perhaps missile speed should be tied to the type of arrow instead of the bow? (if that's even possible)
It isn't. I actually believe all bows should have roughly the same missile speed, to not have instant bows like nomad.Stats show the missile speed decreasing the higher damage bow you go. I wonder if in-game missile speed = missile speed + damage or something.
The stronger bows are supposed to be using heavier arrows or something, but warband doesn't natively support restricted ammo access across one weapon type.
Balancers should kill off HA.
I learned the other day that horse speed factor can be set in the code. I already have a number of things that can be added that help fix HA if voted.any examples?
I learned the other day that horse speed factor can be set in the code. I already have a number of things that can be added that help fix HA if voted.
Praise Jebus. BTW do even people who don't play cRPG get to vote? Seems it delays the whole process unnecessarily