http://forum.melee.org/announcements/0-4-4-9/
This patch slipped under the rug last year back when most people already stopped playing. Could we have this patch reverted? Desire was working on the updates when this patch was implemented and played a horse archer main with his friends to try and kill off what was left of the NA pop.
The missile speed, speed damage etc makes it harder to juke arrows and does more damage. This was all around a ridiculous buff to archery.
Archery doesnt feel horrible right now.
But then again on my tanky 50-Str heavy armor main I was 1-shot by an archer last week for the first time ever. Maybe there is some unexpected damage potential there?
Looking at these patch notes I have no idea how any of these numbers influences damage. Why did the old devs have to make it so damn hard to tell damage output?
The main stat for damage is "thrust damage". Power draw, archery weapon skill, relative movement speed of shooter and victim, height difference also has an impact. The lower the projectile speed higher the the effect of the last two. We had spreadsheets to calc damage against different armor situations that were actually quite complicated because the Warband mechanics aren't that simple. This shit's ain't easy.
Iirc weapon difficulty sets the maximum power draw(PD) level that increases damage for bows. I think that was bow difficulty + 4 or something. So a low difficulty bow wouldn't gain more damage from higher PD levels. Higher difficulty also reduces precision(bigger reticule) that was counter-acted in Warband with getting higher PD. To weaken this effect which made high PD build the final solution there were custom crpg scripts that made higher PD reduce wpf(archery weapon skill). I think there was some extra horse archery racism script too.
Speed rating is animation speed that means rate of fire and higher accuracy decreases reticule size, so less randomness.
So why couldn't we explain it to you as if you were 5 years old? We simply are too stupid for that.
Archery doesnt feel horrible right now.
But then again on my tanky 50-Str heavy armour main I was 1-shot by an archer last week for the first time ever. Maybe there is some unexpected damage potential there?
I hate archers but like the deadly force they portray as it should be. It put the element of surprise in a battle instead of just mowing down people on the field.
It is hilarious that you are still pissy over the fact that I had a horse archer alternate lmao; I mostly played an armored piker just so you know. My patchwork was deleted when I left. You are talking about Raylin's patch which had nothing to do with me As I was attempting to bring back stats from 2012. The only thing that was slipped under the rug was me reverting Raylin's range patch due to the fact that it was poorly done.
They 1-shot everyone regardless of how much Str or Armor you have.lol no they don't good try though.
The biggest problem I see is the auto balancer, it will put all cav or most all ranged on the same team. Instead of balancing classes on each team it balances it player wise so you wind up fighting multiple archers on high ground triangulating you.
I've been on a team with no cav switched to cav to help team and it put me on the team with all the cav.
One issue is that the most viable archer build at the moment is strength based.This.
You pretty much nailed it. I want to change team balance to be of the order classes > banner > points. Will probably be really difficult but it is worth a shot.
This.
Archery isn't op. Thay hit hard because they have high pd. There's no reason to go other way. Athletics doesn't mean shit. Agi builds are useless. So what do you end up with ? Hard hitting archers with also ps and armor.There's no punishment for going tank-archery. I resisted this min-maxing and played with low armor for years for the sake of roleplaying but even I gave up.
Here's what you can do ; reduce arrow weights so that archers can be mobile. Sure, you'll see archers kiting every now and then but at least they won't hit as much.
PS. you 2h heroes only remember the times you got crossfired by multiple archers. You don't remember all the other times when the archer couldn't outrun you so you stomped him.Nobody remembers easy kills.
This is not a balancing issue though. It's just your preference. I think no throwers would be easier for everyone else but that's not how it works. Consider this from an archer's perspective; what is the point of going with a str build if I'm not able to hit hard ?
Archers being able to kite is worse I believe than them actually being able to melee. Their ranged damage needs toned down for sure, but the fact that some archers actually stand up and fight when you get to them instead of kiting you forever with superior speed is only a good thing.
I'm so proud of you horns. As you know I've been saying this for years and I'm happy you're the one doing the Lord's work. Good on ya m8!
They 1-shot everyone regardless of how much Str or Armor you have.
I'm actually not surprised at all when I see that half the server pop is Archers and stone throwing racist frenchmans.
Uh you banned half the crpg population for playing a childish prank on you and you call other people pissy? I'm sure you wouldn't have abused the fact that you had the power to modify game stats after your precious admin rights got revoked.. first you say it was Raylin now you say you did change them.... ok
I can't comment on the state of EU, but on NA archers are definitely an issue right now. I've been playing a lot on my archer, anti-archer, and cav alts since cRPG revived, so I feel like I don't have too much bias for either the pro- or anti-archer side.
One issue is that the most viable archer build at the moment is strength based. Obviously this means archers are hitting very hard with every arrow, but it also benefits them in melee. Not only does getting hit by an archer in melee hurt, but the 1H nudge with high strength sends you flying, giving the archer at least another free shot for a relatively low-skill move (this coming from someone who does this often on his archer alt).
While my anti-archer/thrower build (18/27 shielder) works decently well at dispatching ranged, the compromises I make in order to catch ranged at the cost of strength means that any archer will melee support becomes very difficult to deal with. I think this might be why NA is experiencing more issues than EU, most players who mainly play archer also bannerstack. This means often one team has a few archers with supporting infantry, while the other team is made up mostly of infantry with maybe a sole archer receiving no support. This type of scenario leads to a massacre and makes it very frustrating to play on the non-bannerstack team.
Finally, cav, which should have a role suppressing and quickly taking out archers in some scenarios, are pretty much a free 10 points for any non-blind/deaf archer. In the current state of the game cav is way too fragile, making approaching archers or throwers unfeasible in most scenarios. Unarmored cav can take 2-3 body shots (or 1 horse headshot) from a strength archer before being dismounted.
I am not saying necessarily that archers are overpowered (I think they somewhat are), but, at least in NA, much of the issue has to do with the state of the meta. Everyone wants to play 2H or polearms because that's what's most fun for them. These players don't consider switching to a class that can better handle ranged just to accommodate the threat a few players on the enemy team pose, mainly because those classes aren't very satisfying to play (shielder) or are too weak (cav). What these players do instead is get frustrated and leave the server.
what do you think would happen if this was a real battle.
Cavalry might get slightly more difficult when server population is low, since ranged players can target you with impunity, but cavalry as a whole is definitely not weak. It's more of a population problem at certain hours, or concentrations of archers/cavalry on just one team either due to banner stacks or bad balance (like someone said already).
Really even then cav is great.
Honestly I haven't noticed any change in archery, if anything it's seemed less obnoxious so far than it did last time cRPG rose from the dead.
I agree cav isn't weak, I just disagree with how cRPG treats them as the ultimate glass cannon. In the current state of the game, cav is devolved to stabbing and bumping people when they're distracted. It's not hard to do well playing like this, but I personally don't find it very satisfying to kill like this, and also recognize it's very frustrating to get killed by this.
That isn't the only way to play cavalry in cRPG, but it is the best way if you purely want to tryhard. The problem is, that will ALWAYS be the best way to play cav no matter what, it's an issue with the class as a concept being able to pick every single fight they engage in.
Cavalry is still the strongest class, but even back when it was more ridiculous 90% of the cav players still only backstabbed or bumped people already fighting. Really I think the problem right now with cav is the level 35 builds letting you be a jack of all trades- the best horses requiring 7 riding is great but when you're level 35+ that doesn't require much of a trade off. If you were level 30 that would require some specialized builds like 15/21 or 18/21 with some very streamlined skills.
I remember easy kills, they're the only kills I can get :'(
But srs, last night at the end of the round I was last man standing and was blackbarred having just killed a pesky thrower, against the 5 guys on the other teams. I got caught in an archer crossfire of 2 - 3 archers and died fast despite my shitty 0 req shield. People spammed 'get a shield' as a joke afterwards, but tbf if I'd been against 5 of any class focusing me down at that point I'd have died just as fast. Can't balance based on a 1 vs many scenario like that.
There's not much point discussing playing cav except in the most viable way. You CAN get kills and do damage via a more frontal approach, but it's not as efficient and much more risky. I agree that even in Native backstabbing is the best way to play, but due to Native horses' tankiness they were able to be more direct, and could bump-slash/stab without worrying about getting reared and dismounted by a guy with a 1H sword.
IMO, cav was by far the strongest class in Native, but it's definitely not in cRPG. It's not just the fragility of cavalry, the class's maneuverability and stab radius have also been severely reduced. Its strengths lay in its speed and ability to deal a lot of damage at once, but because every strike needs to be so precise, it loses a lot of the finesse and IMO skill that you see in Native cavalry. I'd rather see a compromise of how cav is in Native and cRPG than what we have now.
There's not much point discussing playing cav except in the most viable way. You CAN get kills and do damage via a more frontal approach, but it's not as efficient and much more risky. I agree that even in Native backstabbing is the best way to play, but due to Native horses' tankiness they were able to be more direct, and could bump-slash/stab without worrying about getting reared and dismounted by a guy with a 1H sword.Well I would have to agree with you on the native cav as 1h with or without shield cav does very well in native, in crpg though 1h cav sucks.
IMO, cav was by far the strongest class in Native, but it's definitely not in cRPG. It's not just the fragility of cavalry, the class's maneuverability and stab radius have also been severely reduced. Its strengths lay in its speed and ability to deal a lot of damage at once, but because every strike needs to be so precise, it loses a lot of the finesse and IMO skill that you see in Native cavalry. I'd rather see a compromise of how cav is in Native and cRPG than what we have now.