Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Everytime I see a lightarmored enemy in the enemy blob I ask myself whether I should target him first or not. He could be
a) a poor peasant who simply cant afford armor, thereby not posing the biggest threat.
b) an experienced player who can zip in and out of combat due to low armor weight to aid his teammates, thereby posing a large threat.
Fighting 2 people at once is always harder than fighting one person. As reducing enemy numbers as quickly as possible is helpful either way, I usually go for the kill if there is no other target around that needs to be focused in the first place ( enemy cav, enemy horse ranged, enemy that is just about to backstab teammate etc. ) because it means a fast removal of a potential threat.
Still, the direct point gain from ranged hits is simply not the same as for melee hits and I get where this comes from. Instead of proximity points like melees get, I would like to see a point multiplier for ranged combat. As an archer I can shoot some stationary guy in the back of his head from close distance or I can headshot kill cav riding at full speed over half the map and the scoring system ( afaik ) doesnt handle those shots differently at all.
I would like to so see the distance and the movementspeed of the target to be taken into account. Even native singleplayer kinda has this feature with the yellow "shot difficulty" popping up in the bottom left corner, although beeing a lot more vague I imagine. Also bonus points for every hit/kill that occurs during the arrowstagger you caused with your hit would be fair I guess ( respectively, minus points when you do it to a teammate of course ).
No, they definitely don't. I'm not sure how I could confirm that, but I typically get 0-2 points per arrow hit. Meanwhile I've gotten 8 points in a single stab before when hitting a horse & rider as an example.
What the fuck are you talking about, lol. Courage in a video game? Cool story.
As an average archer you're constantly at a very high risk of dying (unless you have a few teammates that pay attention and guard you), more than average melee because of lower awareness, low armour and low maneuverability.
- Arbalest shot - BOOM! You're dead.
- Cav couching you - you're pretty much often dead.
- Ninja cutting your head from behind - you're dead.
- Agi shielder walking towards you - GTX.
You people who think all archers do is staying on the safe roof pew-pew'ing arrows at enemies, should really try playing it for one gen. I did, and now I can't wait for another 100k exp to retire back into melee.
PS: saying "melee should get more valour because valour is about being brave and melee is brave" - makes no sense at all btw.
I don't care about what you think my reasoning is mate, actually, I don't even give a shit about what you think at all as it won't matter a single bit, but if you wish to believe that it is hard to get points through front line melee and that archery is easy then that's fine by me!
I get the impression that you are one of those average players that rushes and has no battle awareness. The fact that you point out that one mustn't ''miss his swings'' suggests that even more , as good players hardly miss their attacks and ensure their safety. Therefore I understand why you find it so hard to get valour. if you can't survive an even fight in a front line you simply suck.
"Sitting on a building" is not possible in battle anymore really, and you'd know that had you had experience. Staying far from the front line means reduced damage and often vulnerability to other ranged as well as cavalry. In your perfect melee world ranged have pinpoint accuracy and are safely shooting from miles away. Did I mention that they have no armor? So when it comes to "surviving the round" , armored melee has more space for mistakes. Ranged do not.
Finally, strat has all to do with it, as it uses the same score system.
Conclusion: QQ mad Cuz bad. Buff ranged scoring.
I never understood why the devs would want to make rushers rush more. Melee players are already eager to fight in close quarers, its why they chose that class, why reward them for that? Why not reward manual blocks and a successful hit rate instead as a mesure of skill?
Currently playing HA. Played melee for all my gens, and I can say that the scoring system is in disfavour towards ranged. Made a topic about that.
What you don't seem to get is that the relation between difficulty and rewards concerning melee and ranged are quite different. All you have to do in melee to get valour is to stay close to the fight, hit a few times while ensuring you don't get hit, and kill a guy or two. Voila.
Get valour as a ranged? You got to ensure that almost every shot lands and survive the whole round. As a HA, as soon as your horse is dead, you're toast, which in most cases is not very difficult to do.
No one cares about the definition of valour. Getting points because you are fiddling with the butthole of those on the front line should not give you points.(click to show/hide)
