No ranged server

[Ethaor]

Imo that's a bad idea, if no-range servers appears, other regular servers will just transform into some overcrowded archer's nest.

[Torp]

Imo that's a bad idea, if no-range servers appears, other regular servers will just transform into some overcrowded archer's nest.

that's the only real argument i have heard yet, and i agree with you, but the happiness from the melee only server would make up for the extra ranged on other servers IMO.

But the ranged only server mgiht give os less total ranged as fewer people would do hybrid builds, cause they can just go pure 2H and play on the melee only server.

[Ganon]

I don't want to get into the whole "one shotting everyone", so I'll just ignore it. But tell me a single reason why cavalry should not be disabled together with ranged? How are cavalrists the real men? They won't charge you if you face them, cause you can dehorse them easily (just as you can easily kill ranged if you get close to them), but the second you turn their back to them, you have a lance targeting you. With no ranged, it depends entirely up to them when they engage and when they don't and you can't do anything about it. You can wave around with your pike, but if they don't come close enough, that's all you can do. And once you're engaged in a melee fight, they just kill you.

On the real men server, they still charge! They will try to get the timing right to kill you and you need to do the same, the better one wins. I don't use horses but it seems a fair fight.

Now about the server 1 becoming an archer's nest, it would be the same even without a melee server.

[sami1337]

Imo that's a bad idea, if no-range servers appears, other regular servers will just transform into some overcrowded archer's nest.

Making archers an unpopular choice fixing the problem of the gazillion archers. Then you can allow archers again until they are overbred again.

[Miley]

oh, and you can say that because you... know someone who knows someone who knows someone who mgiht happen to have spoken to ´chadz a time or two?

No. You just need to think about it. A no range server would be like team deathmatch or something. If there's no range, it takes away from the gameplay, and it'd become like a leech server.

[AdNecrias]

Server 2 was no ranged last night. EU_cRPG_2

My horse archery was hurt as a dude with a german/danish sword lolstab can easily hit a charging horseman befoe he gets hit... with light cavalry that means you kill the horse in 1 blow, then proceed to 2 hit whoever in on the ground.

[Nemeth]

Cav have to get close to kill people, so if you're aware, you can kill them.

Archers can just stay 200 ft away and spam arrows - not the same.

As I said, with no ranged, cavalry is the one who picks when to engage. No matter how aware you are, if you're in fight with someone else, you can't always defend yourself from both the lance and an attack coming from your opponent. Not to mention bumping.

first of all, just because you don't have fun on melee only, it doesnt mean that we don't have fun, everyone i talk to love it.

second, you can kill cav without pikes, i can even take down cav with my katana

Well of course if your "everyone" is everyone who plays on melee server. I'm pretty sure if I go the EU1, 100+ people will tell me they love a regular server. Your point?
And hell, I can kill cavalry with my 1h with no shield, again, your point? I don't think you understand that the advantage of choosing when to engage is the single most powerful thing cavalry gains by disabling ranged. And if you truly don't understand that, there is no point in trying to convince you otherwise.

Imo that's a bad idea, if no-range servers appears, other regular servers will just transform into some overcrowded archer's nest.

I'm pretty sure that won't happen. EU1 is constantly full. I play there and I can tell you that there is no lack of melee. Just because you don't have the balls to go against ranged doesnt mean everyone else doesn't.

[Ethaor]

I have to agree, an archer-free server is just a leaching serv. I am an archer and if you get your melee and cav only serv, i want my archer and 2 handed serv only.

[Torp]

As I said, with no ranged, cavalry is the one who picks when to engage. No matter how aware you are, if you're in fight with someone else, you can't always defend yourself from both the lance and an attack coming from your opponent. Not to mention bumping.

Well of course if your "everyone" is everyone who plays on melee server. I'm pretty sure if I go the EU1, 100+ people will tell me they love a regular server. Your point?
And hell, I can kill cavalry with my 1h with no shield, again, your point? I don't think you understand that the advantage of choosing when to engage is the single most powerful thing cavalry gains by disabling ranged. And if you truly don't understand that, there is no point in trying to convince you otherwise.

1. if you're in a fight with someone else you also have trouble defending yourself against a footman coming from behind - the only difference is that cav is faster but they can only do one hit before they're gone. Yes, they can come again, but you will be aware of them, and they have lost their momentum, which, as you said, is everything.

2. If people on melee server are happy and people on the regular servers are happy, then what's the problem with a melee only server?

3. You said that everyone had to take out pikes, i said they dont need that to kill cav, you agreed with me, discussion over.

[Torp]

I have to agree, an archer-free server is just a leaching serv. I am an archer and if you get your melee and cav only serv, i want my archer and 2 handed serv only.

No. You just need to think about it. A no range server would be like team deathmatch or something. If there's no range, it takes away from the gameplay, and it'd become like a leech server.

you get just as much exp on a regular server as on a melee only server, so i cant see how it's a leech server? please explain it to me

[Nemeth]

1. if you're in a fight with someone else you also have trouble defending yourself against a footman coming from behind - the only difference is that cav is faster but they can only do one hit before they're gone. Yes, they can come again, but you will be aware of them, and they have lost their momentum, which, as you said, is everything.

2. If people on melee server are happy and people on the regular servers are happy, then what's the problem with a melee only server?

3. You said that everyone had to take out pikes, i said they dont need that to kill cav, you agreed with me, discussion over.

1. Yes, if they come from behind. Cavalry doesnt have to come from behind. And if you're aware, you wont be surprised by any footman coming from behind. If you see one, you reposition yourself and that's it. It takes a while for a footman to get to your back when you reposition yourself so you both see them on one screen. And with proper footwork, you can keep them in your sight prety much all the time. Can you say that about cavalry as well? Also, what keeps cav from turning around once they're just out of your reach and charge you again? And you can be aware of them all you want, once they come you either have to block their lance (and smart cavalrist will just bump you when they see you blocking, which pretty much always nets a kill for your opponent), or die. And I never said momentum is everything for them, you really don't need a lot of speed to one hit kill someone with a lance.

2. I guess the problem right now is that the majority of people, the ones that enjoy playing the game properly, have now one server less, the one thas was always less populated than EU1, thus for many ppl more enjoyable. Also, if you create a melee-only server, there will soon be demands to create other X-only servers for another minorities of people that doesnt like something in the actual game. You can see how ridiculous that would be.

3. Fair enough, still pike is the best anti-cav weapon and thus is most used.

[Torp]

1. Yes, if they come from behind. Cavalry doesnt have to come from behind. And if you're aware, you wont be surprised by any footman coming from behind. If you see one, you reposition yourself and that's it. It takes a while for a footman to get to your back when you reposition yourself so you both see them on one screen. And with proper footwork, you can keep them in your sight prety much all the time. Can you say that about cavalry as well? Also, what keeps cav from turning around once they're just out of your reach and charge you again? And you can be aware of them all you want, once they come you either have to block their lance (and smart cavalrist will just bump you when they see you blocking, which pretty much always nets a kill for your opponent), or die. And I never said momentum is everything for them, you really don't need a lot of speed to one hit kill someone with a lance.

2. I guess the problem right now is that the majority of people, the ones that enjoy playing the game properly, have now one server less, the one thas was always less populated than EU1, thus for many ppl more enjoyable. Also, if you create a melee-only server, there will soon be demands to create other X-only servers for another minorities of people that doesnt like something in the actual game. You can see how ridiculous that would be.

3. Fair enough, still pike is the best anti-cav weapon and thus is most used.

it seems like we're almost coming to an agreement xD

1. yes, cav is better than footmen, but IMO that makes the game mroe fun, at least cav has to get close so you ahve a chance to kill them.

2. i agree that it would be ridiculous to have too many x-only servers, but i dont think that would happen, s it would probably bore many people to do ranged vs ranged and stuff like that. And think that the amount of people liking the melee only makes up for the 1 less server.

3. yes

[Nemeth]

it seems like we're almost coming to an agreement xD

1. yes, cav is better than footmen, but IMO that makes the game mroe fun, at least cav has to get close so you ahve a chance to kill them.

2. i agree that it would be ridiculous to have too many x-only servers, but i dont think that would happen, s it would probably bore many people to do ranged vs ranged and stuff like that. And think that the amount of people liking the melee only makes up for the 1 less server.

3. yes

1. Well yeah, the question is then, why to disable ranged? Without ranged, cavalry is everything ranged was, with the exception that they have to come to you to inflict damage (much greater than any ranged weapon). It's harder to dodge cavalry charges and they're far more deadly.
The only logical explenation would be that you're just too lazy to take the walk to the archers/throwers/whatever to actually kill them. Even though you only have to move to dodge an arrow/bolt/dart/whatever. I don't really see any other reason.
And honestly, I find far more annoying the cavalry on EU2 atm, then I have every found annyoing ranged before. And from the reactions of ppl in game, I am not the only one.

2. Maybe, but you never know. No doubt people would demand it and you couldn't really blame them. But honestly I don't care about melee only server as long as it doesn't interfere with normal servers, which now the one that exists does.

[Miley]

you get just as much exp on a regular server as on a melee only server, so i cant see how it's a leech server? please explain it to me

There wouldn't be circumstances in where ranged would've won a round, etc.

[Torp]

There wouldn't be circumstances in where ranged would've won a round, etc.

no, but you would still win half the rounds, which will allow you to have multipleir half the time, which is exactly the same as in regulr battles.

100 hours of playing would give you the same amount of exp on both servers