Strategus, the poll

[Jarlek]

Let me guess, you got a shielder main?

Yes I do. And while it's reasonable that I'm not as good in melee as the no-shield 2handers and polearms, it's ridiculous how powerless I can be against archers. The shield slowing the movement speed so much, attacks and projectiles going "around" the shield, extremely limited control over where the shield is pointing and lately, people being able to warp through shields and shieldwalls. You remember that video Diggles (I think it was Digglez) made? Showing how people could just run through him while he was holding his shield up?

[Teeth]

Although this makes no realistic sense, what about having a bow in your hand slows you down considerably, so that archers when they run have to switch to melee, they also won't be able to runturnshoot.

If we would just get proper teamplay and battle mechanics archery wouldn't be that hard to balance. One big archer square that volley fires on the enemy lines, as their position gets compromised they switch to their sword and fight as well as they can. Like they did back in the day.

I strongly suggest implementing deployable stakes. I understood that making them hurt horses is really bad for performance, that is not necesarry at all. Just make them stop horses and slow down infantry when moving through. As this is a good place for ranged stopped horses will get arrowraped. That could lead to some more tactical placement of archers and maybe make open field maps more enjoyable.

[Tot.]

Thing I don't get about archery is why are archers allowed to pull strings while moving. That's the main reason why run&gun is so effective, why kiting works so amazing and why cavalry is in peril vs. an archer far more than archer is - that's just retarded, archer caught in open space by a horseman without infantry support should die, same as shieldless infantry dies when caught in open space by an archer. And thats why archers are so self-sufficient while neither of other classes is. Archers should act as support and require infantry protection to be effective.

Not to mention that it's unrealistic.

[Jarlek]

Although this makes no realistic sense, what about having a bow in your hand slows you down considerably, so that archers when they run have to switch to melee, they also won't be able to runturnshoot.

If we would just get proper teamplay and battle mechanics archery wouldn't be that hard to balance. One big archer square that volley fires on the enemy lines, as their position gets compromised they switch to their sword and fight as well as they can. Like they did back in the day.

I strongly suggest implementing deployable stakes. I understood that making them hurt horses is really bad for performance, that is not necesarry at all. Just make them stop horses and slow down infantry when moving through. As this is a good place for ranged stopped horses will get arrowraped. That could lead to some more tactical placement of archers and maybe make open field maps more enjoyable.

+1

I agree that my suggestion isn't realistic. It's meant purely for gameplay reason. Although if you want a "realism" argument for it:
While a bow doesn't really weight that much, a bow is in reality a pretty cumbersome weapon to move with. Especially if you got it strapped on your back. Moving with a bow like that is both awekward and annoying and would most of the time be more in the way than a properly fit plate or mail armour. This is about the big bows, not the small ones.

[v/onMega]

Tradesimulator 3.5 still not finished?

Crpg archers are fine btw. . .

Strategus on the other hand....

Good reasons were given by the dev´s why archery has no right to be the same way in strat.


So whats the drama about again? Archery is being worked on! (at the same usual speed as everything else in crpg... :-) )


Did I mention that most ppl complaining here just overplayed the whole mod?

Play something different and u ll quickly know if u really still like the game / mod...or try to compensate boredom with forum e-drama.


Did I also mention that rfactor F1 1979 and 1991 are great mods?

[Teeth]

Tradesimulator 3.5 still not finished?

Crpg archers are fine btw. . .

Strategus on the other hand....

Good reasons were given by the dev´s why archery has no right to be the same way in strat.


So whats the drama about again? Archery is being worked on! (at the same usual speed as everything else in crpg... :-) )


Did I mention that most ppl complaining here just overplayed the whole mod?

Play something different and u ll quickly know if u really still like the game / mod...or try to compensate boredom with forum e-drama.


Did I also mention that rfactor F1 1979 and 1991 are great mods?

Don't see what could ever be fun about that rfactor game.

[Leshma]

What is wrong with Slamz' text, Zapper?

I have recently checked the k/d of end level players who decided to skip retiring (level 31+). Of the main classes those archers have to worst k/d apart from throwers. So unless they manage only to hurt and never to kill their targets, which would kinda contradict the "OMG, archers 2 shot me in plate" statement, they aren't that effective.

Most likely roof laddering will be resolved and Strategus will get a solution too. To be honest I only see self-energising hysteria and no real problem, while the anti-range ringleader are also the most special forum members.

Still don't understand who let Tzar in 22nd. Ok, we got Rokema but there ought to be a lower bound somewhere.

I saw Tzar without 22nd tag so he probably left your clan, just like many before him.

And good job insulting fellow forum members

[Akhooey]

cRPG needs more love. The developers also need to add a ball and chain.(Hint Hint)

[Slamz]

The mace is a good weapon. Fact.

So make it 2 slot.  Problem solved.  If you weren't raging so hard you'd realize I brought up the Mace precisely because it's a good way to nerf archers without actually impacting archery itself.  Should archers be able to run around with a 30 blunt, 98 speed, 1-slot sidearm?  You tell me.

In addition: even IF you have a "worse" melee weapon, you also gain the mind blowing advantage of fighting a guy that is already damaged.

You are playing up the archer's advantages while ignoring all of the tradeoffs made to get it.

Archers can't carry a 2-slot melee weapon -- not if they want enough ammo to do any good.
Archers can't carry a shield -- again with the ammo problem.
Archers are forced to wear light armor -- if they want their archery skills to actually count.
Archers tend to have less IF and/or PS due to extra points in PD.

Your argument assumes archers are completely identical to the best melee attackers in the game, plus they get a bow.  It doesn't work like that.  Yes, you reach the archer and you are halfway dead.  But you have heavy armor and a high damage weapon versus the archer in light armor, often with no head armor, and a substandard weapon and with less PS and less IF than you.

Let's do the counting. That's six (6!) guys, in any normal fight, and that EVERY SINGLE MELEE FIGHTER DOES THAT IN THE SAME FIGHT!

Oh I see where you're going with that -- that was just an example of a high ranking melee, not an average melee.  The guys getting 6 kills in a round and then dying to an archer who got 1 kill are still coming to the forums to complain about archery.  Regardless, kill stats support my side of the story.  There are more melees going on melee kill streaks than there are archers going on archery killstreaks.  This is not my opinion.  It's in all the data.

It would be interesting to compare top ranking bow damage done during a match to top ranking melee damage done, but I think melee would come out ahead even there.


For the record, my current gen main is a 2-hander.  Previously I was a shielder.  I just don't seem to have the problem with archers you have.  I look for them, I don't run in straight lines if I think there's an archer looking at me.  If I'm chasing one I zoom in on him and time my dodge with his release.  I picked up 4 PT, 6 athletics and 94 throwing wpf (136 two-hand wpf) and about half of the archers I kill die to heavy throwing axes (although throwing daggers work well too and you get more ammo -- it's debatable which is better).  I have 1 shield skill but very rarely carry one.

You say you're a shielder.  What's your athletics?  What's your power throw?  Do you hold up your shield full time when chasing archers or do you watch them and only raise your shield when they are pointing at you and about to shoot?  Let's examine why you, in particular, are so bad at fighting archers.

[Jarlek]

You say you're a shielder.  What's your athletics?  What's your power throw?  Do you hold up your shield full time when chasing archers or do you watch them and only raise your shield when they are pointing at you and about to shoot?  Let's examine why you, in particular, are so bad at fighting archers.

I never said I'm bad at fighting archers, usually they are what I go for and I catch them. The annoying thing is that it takes so little for them to get away from me. There is no way for me to bring a shield and catch up to an archer unless he's stupid. For me to catch an archer I have to do almost everything right, while he can do a lot of mistakes and still manage to get away. Only holding the shield up when they are shooting is basic stuff, but it's still not enough to catch up with them.
   Usually the 50 throwing wpf I got and throwing rocks/daggers/whatever i bring me helps to stop many of them long enough for me to catch up, but it's still easy for them to run away if they know what they are doing. And the throwing trick works only once, afterwards they just start running before I'm in effective range. I can't count the number of times I've spend 1-2 minutes of a round just chasing one or two archers. Any more than that and they can easily shoot me while I go for any of them, and fighting chasing two at the same time still requires me to move my shield around a lot.
   I take satisfaction that I keep them out of the fight (most) of the time and pray that my allies manage to use that advantage, even though a smart archer would just fire at my allies instead of me chasing them. But it's still silly that I have to sneak around to manage to catch archers and the moment they spot me they can just run away unless I hit them with my throwing weapon.
  But you want to hear the MOST annoying thing? That when I DO get hit, they do shitloads of damage to me. Why bows do more damage than almost all melee hits I take is just plain stupid.

You are playing up the archer's advantages while ignoring all of the tradeoffs made to get it.

Archers can't carry a 2-slot melee weapon -- not if they want enough ammo to do any good.
Archers can't carry a shield -- again with the ammo problem.
Archers are forced to wear light armor -- if they want their archery skills to actually count.
Archers tend to have less IF and/or PS due to extra points in PD.

Your argument assumes archers are completely identical to the best melee attackers in the game, plus they get a bow.  It doesn't work like that.  Yes, you reach the archer and you are halfway dead.  But you have heavy armor and a high damage weapon versus the archer in light armor, often with no head armor, and a substandard weapon and with less PS and less IF than you.

You really haven't kept up with my thoughts on archers have you? Because this is the main problem with archery in cRPG. There's no reason for them to take any PS/IF or melee wpf. Taking everything is archery is so much more effective than taking some basic melee capability. THIS is something I want to change right now, but nobody gives a damn about. Why the HELL should a full PD/WM, everything in archery be more effective than an actual Archer? What we have in cRPG isn't archers. It's people with bows who don't do ANYTHING but shoot arrows. And why not? Getting 5-15 more archery wpf is so much more better for them than taking 50 melee wpf. Getting 1 more WM or PD or ATHL is so much more important than getting 3-5 PS. This is retarded and has to change. Archery wpf and PD needs to stop give you such huge bonuses after some time.

Also: Considering you would normally have shot the melee down to nothing, you would usually only need 1 melee hit (with the 0 slot hammer) to kill them. That's what I have to do on my archer. Few are the times when a guy can get in melee range of me and still take more than 2 hits.

Oh I see where you're going with that -- that was just an example of a high ranking melee, not an average melee.  The guys getting 6 kills in a round and then dying to an archer who got 1 kill are still coming to the forums to complain about archery.  Regardless, kill stats support my side of the story.  There are more melees going on melee kill streaks than there are archers going on archery killstreaks.  This is not my opinion.  It's in all the data.

Row row row your boat, lier. Just gonna quote you to prove that this is something you came up with AFTER you were shown how stupid your comment was.

Standard melee: kill a dude, kill another dude, kill two more dudes, kill another dude, down a horse, kill the rider, get shot by an arrow, declare archery is op.

Bolded the important part. If "that was just an example of a high ranking melee, not an average melee" then why did you say that this is what a "Standard melee" does in a round? Consistency helps. Stop trying to explain what you really meant when it's obvious you're just making an excuse after someone called your bullshit.

[Leshma]

So make it 2 slot.  Problem solved.  If you weren't raging so hard you'd realize I brought up the Mace precisely because it's a good way to nerf archers without actually impacting archery itself.  Should archers be able to run around with a 30 blunt, 98 speed, 1-slot sidearm?  You tell me.

Archers using mace are fine, xbowmen are not because they have a lot of agi and enough ps to hurt you. I agree with mace being 2 slot.

[Slamz]

I never said I'm bad at fighting archers, usually they are what I go for and I catch them.

Problem solved!

Usually they are what you go for and you catch them.

I'm glad we sorted this out.  Archery is not a problem.  Usually you go for them and you catch them.

Next up:
Archer poll -- are shielders too fast?  Is it fair that Zapper usually goes for you and catches you?   

[Jarlek]

Problem solved!

Usually they are what you go for and you catch them.

I'm glad we sorted this out.  Archery is not a problem.  Usually you go for them and you catch them.

Next up:
Archer poll -- are shielders too fast?  Is it fair that Zapper usually goes for you and catches you?   

Whoopdee fucking doo, mr. smartypants! So much for being serious.

[22nd_King_Plazek]

Ignoring all the crying about archers and general balance that appears to be quite irrelevant to the topic of this thread, Zapper does, IMO have the basis of a good idea in one of his earlier posts.

If the amount of troops was highly limited per person, and there was some means by which people could "join battle" like in SP M&B whilst retaining control of the remaining forces after the battle there would be a lot more for your average strategus player to do.

Say for example a basic player could carry Y men, you could then level up some "strategus skills", crafting, leadership, first aid blahblah whatever that could potentially increase this limit. Maybe there could also be an increase in the amount of troops you can carry at level 5 and level 10 within a faction (this risk vs benefit is obvious). Further increases could be permitted with the ownership of fiefs.

---

If each person had to then be present on the map in the correct location and move onto the initiator of the battle and enter it much like entering a village or attacking someone, within a specific amount of time, things could get interesting. Factions would require their players to actually be active and involved, it would not just be about mass production and there would be a very important space for independant armies and mercenary armies to support the larger factions as every active player would be a great asset.

---

It would be even better if the roster for a battle could be split in ratio to the number of contributed troops so each warlord managed his own roster and brought his own equipment for his own troops. Of course if this is next to impossible to code then putting all tickets and equipment into a shared pool could do the job.

[Jarlek]

Ignoring all the crying about archers and general balance that appears to be quite irrelevant to the topic of this thread, Zapper does, IMO have the basis of a good idea in one of his earlier posts.

If the amount of troops was highly limited per person, and there was some means by which people could "join battle" like in SP M&B whilst retaining control of the remaining forces after the battle there would be a lot more for your average strategus player to do.

Say for example a basic player could carry Y men, you could then level up some "strategus skills", crafting, leadership, first aid blahblah whatever that could potentially increase this limit. Maybe there could also be an increase in the amount of troops you can carry at level 5 and level 10 within a faction (this risk vs benefit is obvious). Further increases could be permitted with the ownership of fiefs.

---

If each person had to then be present on the map in the correct location and move onto the initiator of the battle and enter it much like entering a village or attacking someone, within a specific amount of time, things could get interesting. Factions would require their players to actually be active and involved, it would not just be about mass production and there would be a very important space for independant armies and mercenary armies to support the larger factions as every active player would be a great asset.

---

It would be even better if the roster for a battle could be split in ratio to the number of contributed troops so each warlord managed his own roster and brought his own equipment for his own troops. Of course if this is next to impossible to code then putting all tickets and equipment into a shared pool could do the job.

My crazy ideas gives good offsrpings Put this in the Suggestions board, will ya

About number of troops: Maybe introduce a vassalage system that someone was talking about before? Like, you don't join a faction, you swear vassalage to another player. The more vassals you have, the more troops YOU personally can have. You could also spread the vassals around and have lots of medium sized lords, or you could have a King with lots of vassals. Although what would happen if a guy with vassals entered a vassalship of another...