Really melee-ers?

[LastKaze]

lol I once created a stf alt (back in...december iirc) and I instantly went 20-5 on eu 2 the first map. with a tatar bow and normal arrows

E: allthough I'm a TERRIBLE archer/crossbowman.

You can't put archery and xbow in the same category seeing how both gameplay of each class is different in many ways.

[Zerobot1]

I think most of the rage of melee towards ranged comes from those awful ranged vs melee round ends. How many times have I seen or was victim of a mere execution when I was among the last men standing.

Sorry but this is not valid, you can apply it to anyone.

How many times have I been the last one alive against 3 shielders and a cav, I had as little chance as you did being caught out in the open by 3 ranged. The fact of the matter is; when you get mobbed by any sort of opponent, your odds of winning and surviving are drastically low.

You just make it seem as if you never killed an archer before in your life, while they've been mercilessly mowing you down left right and center, which is quite frankly bull.

Also, being effective against ranged with a shield is about bypassing the main fight and heading straight for the ranged. Running only works if you have a team to run to, if the infantry loses then so does the ranged. Even so, a running archer is an archer not firing, ie you're disabling him by putting pressure on him. And again, if you're a shielder against 3 ranged and you die, why shouldn't you?

Sorry to say it but a lot of what I read just screams "I want to kill people, but I don't want to die", which is why nothing will ever be settled.

[n445]

My position stands that archery is unbalanced to the point where the troops as a whole are unbalanced. To me, Archery is to balance out the domination of polearm/2h, with the nerf, there are less archers; therefor, more polearm/2h users.

I'm not saying there should be less melee-ers then archers, but the situation that archery is in now is dire. They, we, need an unnerf to restore balance.

[Dezilagel]

My position stands that archery is unbalanced to the point where the troops as a whole are unbalanced. To me, Archery is to balance out the domination of polearm/2h, with the nerf, there are less archers; therefor, more polearm/2h users.

I'm not saying there should be less melee-ers then archers, but the situation that archery is in now is dire. They, we, need an unnerf to restore balance.

Actually, 2h/pole pop seems to be roughtly the same while cav pop has boomed

[n445]

Actually, 2h/pole pop seems to be roughtly the same while cav pop has boomed

They both increased, the archers have changed over to new things. Although I agree the cav population has increased, but I haven't seen too much impact with that, maybe I will soon.

I hope to see a small buff for archery though, not back to the weay it was, but inbetween the way it was and the way it is. I feel as that will fix the problem of over population of certain classes.

[Overdriven]

The cav increase is more annoying for regular cav because now there's lots of nub cav who just get in each others way and block the place up. There comes a point where a map is to small to accommodate decent amount of cav and right now the amounts of cav are to much for the majority of maps. As to how damaging they are, I don't really know.

[Dezilagel]

As to how damaging they are, I don't really know.

Devastating.

(click to show/hide)

Green = Cav

Red = Not cav

Yellow = Not sure (Exception is Nooby_Nooby_NOOOB or whatever, he's also cav)

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[Overdriven]

Well then that's why ranged needs to be fixed asap.

[Dezilagel]

Well then that's why ranged needs to be fixed asap.

Maybe infantry vs. cav needs a look at as well?

[Overdriven]

I don't think so. There have been a lot of polearm weapons on capable of stopping cav recently. I think it's just the people that use them if they aren't doing the job.

Fixing ranged will at least give anybody who went ranged -> cav a reason to go back. And it'll also give a stronger counter to cav because right now there's not much point in ranged firing at horses.

[Dezilagel]

I don't think so. There have been a lot of polearm weapons on capable of stopping cav recently. I think it's just the people that use them if they aren't doing the job.

Fixing ranged will at least give anybody who went ranged -> cav a reason to go back. And it'll also give a stronger counter to cav because right now there's not much point in ranged firing at horses.

Well, judging from what I've seen, infantry have just as much trouble with cav as ranged do.

Remember that it's only longer polearms who stop horses, forcing you to go down a specific route. Yes, 2h can also be effective vs. cav, but the problem for both 2h and pole inf (and ofc 1h) is when cav masses up. It's ver hard to counter that without organized teamplay with aware and skilled people, regardless of what weapon you have.

[Brutal]

Since cavalry mainly backstap, there is not much you can do for melee vs cav.

[Reinhardt]

The ranged nerf was too much. As a cavalryman/infantryman, I can say that with certainty. Yes, ranged deaths are annoying, but they keep cav in check. I would definitely be for, instead of reverting the changes, making the longbow, yumi, and warbow actually do more than the skirmish bows and short bows. (The following statement should be noted for being the outcome of pre-patch playtime.) The fact that I can run into a skirmisher, he shoots me in the body, taking 50% of my HP, then switches to a tiny mace which has 30 blunt damage and 99 speed... it's kind of irritating.


PS: Cavalry always get more kills. Why? Because they get in, get out, and then are able to go in again and do the same  thing. Not only that, but people are just stupid. They don't watch their back when walking in open field to an enemy literally 20-30 meters away. Especially when you hear hooves... you should watch out. Also, skilled cav can kill two-handers and others, yet longer weapons still destroy us. The balance is fine for Inf vs. cav.

[BlackMilk]

Nerf polearms and everything is fine.

Ranged is fine (dunno about throwing), 2h infantry is, 1h infantry definetly is, 1h cav is, polearm cav is, 2h cav is. Polearm infantry remains as the only op class. There's not a single good reason why you should not choose a polearm over any other melee class. It can stop horses, it can stagger the opponent and stun his weapon (high weight), it has  incredible reach, the by far highest damage overall (31 pierce stab on poleaxe eg) and same/higher speed as 2h (glaive for instance is as fast as danish gs allthough it has 2 less speedpoints according to the site).

Also the shield of 1h is still very usefull, BUT it slows you down alot and ranged is not that much of a threat anymore ('cause most archers are too bad to aim properly)

[Overdriven]

Well, judging from what I've seen, infantry have just as much trouble with cav as ranged do.

Remember that it's only longer polearms who stop horses, forcing you to go down a specific route. Yes, 2h can also be effective vs. cav, but the problem for both 2h and pole inf (and ofc 1h) is when cav masses up. It's ver hard to counter that without organized teamplay with aware and skilled people, regardless of what weapon you have.

Ashwood pike is a very effective support weapon in melee combat, can actually hold it's own in a hoplite build, and can stop cav. If more people took that route and focused on watching for enemy cav in the melee fighting, then there'd be less of a problem. PL have been doing it quite successfully recently because we make sure to always have 1 ashwood pike watching our backs.