Let's Agree On Ranged Damage

[Rextard]

If you're considering that you aren't risking much of anything by shooting from a distance, 4-5 body hits isn't bad.

No more ladders, scant secure roofs. Little support from teammates barring special circumstance. Ranged love to shoot you, melee love to sneak up on you and spam before you can defend yourself. Not to mention that shooting at a long distance (2/5ths of map or more) it's really hard to pull off more than 3 shots on the same target. And you have to focus for distance shots, making you a lot easier to sneak up on. Good luck focusing on far away if you know you're about to get pwnt in the very near.

Oh and if you bring a full loadout of arrows because you're trying to go pure archer, don't get caught the last one alive without a melee weapon, because if you run to find one you might get kicked.

Also, shooting is one thing. Throwers sure as shit can't throw from safe distances with any reliability, or much at dangerous distances lately from what I understand.

This community is rife with shaping negative opinions on ranged which by and large come from those who have little to no vested interest in actually playing ranged characters.

It's lame.

[Haze_The_Hobo]

If you wear chainmail, arrows should only give max 5dmg per hit. Ranged should be optimized with different armor types. Also lower headshot damage or accuracy, that is way off balance atm. You die to 1 headshot (45head) and it happens alot, since people don't miss anymore.

And Thomek if u think archer needs tweaking, u haven't played that much after the patch. 

[Malaclypse]

Also, shooting is one thing. Throwers sure as shit can't throw from safe distances with any reliability, or much at dangerous distances lately from what I understand.

Totally agree with this. Crossbows and throwing were hit too hard, and throwing didn't need to be messed with at all in my opinion. You're almost always very close to danger, typically don't have room for much athletics; the rewards for throwing should be higher than for archery or crossbow. I have a character for each ranged class, and the trouble of killing people is definitely most noticeable with my thrower (9 pt) and xbowman (about the same amount of body shots as an archer, but with a much longer reload time).

Though if I really wanted to play ranged consistently, I'd probably just do it on the Native module. I personally don't want cRPG to turn into the critical mass of range that most rounds on Native turn into, but that's a player choice issue not an internal balance one. I still don't feel like 4 body shots from range to kill a medium target is unreasonable for archers. My prejudice against ranged classes stems from a long and painful history in Native, where the solution to ranged was becoming ranged yourself.

Also, the tilde key works in first person, and archers should be using it often. Considering how long it takes to knock back an arrow, it leaves plenty of time to periodically check behind you, at least from my experience. Also, I would like to see less random village maps on NA 1, and more maps with at least some relatively safe natural vantage points for archers, maps that play to a diversity of strengths. Especially considering the removal of ladders, more natural perches would be nice to see.

[MadJackMcMad]

Crossbow damage was fine last patch.  With arbalests, Heavier helms were capable of protecting against one hit kill headshots, and anything above mail virtually guaranteed a 2 shot kill.  Light armour coupled with ironflesh could also protect the player from one shot kills at all but point blank ranges.

Now, with a masterwork arbalest, it can take 4 or more chest hits to kill someone with 50+ body armour.  It's just plain daft.  The damage is not a valid return on, the cost, the slot size, nor the reload time of the weapon.

If damage was truly an issue, revert the damage model and remove the damage bonus from heirlooming bolts, give quantity instead.

[MrShine]

If you wear chainmail, arrows should only give max 5dmg per hit. Ranged should be optimized with different armor types. Also lower headshot damage or accuracy, that is way off balance atm. You die to 1 headshot (45head) and it happens alot, since people don't miss anymore.

And Thomek if u think archer needs tweaking, u haven't played that much after the patch. 

5 damage a hit?  So you think the game should allow for an average archer to require 10-12 hits to kill someone in mail with 50-60 hp??  Personally I thing that's completely absurd, because where do you go from there to balance other weapons? 

IDK..

I don't mind being 3 hitted as that is how many hits it takes to down the average medium armored foe like myself. (52 body armor with gloves)

2 hitting medium armor players is too brutal I think, as that would mean archers do more damage than most infantry do up close. It usually takes me at least 3 hits to down Khorin, who has similar build/armor as myself. (body armor hits)

I'm glad you bring this up, because I think this all brings us around to what should realistically be the numbers to shoot for.  You're saying getting 2 hit is a bit too much damage, but are you thinking about archers, or ranged in general?  Personally I'd be furious if my arbalest required 3 hits to kill someone in medium armor (which I think is kinda how things have been working right now). 

I think your feelings of being 3 hit falls in line with how I have bows in the OP.. 1 slot bows typically taking 3-4 hits for medium infantry, the slower 2 slot bows generally going between 2-3.   But then I think there would need to be acceptance that some slower stronger ranged weapons would need to be able to kill in fewer 

[rustyspoon]

I think your feelings of being 3 hit falls in line with how I have bows in the OP.. 1 slot bows typically taking 3-4 hits for medium infantry, the slower 2 slot bows generally going between 2-3.   But then I think there would need to be acceptance that some slower stronger ranged weapons would need to be able to kill in fewer 

Thought I'd jump in here again on why I think current bow damage is fine. Just XBOWS and throwing need adjustment.

My main is a 1-hander with 6PS. With the system we use, 6PS would fall into the average range stat-wise. (Yes, I know most people have 7)

It is EXTREMELY rare for me to be able to 2-shot someone in medium armor. Honestly it takes me about 3-5 hits on average depending on how many stabs and head hits I get in. I also have to get right next to the guy to do that all the while worrying about people circling behind me. So, I find 2-3 hits with ANY bow when it's not a headshot to be ridiculous. You're not shooting flamberges out of those bows after all.

No more ladders, scant secure roofs. Little support from teammates barring special circumstance. Ranged love to shoot you, melee love to sneak up on you and spam before you can defend yourself. Not to mention that shooting at a long distance (2/5ths of map or more) it's really hard to pull off more than 3 shots on the same target. And you have to focus for distance shots, making you a lot easier to sneak up on. Good luck focusing on far away if you know you're about to get pwnt in the very near.

And boo-hoo to this. "I can't hide away from the battle any more waaaah!" Guess what? Ranged also love to shoot me, while their teammates try to circle around and flank me too. As a melee player, I need to be even MORE aware than ranged as I need to go smack dab into the middle of things. I also get little support from teammates unless I'm running with my clan. Just sounds like you're upset that you can't be immune to everything but ranged while shooting laser-guided missiles anymore.

I see PLENTY of archers doing really good after the change. Christ, Duke of Disco was going 23-2 last night as an HA.

Anyway, fix XBOWS and throwing, bows are fine.

[Rextard]

And boo-hoo to this. "I can't hide away from the battle any more waaaah!" Guess what? Ranged also love to shoot me, while their teammates try to circle around and flank me too. As a melee player, I need to be even MORE aware than ranged as I need to go smack dab into the middle of things. I also get little support from teammates unless I'm running with my clan. Just sounds like you're upset that you can't be immune to everything but ranged while shooting laser-guided missiles anymore.

I see PLENTY of archers doing really good after the change. Christ, Duke of Disco was going 23-2 last night as an HA.

Anyway, fix XBOWS and throwing, bows are fine.

Don't misuse quote marks to shove words in my mouth. And take your "just sounds like," shove it up your ass, play an actual archer for a gen, and then come back with an opinion on it.

The only thing I'm upset about is melee players like you having more control over ranged changes than ranged players. It's inappropriate.

[Thomek]

Well cRPG would turn into pew pew mod as it has many many times in the past, whenever Archers are too powerful.

[owens]

I think as a sidearm xbow is now balanced although my experience with heavier(two slot) xbow's is very limited but i know archery needs some love. Not necessarily damage but accuracy. Because of draw speed and low movement speed penalty fast moving throwers using peircing weapons are still deadly the 9 str 30 agi UAM gusy are still ferocious.

 So throwing could do with potentially lower weight items this might sound strange but when carrying a few axes you are far heavier and therefore slower than you should be this gives a wpf nerf and a melee combat nerf this isnt the idea of throwing it should be a sidearm that you can use while you have your shield but atm only dedicated throwers get any level of success until lvl 30 at which point you can have a complete 21/15 build with 5 PT or a complete 18/18 build with the same 5PT (no shield skill), and even then head shots are key.

Back to archery as i was saying accuracy is important it makes the difference between a lucky headshot and a skilled one, atm you must decide between taking a body shot or RISKING the headshot this is frustrating and isnt really fair. Another key point is the risk dedicated throwers pose to archers these guys are accurate and deadly at almost more range than an archer due to low damage of bow.


We must decide whether throwing is anti archer, anti 2H or anti cav

The same goes for archery should archers be countering 2H and polearm guys or cav or both.  On top of this which types of weapons and armours should archers be wearing, is wpf penalty to severe? and why are low tier bows so useless?

I am an AU player and i use meadium armour and low IF i have an archer alt that i have been nursing for a long time. My experience of archery is mostly as the target although i have had plenty of experience shooting people and horses.

[Arkonor]

I posted this in another thread as well.

One part that makes ranged hard to balance and many do miss is that ranged strength does go up exponentially with numbers.

What this means is if you balance out 1 archer vs 1 melee the archers will always get better in big battles.

The reason for this is because melees do need bigger space to work effectively on then ranged. Also in bigger numbers like 50 archers vs 50 footman the missed arrows would actually start hitting way more just like in real life scenario.

For any RTS game veteran this is easily observed in most RTS games.

Examples archers in Warcraft 3 or Marines in Starcraft. Both get exponentially better vs melee types of units.

[Memento_Mori]

I'm using a +2 Yumi (28 cut) and bodkins 6 pd 140 wpp HA3

HA is broken atm IMO

15 BODKINS AT CLOSE RANGE TO KILL AN UNLOOMED CHARGER WARHORSE (both standing still),
Charger
hit points: 130
body armor: 58
difficulty: 5
speed: 37
maneuver: 38
charge: 40

13 bodkins close range to kill 3 IF +3 gothic plate (61 bdy armor or something with +7 gloves both standing still)

so 2 packs of bodkins to bring down one heavy cav, I find this entirely hilarious and figured I HAD to tell someone.

[Malaclypse]

It takes me a lot of hits to kill horses like that in melee with 6 PS, too, Mori. Armor in general is a pain, for all classes that aren't stacked strengthwise. After seeing Duke BEATS destroying as an HA I can't agree with it being broken, though he may be level 33 or something which could make it more viable, I don't know, but he wrecks, and I fear him.

[Overdriven]

HA is still viable. For instance playing at 4am (for some reason I play better at that time) I can get similar scored to that guy. But then the servers down to maybe 40-50 people as well so it's A LOT easier for HA.

On a full EU1, I can just about keep an positive K/D. Largely due to the sheer number of cav on a full server...they are impossible to avoid on some maps.

It takes 9 barbs with an MW horn to kill a guy in heraldic mail. Above that and it'll take a lot more. By the time you reach the Corrazina armour, most of my shots will register 0 damage and the ones that do damage, do a pitiful amount.

[MrShine]

It takes me a lot of hits to kill horses like that in melee with 6 PS, too, Mori. Armor in general is a pain, for all classes that aren't stacked strengthwise. After seeing Duke BEATS destroying as an HA I can't agree with it being broken, though he may be level 33 or something which could make it more viable, I don't know, but he wrecks, and I fear him.

It does take a lot of hits to down a charger, but for an archer with a limited stack size going into the round knowing you have just enough arrows to barely kill one unit is kinda... sad.  It is frustrating to whack away at a heavy cav in melee as well, but you aren't losing future battle potential with each swing.

I currently have a STF alt with a tatar bow and 4 PD 9 WM (180 wpf) to test out a "headshot build".  It's had mixed success.  On the one hand headshots usually do good damage, but on the other I glance against ~50 armor body shots at near point blank range.  And getting a headshot against ~50 head armor at short range didn't do much damage either (allegedly against the fellow I hit in the duel server).

Back on topic a bit, I do think that heavy cav/troops should take more shots on average, but once you get above the 6-8 mark (esp with bodkins) it gets pretty ridiculous.  Perhaps we need to think about "max hits" for ranged classes

Thought I'd jump in here again on why I think current bow damage is fine. Just XBOWS and throwing need adjustment.

My main is a 1-hander with 6PS. With the system we use, 6PS would fall into the average range stat-wise. (Yes, I know most people have 7)

It is EXTREMELY rare for me to be able to 2-shot someone in medium armor. Honestly it takes me about 3-5 hits on average depending on how many stabs and head hits I get in. I also have to get right next to the guy to do that all the while worrying about people circling behind me. So, I find 2-3 hits with ANY bow when it's not a headshot to be ridiculous. You're not shooting flamberges out of those bows after all.

I feel your sentiments, although a few different things to put in context in the archer's favor:

- You have the ability to supplement your 6 PS with a number of blunt/pierce weapon options.  An archer has 1 expensive option - Bodkins - that comes with no other damage bonus.

- Melee has no constrains on how many units they can kill a round, while archers are directly tied to stack size.  Assuming 2 stacks of bodkins (30 arrows) an archer is tethered.  If it is 1 arrow a kill, that's the potential for 30 kills in a round.  2 arrows/kill, 15.  3 arrows/kill, 10.  5 arrows/kill, 6.  It goes down dramatically, and that isn't even taken into account misses, fighting cavalry which may take extra shots, split damage on multiple targets etc. 

-Once in range melee can do damage at a much quicker rate.  Even if an archer can 2 shot someone you can probably get 6 swings in during that time (not taking into account blocks and stuff - just raw damage potential).  Just think about how much ground you can cover closing on an archer with them firing 3 shots... change that to 4 and it would require an even greater "safe distance" for archers to shoot someone down from range.

I still agree with some of what you're saying - thus my suggested 3-4 shots to kill for 1 slot bows.  For the heavier slower more expensive 2 slot bows however I think more than 3 hits for medium infantry is asking a lot.

[Dezilagel]

Back on topic a bit, I do think that heavy cav/troops should take more shots on average, but once you get above the 6-8 mark (esp with bodkins) it gets pretty ridiculous.  Perhaps we need to think about "max hits" for ranged classes

I feel your sentiments, although a few different things to put in context in the archer's favor:

- You have the ability to supplement your 6 PS with a number of blunt/pierce weapon options.  An archer has 1 expensive option - Bodkins - that comes with no other damage bonus.

- Melee has no constrains on how many units they can kill a round, while archers are directly tied to stack size.  Assuming 2 stacks of bodkins (30 arrows) an archer is tethered.  If it is 1 arrow a kill, that's the potential for 30 kills in a round.  2 arrows/kill, 15.  3 arrows/kill, 10.  5 arrows/kill, 6.  It goes down dramatically, and that isn't even taken into account misses, fighting cavalry which may take extra shots, split damage on multiple targets etc. 

-Once in range melee can do damage at a much quicker rate.  Even if an archer can 2 shot someone you can probably get 6 swings in during that time (not taking into account blocks and stuff - just raw damage potential).  Just think about how much ground you can cover closing on an archer with them firing 3 shots... change that to 4 and it would require an even greater "safe distance" for archers to shoot someone down from range.

I still agree with some of what you're saying - thus my suggested 3-4 shots to kill for 1 slot bows.  For the heavier slower more expensive 2 slot bows however I think more than 3 hits for medium infantry is asking a lot.

Ranged has extra_penetration, so your argument about how melee have blunt/pierce options is basically invalid since your cut damage is about as good as our pierce.

Archers can pick up arrows. And most archers carry 30-40 of them. Plus just because you're an archer doesn't mean that you can't switch to a melee weapon.

"...not taking into account blocks and such" Kinda fucking important. Most people on the EU servers can block pretty well nowadays.

"...once in range" also kinda important, for obvious reason.

2-shotting a medium armored/balanced build infantry with any bow is just insane. (Bodyshots)

No, archers are not going to get the same amount of kills, but you rarely seem to take into account the damage you do. If someone hits me with a bow/crossbow I'm going to immediately pop up my shield and scramble for cover. Sure, you didn't kill me, but you took half my health and forced me to retreat, rendering me useless for maybe more than a minute. Same thing in melee. I don't fear the two guys with axes hacking away in front of me, I fear the little sob with a bow 20 m away since he can stun me and get me killed, without any way of defending myself.

Bows are fine. Throwing and crossbows are not.