Secondary mode for bows

[Rico]

In terms of making money as an archer:

Before I joined a clan, with medium armour, 2 stacks of Bodkins and one of the heavier bows I've made the experience that I lose money. Playing in a clan as an archer usually makes your average multiplicator higher as you play organized and you have some infantry that really helps you, other archers and xbows when attacked in melee or sometimes you even get a shield wall. Consequently, it is logical that some say they lose money and others do not.

However, money is not the main reason why archers should be able to change the quiver. It's rather the tactical issue I can only repeat: Archers should be allowed to bring piece and blunt damage arrows like the throwers may change their weapons and infantry may bring more then one weapon or even activate the secondary mode. This is a question of fairness; make the same right for everyone.

[Christo]

However, money is not the main reason why archers should be able to change the quiver. It's rather the tactical issue I can only repeat: Archers should be allowed to bring piece and blunt damage arrows like the throwers may change their weapons and infantry may bring more then one weapon or even activate the secondary mode. This is a question of fairness; make the same right for everyone.

Interesting point, but..

Comparing archery to throwing, and infantry just cancels your own point out.
Saying "the same right for everyone", while thrower's aim is quite random and you have to be lucky, or go really close and be lucky again, and infantry has to come close to you while you can run. Where is the so called equality, in that? If archers would get better melee capabilities, and wouldn't run all the time, then we can start talking about "equality".

This would just remove a relatively minor "drawback" of archery, but your "question of fairness" point is all messed up.

[Gomer]

This is a question of fairness; make the same right for everyone.

A thrower is limited by range. Melee is limited by... Range. You are not limited by range. There is you'r advantage you need no more. Wana be diverse like a thrower be a thrower. If not suck it up sally cause... Don't take this personally but Go fuck yourself

[Rico]

(click to show/hide)

Give me some time, let me answer this later. You will get your answer why changing the quivers is fair. Just give me some time, I will edit this post. Must work now.

A. Range between the archer and the enemy
    a. Archer is using Bodkin Arrows
        P1. Archer is effective against polearm infantry (no shield), same for the Bodkins
        P2. Archer is effective against twohand infantry (no shield), same for the Bodkins
        P3. Archer is effective against light cavalry (shooting the horse), the Bodkins are not
        P4. Archer is effective against other archers, the Bodkins are not (due to light armor and low ammo)
        N1. Archer is neither effective nor ineffectiv against throwers (because it depends on shield/no shield), the Bodkins are neutral (depends on the armor)
        C1. Archer is ineffective against heavy cavalry (high armor and speed, I tested it with Simon on a duel server), the Bodkins are not
        C2. Archer is ineffective against crossbowman (the crossbow is much more accurate and it's rather a far range missile weapon while the bow is a medium range distance weapon; throwing weapons are low range distance weapons), the Bodkins are neutral (depends on the armor)
        C3. Archer is ineffective against shielders, same for Bodkins (due to low ammo, you really do not want to waste them on a shield wall)
    b. Archer is using Tatar Arrows
        P1. Archer is effective against polearm infantry, not the Tatars
        P2. Archer is effective against twohand infantry, not the Tatars
        P3. Archer is effective against light cavalry, same for the Tatars
        P4. Archer is effective against other archers, same for the Tatars
        N1. Archer is neither effective nor ineffectiv against throwers, the Tatars are neutral (depends on the armor)
        C1. Archer is ineffective against heavy cavalry, same for the Tatars
        C2. Archer is ineffective against crossbowman, the Tatars are neutral (depends on the armor)
        C3. Archer is ineffective against shielders, not the Tatars

B. Low distance between the archer and the enemy/ Crossbow not reloaded in an open field
        P1. Archer is effective against infantry with low athletics
        P2. Archer is effective against crossbowmen
        N2. Archer is neither effective nor ineffective against throwers
        C1. Archer is ineffective against light cavalry
        C2. Archer is ineffective against heavy cavalry
        C3. Archer is ineffective against fast infantry

This should be complete (despite the HA, excuse that). At the moment, most archers use 2 stacks of Bodkins due to the piece damage. I come to the conclusion that allowing them to switch to tatars by pressing 'x' etc. would make them more effective against light cavalry over far distances (ride some fast zigzag) and against other archers in general. This means, allowing them to change the stacks of arrows they are currently using encourages them to fight each other and rather spares the infantry from archer fire.

[Gomer]

Give me some time, let me answer this later. You will get your answer why changing the quivers is fair. Just give me some time, I will edit this post. Must work now.

No worries. I actually support the idea of changing quivers if there is a nerf to dmg done if using multiple quivers but you can't have the best of both worlds little to OP

[Joker86]

Interesting point, but..

Comparing archery to throwing, and infantry just cancels your own point out.
Saying "the same right for everyone", while thrower's aim is quite random and you have to be lucky, or go really close and be lucky again, and infantry has to come close to you while you can run. Where is the so called equality, in that? If archers would get better melee capabilities, and wouldn't run all the time, then we can start talking about "equality".

This would just remove a relatively minor "drawback" of archery, but your "question of fairness" point is all messed up.

A thrower is limited by range. Melee is limited by... Range. You are not limited by range. There is you'r advantage you need no more. Wana be diverse like a thrower be a thrower. If not suck it up sally cause... Don't take this personally but Go fuck yourself

You can't argue like that.

You can't pick a random strength of a class and use it as an argument against anything that you consider a buff. Throwers can shoot much faster and are far more mobile, and they can use a shield as protection.

And now? We are at the same point like before.

Fact is: assuming that the developers did their job well, all classes have the same strength. When you get hit by a certain ranged weapon you can't tell if the attacker has ONLY item slots filled with the ammunition type you got hit with or if he has different ammo as well, and you can't tell if it is his first, second, thrid or fourth slot. Tatar arrows or bodkins, throwing axes or jarids. All of them should be balanced equally, and nothing changes in particular, especially for the victim.

If the developers are really good, they considered the fact that you can't switch arrow types and made them a little bit cheaper, but that's already everything you can do about it. If they did so, and they make ammo types changeable, then I would say make arrows a little bit more expensive, again. That's all. And again, you won't feel any difference of this change, as it only afflicts the archer himself.

[Rico]

Just make archers a bit more effective against other archers by allowing them to change the quivers. Most archers will switch to 1 quiver of Bodkins and 1 of Tatars. The great majority of the non-archers wears heavy armor, and they can be happy about archers having only 17 instead of 34 of those dangerous Bodkins. Why do you even think about nerfing the secondary-mode-quiver? Those arrows will be mainly used against other archers and all are content

[Miwiw]

Ye, it's always a shame seeing my bodkin arrow hit a non-amored guy just because he was in my view. Not like I wouldn't shoot him because of that then. Always could have used that arrow for a more armoured guy. 

So +1 this suggestion. It already is +50, everyone except for Tzar like this thread! 

[Rico]

92.8% want the secondary mode atm. All we need is a developer saying us that he implements this

[Tavuk_Bey]

i want a bayonet for my arbalest and also a 40mm n00bt00b attachment

[Rumblood]

I want to trap someone's head with my bow and string and pull them off their horse. You can get +1 in Clothesline for every 3 Agility.

[Rico]

stop trolling. bump

[Blueberry Muffin]

57 UPVOTES!!!! DO YOU HAVE NO COMPASSION DEVS?!?!?!?

[Gurnisson]

57 UPVOTES!!!! DO YOU HAVE NO COMPASSION DEVS?!?!?!?

Hm, it suddenly fell down to 56, I.E not good enough. How'd that happen?

[Shaksie]

A good idea but I also believe you should be able to hit with a bow .