Crossbows and the Return of FPS

[Casimir]

Decided that First person makes this game atleast 100% more epic. Shit is just so much crazier. I suggest first person only servers so we can all plat M&B: CS:S!

[Prpavi]

Well one solution also would be to add the expanding recticle like archers have but say it kicks in after 5-7 seconds due to arm fatigue and that time and speed of expansion would depent on the weight of the armour.

also there really needs to be some requirement liike power draw or wpf.

xbow is a common second slot now and way too effective at 1 wpf.

[Thtb]

Ranged weapons are just inbalanced at this point... 1 wpf + some power throw = instant kill axes/ranged
Bow, 150 wpf + complete build focused on it = needs several hits.

[Darkkarma]

Well one solution also would be to add the expanding recticle like archers have but say it kicks in after 5-7 seconds due to arm fatigue and that time and speed of expansion would depent on the weight of the armour.

also there really needs to be some requirement liike power draw or wpf.

xbow is a common second slot now and way too effective at 1 wpf.

getting the occasional kill with an xbow at wpf doesn't make it OP. I could do the same thing in battle with a melee weapon after I starta  new gen. What I can't do however, is kill consistently with it. I don't think most people can for that matter, save a few really skilled players

[Rhade]

Ahhh, you pulled the "m&b is melee oriented game, so why do archers have any possibility to actually kill someone?" card. How cute. Then I guess you would gladly enlighten us why is it that it's pretty much always melee people who top to scoreboards? Even if it's hybrid, the majority of his kills are melee. From your post it looks like they should be hiding the whole round and then get slaughtered by ranged, thus not getting any kills.

Actually, I didn't pull that card, I wrote an extremely well made, structured and informed argument regarding the status quo of cRPG and you completely avoided addressing my main points.

However, I will do you the favor of refuting your points because I can and will not simply "ignore" them:

1. I actually stated that I want archers(range) to be a viable class, and have no problem with that, or something similar to it.

(click to show/hide)

Range should definitely have it's place

2. I've seen talented archers (Carebear_HarmlessPeasant and BkS_Vanidar) top the scoreboards regularly, and have watched them to do so getting the majority of their kills from their bow.

Saying that melee players "top scoreboards all the time" isn't really true, but let's imagine it is: Saying Michael Jordan can win a 1v10 vs average guys pulled off the street isn't a good indication that the game would be fair, because you're bringing in the extreme variable of someone extremely skilled. You have to look past the fact that good players are going to generally do well regardless of what class they're playing, but the point I was getting at was that once a critical mass of range was reached, that it became significantly easier to shut them down, and dilluted the skill required to be successful in this game.

When looking at game balance and looking at issues, you need to assume average skill level on all parts. You obviously don't grasp this as you're saying you "see melee top the scoreboard all the time," yet I see the same players topping the scoreboards all the time, no matter what class they play. When talking about balance you can't really bring that top elite group in, because they would still do well with rocks and a hatchet. You need to look at the theory and logic of things and assume average, even skills at all points.

[Nemeth]

(click to show/hide)

I'm so fucking sick of the people comparing events that occurred in history/real life to justify game mechanics.

People at Agincourt didn't respawn, did they? Why the fuck not? Perhaps because if someone made the argument that "oh, people at the siege of Acre didn't respawn, so we shouldn't either," I imagine that would be BAD FOR GAME BALANCE.

In much the same vein, saying "herp derp x happened in history so it MUST be fine to implement" shows someone who's only credentials are watching the history channel, yet they know nothing about balance nor game design.

The simple fact is that once projectiles reach a critical mass, it doesn't matter how good/bad the players are, it's a wall of death as soon as you step out of cover in that range players need to worry less about ff in the sense that they have a much longer effective range, and their targets are much greater when you're looking at selection. Melee users can not "swarm" the same way that seven archers can shoot at the same target -- if seven inf attempt to all swing at the same target, they'll cut themselves to shreds. So the situation being what it is, and hybrids running amok with such easy ranged skills being acquired, that critical mass is easily achieved and the ranged classes dictate the combat entirely. If ranged players want to shoot it out all day without switching to their melee weapons, then a pure melee character can do nothing about it. The issue isn't necessarily that "OMGZ RANGE NEEDS A NERF," it lies inherently and intrinsically in the fact that the critical mass of range is easily met with so many hybrids running around, resulting in part from the ease of acquiring xbows and throwables. After this mass is met, range will always dictate combat as it's effective range and volume of fire is so great that nothing else other than a higher volume of fire will defeat it. This really is not that fun of a way to play, as volume of fire matters almost as much, if not more than skill of the user; once a critical mass of projectiles being shot in one direction is reached, it's much like a shotgun blast or carpet bombing in that it really doesn't NEED to be overly accurate to be effective. Melee NEEDS to be accurate because it's effective range is so short (literally only a few feet), thus limiting your potential targets to only one or two, forcing you to swing around friendlies whether you like it or not.

Also, saying "well, throwers have limited ammo" is a pretty weak argument; throwing is so widespread at the moment that the battlefield is constantly littered with throwables, and people can easily replenish their stacks rather quickly. People keep acting like this is a major inherent built in Achilles heel to throwing yet I watch bad players run around and continuously pick up throwables and spam them at melee players until they finally land a hit or two and get a kill. If they miss, they just run and rinse and repeat. It's rather silly. Range dominates, and this shouldn't be the case whatsoever, I don't give a fuck about how "real" some people may think it is or how brilliant they think their tactics are, Mount and BLADE (not Bow) is centered around a pioneering and next-generation melee system, and has a rather sub-par range system built in yet the entire beauty of the melee system is being thrown out the window because there are such high volumes of fire *everywhere* that you're instantly targeted as soon as you pull out a 2h'er by the unwashed masses, whether they're skilled or no, with 8 of them firing at you you're going to die. It's a pretty ridiculous idea to think that the meat of the game is impossible to really play because ranged is keeping it from happening, and the fact that xbows are so easy to obtain definitely make that more of an issue.

Range should definitely have it's place and I'm sure there are people out there who love sitting back and playing a really bad version of a ranged shooter, but I'm sure they would be frustrated if they were unable to play their preferred style (ranged) because melee was not allowing them to do so.

It's an issue when 1 melee based character has absolutley NO chance against 3 archers (when you try to attack one, he will simply run while the other two shoot you. It is impossible to win, period.) yet 1 archer has a perfectly decent chance to win against 3 inf simply by shooting at them, maybe picking one off before they get there and then just being decent at melee when they arrive. Or he could even just put his bow away and run non-stop until the other archers on his team shoot the inf chasing him. The ranged players have the ability to dictate combat and choose when and where to fight, yet if those ranged players have the same mobility melee players do, where's the flip side or the other advantage of NOT being ranged?

It's an issue when a group of ranged can force it's style all day, yet a group of melee-focused characters can never force their style (besides all sitting in a room and never leaving until MotF, which all would be kicked for), only hope that the ranged players are bad enough to let skill make up the difference. Ranged players should be a supplement to engagements, not the deciding factor of "who has more ranged." This would be helped by xbows not being so easy to acquire, and some WPF requirements on throwing, perhaps even a slot reduction to make people really choose what they want to do.

The only valid point in that is, that when ranged reaches the "critical mass", it get's annyoing and very uncomfortable for melee people. The rest is just pile of crap, biased comparsions trying to make melee inf look unplayable when there are archers around. To that, my response was that even with all the range shit flying through the air,  melee inf are still the ones at the top of scoreboards, not archers.

[Rhade]

(click to show/hide)

The only valid point in that is, that when ranged reaches the "critical mass", it get's annyoing and very uncomfortable for melee people. The rest is just pile of crap, biased comparsions trying to make melee inf look unplayable when there are archers around. To that, my response was that even with all the range shit flying through the air,  melee inf are still the ones at the top of scoreboards, not archers.

....and the point of the thread is attempting to reduce that critical mass by making xbows not as easily accessible. Critical mass was my main point, and has an effect on everything else I talked about.

I made my points with logic, yours are simply hearsay of us needing to trust the "fact" that you say melee inf is ALWAYS at the top of the boards.

Isn't it just as likely that a few extremely talented melee are on top of the boards, with the average melee player being negative with all the range players being in the middle? Just as likely, just as proven, and just as strong an argument.

I actually think I made quite a few solid points in that post, but take it as you will: the fact remains that range is far too effective and accessible, especially after critical mass is achieved. At this point, skill becomes less important than "how much range do you have?"

[IG_Saint]

The only valid point in that is, that when ranged reaches the "critical mass", it get's annyoing and very uncomfortable for melee people. The rest is just pile of crap, biased comparsions trying to make melee inf look unplayable when there are archers around. To that, my response was that even with all the range shit flying through the air,  melee inf are still the ones at the top of scoreboards, not archers.

Often it's not the ranged that kills you, it's the melee that swings at you while you're still stunned from the ranged. That's why range tends to top scoreboards less. Doesn't make them any less deadly. I have to agree with you on Rhade's post though.

[Rhade]

Often it's not the ranged that kills you, it's the melee that swings at you while you're still stunned from the ranged. That's why range tends to top scoreboards less. Doesn't make them any less deadly.

Very true. Not to mention the deaths from focusing entirely on trying to live through projectiles and having no more attention to give to anything else. It's not their one-shot stopping power that is the issue, it's their supreme effect on the battle even if they don't get 200 kills per round.

[Nemeth]

I never said that melee tops the scoreboards all the time. I said most of the time. As well as I never said that only good melee tops the scoreboards, so I don't really understand why you spend the time writing your response to something that wasn't said, bah, it wasn't even implied.
I don't know how it's on NA, but what I said is true for EU. If you don't believe me, just go play EU for few maps and see what class is regulary in the first places on scoreboards.
As for the "solid points" you believe you made... Well since you believe them, there is no point in pointing out why they are not solid, wouldn't help anything.

@IG_Saint - Yes, that's true and I agree. But by no means is range a supreme force.

[Vexus]

Melee might be on the top score more than archers but if you look at their backs you will see either a bow, a lovely crossbow or some throwing weapons and I'm sure the point of the thread is this not that rangers are killing from range.

Everyone can use a ranged weapon with ease atm thanks to the new wpf be it a crossbow or throwings.

[Tears of Destiny]

Coming from a dedicated archer as my main, I am going to say that there is too much range atm. I would like to see less xbow sidearms, and less thrown. As for the archers, I am mostly fine with the amount in NA, though EU sometimes gets to be nuts with the level of archers there.

[Siiem]

melee inf are still the ones at the top of scoreboards, not archers.

Thats not a valid arguement either... I mean honestly. Cavalry are allso topping the scoreboards so are xbowers. Seen some archers aswell topping the scoreboard.

[Nemeth]

Well how you wanna measure it then? Let's put it this way then. Having someone like Tommy, who is arguably one of the best cavalry on EU, is game changing, and there is quite a chance that his team is gonna win if the map is at least remotely suited for cav. Having someone like Phyrex on your team is the same case. And there are more players both cav and melee that can and are able to turn the tides easily. What about ranged then? There is only one crossbowman that can make a difference like those guys, and that is DaveUKR, and even he is not that effective when it's raining in game. For archers, I don't think there is any that can have that significant impact on the game. IMO Jambi and Bambi are one of the best EU archers an none of them can really affect the game. Yes, they are annyoing, and they can get kills and help other melee guys get easy kills, but they are never as dangerous as equally skilled cav or melee.
What I'm trying to say is, that ranged defintely has much higher annyoing factor, but that's it. They are not as dangerous and they will not one shot you, usually not even two shot you unless you're cloth wearing peasant. If you wanna reduce crossbows as sidearms, go ahead and make wpf restrictions for weapons. But I don't think that will stop the crying.

[Jambi]

Ranged weapons are just inbalanced at this point... 1 wpf + some power throw = instant kill axes/ranged
Bow, 150 wpf + complete build focused on it = needs several hits.

This