SAVE CRPG! NERF RANGED

[Peasant_Woman]

Part of the problem is ranged scales far better the more of them there are, while melee seem to reach a critical mass of effectiveness before they start getting in each others way during the fight.

[Beauchamp]

the change everybody called for - nerf archery damage to the bodies and limbs, increase to the head - led most of the archers to respec from slow STR hard hitting builds to AGI fast kiting headshot builds.

i dunno what is the pop now, haven't played for like 3 weeks.

but i assume diablo III came out so i'm not really sure if archery is here the only thing to blame. there always were kiting archers even before when pop on servers was reaching its cap. also the mod is very old, if you're new to the game, you have almost no chance to get any kills unless you go for some sort of ranged. complete absence of any newbie servers ruins the game for new guys, only a very few hc based gamers are able to keep up until they skill up.

sooner (or later) the mod will die, it just has to be like that. imo chadz knows about it so he rather makes some scifi game instead.

the best thing imo would be to revert archery back (increase damage to the body by a lot) and reduce ammount of arrows u can take into a battle by a lot. this would make STR builds for archery more viable -> less athletics -> less kiting.

[Momo]

the change everybody called for - nerf archery damage to the bodies and limbs, increase to the head - led most of the archers to respec from slow STR hard hitting builds to AGI fast kiting headshot builds.

i dunno what is the pop now, haven't played for like 3 weeks.

but i assume diablo III came out so i'm not really sure if archery is here the only thing to blame. there always were kiting archers even before when pop on servers was reaching its cap. also the mod is very old, if you're new to the game, you have almost no chance to get any kills unless you go for some sort of ranged. complete absence of any newbie servers ruins the game for new guys, only a very few hc based gamers are able to keep up until they skill up.

sooner (or later) the mod will die, it just has to be like that. imo chadz knows about it so he rather makes some scifi game instead.

the best thing imo would be to revert archery back (increase damage to the body by a lot) and reduce ammount of arrows u can take into a battle by a lot. this would make STR builds for archery more viable -> less athletics -> less kiting.

And that's the problem, they were slow but strong (which is ok), now they are strong and fast (totally not ok). I didn't want this ridiculous buff for them, it was already in when I started playing crpg again....

[Adamar]

That patch was reverted. We no longer deal tons of damage to the head and shit to the body, now all the builds are viable in some way. And for the record, 2 slot bows are slow as hell and the others deal crap damage, they've always beenlike that. Learn the game.

[Leshma]

Current balance isn't bad, but I don't like it.

Would like to see everything reverted back to how it was before upkeep (just balance, upkeep can stay). With slight adjustments like Meow's suggestion for STR builds (no HP per level but IF gives +4 HP and no free wpf) and with current wpf system (pre upkeep it was kinda crazy). Also they should buff damage output for all ranged classes but remove armor piercing from all projectiles. That change could bring back:

- armored archers with melee weapons
- tincans whose armour worth something
- strong ranged hybrids and stronger pure builds

[Adamar]

The devs wanted hibrid builds to go, and there won't be any armored archers so long as this wpf penalty remains. That's the problem, archers are encouraged to wear light armor and to kite as a consequence.

[Renegat]

Hello, i'll also give my opinion
According to me, the problem is not archer's damages, but the amount of archers on servers. Nowadays, each time i connect on EU_1, i see more archers (and ranged in general) + cav than infantry (1h + 2h + pole), which is far from being realistic, and also far from being fun for infantry, which should be the main class in such a game ...

The main problem is then the lack of attractivity of infantry. Indeed, as a 1 hander, you are effective (or should be) against archers ... But when their arrows don't go through your shield, they just run and you fastly get surround by ennemies. You can also be pretty effective against 2h and pole, if you're good ... So there is no point to start a 1h+shield if you are a newbie (you can just avoid being headshot during the first 2 minutes thanks to your shield).
As a 2 hander, you can be efficient against pole/1h/1h cav. But they are weak against archers and lancers (except when the lancer is shit).
As a pole (not counting pikemen here), it's pretty similar to 2h.

So now, what's the point in being a 1h/2h/pole if you can't do shit against ranged and cav? More and more poeple are quiting infantry to become a lancer, an archer or a pikemen. As a result, we have an upsurge of archers/pikemen/cav number, while the amount of infantry is going down.
That's why, now, we have rage threads about archers (archers body damages are ok imo, just so easy to headshot) or cav. (The amount of pikemen on EU_1 is also a problem imo but that's not the subject here).

I'm not for nerfing cav or archers (maybe long spears, there speed and damages are just insane :p), but for buffing whole infantry, to make this class more attractive and urge poeple on respecing as infantry.

And please, don't say me that cav and archers are countering themselves ... Archers prefer shooting inf than cav because they are easier target and they also never shoot horse ( yes, if they kill the horse, another one will have the time to shoot/kill the guy who fell down and they won't have the kill ). And cav refrain from charging archers (except if they are alone, but you don't often see lonely archers on a battlefield) cause it's more risky than charging infantry.

PS: Also, don't say me that i don't know what i'm talking about, i have an archer alt and i even respeced as an archer 1 month ago (and remain an archer 3 weeks). I also respeced 2 months ago as a lancer, and have remained a lancer for 1 month.

Well, i hope someone important will read that, maybe would it give him some ideas for the next patch :p

[Mlekce]

Seriously though, archers are supposed to be soldiers with decent armor, a very good sidearm and correct melee training. Because they do fight in melee. They aren't however supposed to be mosquitos pretending they are peasants in rags with sniper rifles.

Archers were peasants and criminals who couldn't buy good weapons and armors like swords,horses... so they are totaly fine now.
Why should archer have armor when he shoot at ppl from distance?

[Mlekce]

i would say shielders are underpowered,except pick and warhammer all their weapons are crap. Every sword bounce of heavy armor,short reach,easily you get surrounded by enemies,totaly fustrating class to play. I tried to play as shielder for like 3-4 times and i always rage respeced.

[Ronin]

Archers were peasants and criminals who couldn't buy good weapons and armors like swords,horses... so they are totaly fine now.
Why should archer have armor when he shoot at ppl from distance?

Not all of them were lightly armed peasants. We have loads of kuyak guys, how would you respond if I would say infantry were only criminals and conscripts who only got a club or a rusty sword. So they should wear only light gear and cavalry was the only type of class that were used by nobles and high tier troops? That would be accurate because there were some criminals and conscripts are like that being pushed to the frontal combat. But that would not reflect all the reality. You mister, mislead other people without lying.

[Adamar]

Why the hell are people saying that meleers are changing and leaving? Im just back from EU 1 and over 70% had pure melee builds. Archers and cav are still a minority! FFS you people just wont stop complaining until archers are as pointless as this thread!

[Butan]

Thing is when people talk about % of population of classes, they fail to understand that a lot of players arent playing EVERYDAY, lots of players have ONE or TWO alternative character (or more), players divide themselves upon MULTIPLE servers!

So when people complain about an overpopulation of one class or another; and from this so called observation often come the talk of "THIS CLASS IS TOO POWERFUL, NERF IT", they dont understand that: players come and go, randomly, and everyday the servers consist of a different % of melee/archer/cavalry/etc... THIS IS THE FLAVOR OF THE GAME ! You cant balance people out (except by score and team against team), it will always evolve with every individuals actions.

Ofc one can still make some observation as how things are changing everyday, but why use this argument to convince a class is too fragile or powerful?

If a server is full of cavalry at one time, melee/archers will have a tough time.
If a server is full of archers, cav/melee will have a tough time.
If a server is full of melee, cav/archers will have a tough time.
If a server is full of thrower, god forbid it happens.


I feel its much better to play and try to be aware of your team's strong points and weakness, same for the ennemy team, and try to adapt your behavior to win; and this repeat at each round and this is what I call fun.

[Renegat]

Why the hell are people saying that meleers are changing and leaving? Im just back from EU 1 and over 70% had pure melee builds. Archers and cav are still a minority! FFS you people just wont stop complaining until archers are as pointless as this thread!

Well, i play crpg a lot, so it's not that difficult to notice how crpg population since i started to play ...
Of course the % of ranged and cav is constantly changing because poeple sometimes play on alts and so on, but you can't denie that there is much more cav and ranged in general than some times ago. I'm not, of course, counting how many archers and cav there are each time i connect. That's just the feeling i have when i watch my team on spawn when the round begin.

And adamar, the only pointless thing here is your post, i tried to give some arguments and prop up my view while you just say how useless is my opinion without even giving one argument to prove it.
Try to think 2 seconds, would there be that many rage threads about archers if there were no problem?
And also try to read properly my post, i havn't even asked for an archer nerf ...

[Mlekce]

Not all of them were lightly armed peasants. We have loads of kuyak guys, how would you respond if I would say infantry were only criminals and conscripts who only got a club or a rusty sword. So they should wear only light gear and cavalry was the only type of class that were used by nobles and high tier troops? That would be accurate because there were some criminals and conscripts are like that being pushed to the frontal combat. But that would not reflect all the reality. You mister, mislead other people without lying.

Not true. There was slave,very poor peasants,criminals  forces that were armed with sticks,rusty swords,tridents and they were used to attack the first,so the rich knights can go and fight after peasants get first line.
Cav vas for richest,but inf were well armed too. Inf had armors,please don't tell me that cav only had armors and normal swords?

[Adamar]

And adamar, the only pointless thing here is your post, i tried to give some arguments and prop up my view while you just say how useless is my opinion without even giving one argument to prove it.
Try to think 2 seconds, would there be that many rage threads about archers if there were no problem?
And also try to read properly my post, i havn't even asked for an archer nerf ...

My argument was precisely what I saw on EU1, read again.
People have have always had a problem with archers, even during the 1.60 nerf where the class became nearly useless, meleers insisted on more nerfs! The problem is no one likes to get shot, its annoying and it was the same in real life I bet. This is supposed to be a medieval game, so there should be ranged and ranged should be able to kill at least.

Not true. There was slave,very poor peasants,criminals  forces that were armed with sticks,rusty swords,tridents and they were used to attack the first,so the rich knights can go and fight after peasants get first line.
Cav vas for richest,but inf were well armed too. Inf had armors,please don't tell me that cav only had armors and normal swords?

 Its true that archers where comoners, and there are plenty of historical portrayals of high medieval archers wearing medium armor and good helmets, regardless of their social condition. I assume lords wanted their troops to be efficient, if it could be afforded.