Nerf Archery

[F i n]

While I usually really like your suggestions, joker, this one is complete bullshit imo. It would allow for things like a 18/16 build with 9 PS, 8 Athl, 8 WM, and 8 IF, which would be extremely OP. (and this is just an example). Also, why on earth should melee be at even more of an advantage over ranged than it is already? Almost every single nerf has benefited melee in some way of another. I agree that in the beginning ranged was OP, and that cav was and will always be powerful. But it is because of the mindset, there is no need to nerf them (as you yourself have mentioned so often). And this, such a huge buff to melee, would be a huge nerf for them...

If you use bodkins, this is already in place.

Thats a lieeeee

[Zlisch_The_Butcher]

If you use bodkins, this is already in place.

Lol, total fucking bullshit, my throwing lances cost more than your fucking bodkins, and they don't cost nearly as much as hightier horsies.

[Joker86]

While I usually really like your suggestions, joker, this one is complete bullshit imo. It would allow for things like a 18/16 build with 9 PS, 8 Athl, 8 WM, and 8 IF, which would be extremely OP. (and this is just an example). Also, why on earth should melee be at even more of an advantage over ranged than it is already? Almost every single nerf has benefited melee in some way of another. I agree that in the beginning ranged was OP, and that cav was and will always be powerful. But it is because of the mindset, there is no need to nerf them (as you yourself have mentioned so often). And this, such a huge buff to melee, would be a huge nerf for them...

I guess you are right about those points. Actually the "2 for 1" suggestion was just the idea how it could work. You could say, for example, that you don't need 3 points of STR to raise PS more, only like 2.8. So the first few PS points have to be bought as usual, but after a few points you get kind of a "free" one.

And of course you are right, a buff for one class means a nerf for their opponents. But there are still some important differences. The first one is personal perception: it's still better if the enemy gets buffed than your class nerfed further. It just doesn't feel that much of a punch into the face. The second reason is that if you hear a class has been buffed, people want to try it out, and my hope is that a few will stick to that try. And finally the last point is: if you nerfed cavalry or archers instead of buffing infantry, you would achieve the same effect against infantry like buffing infantry, but you also change the relation between the other classes, like archers vs. cavalry. Which could again lead to new balance issues. If one leg of your chair is too short, it would be better to make it a bit longer again, instead of sawing off the other three legs and risking to make another one shorter in that process. (Example is bad concerning the fact that you can't really make a chair leg longer, unless you count putting something under it.)[/quote]

[Moncho]

I did not mean that it is as expensive as cavalry, sorry if it read wrong, but I had to leave and it was rushed.
What I meant is that arrows already have an increased break chance, and especially with bodkins, archery is very expensive, I have tested pure archer with rus, 2 stacks of bodkins and no armor and it was more expensive than shielder with NCS, iberian mace, huscarl and medium armor...

Lol, total fucking bullshit, my throwing lances cost more than your fucking bodkins, and they don't cost nearly as much as hightier horsies.

But throwing is and has almost never been a really viable pure class, it is supposed to be a hybrid style, while archery is not.

joker: with some balanced numbers, it might not be as bad, but I still do not see why being melee should be rewarded with extra points. A similar but better imo idea would be to maybe increase the skills themselves (ie give PS an extra 2-3% per point).
Also your "infantry" box would be a huge nerf for hybrids, which noone ever thinks about, as we could not benefit from the infantry bits but we would still be hindered by the extra points we use. My suggestion would not touch them in comparison with the rest.

[Lichen]

Archery currently works against anything except shields. Armor was also supposed to be a 'shield' against arrows which it currently isn't. Problem is not OP archer gear, it's weak armor.

[Joker86]

joker: with some balanced numbers, it might not be as bad, but I still do not see why being melee should be rewarded with extra points. A similar but better imo idea would be to maybe increase the skills themselves (ie give PS an extra 2-3% per point).
Also your "infantry" box would be a huge nerf for hybrids, which noone ever thinks about, as we could not benefit from the infantry bits but we would still be hindered by the extra points we use. My suggestion would not touch them in comparison with the rest.

You are right, I guess. This idea I had was the least favourite one, next to the areal stat buff. Better buff armours, implement conquest and commander mode. The rest should be easily fixed after those changes.

[F i n]

Archery currently works against anything except shields. Armor was also supposed to be a 'shield' against arrows which it currently isn't. Problem is not OP archer gear, it's weak armor.

So that would mean instead of nerfing archers we should nerf every class? U mad bro?

[Adamar]

Increasing upkeep = increasing kitting

Know the class before posting plz.

[Lichen]

So that would mean instead of nerfing archers we should nerf every class? U mad bro?

How would making armor better nerf every class? I'm talking about high tier armor being more protective against ranged. I used to have mwtatars, mwLongbow + 9pd and it wrecked anything including tincans. That's one of many reasons there are so many archers because they are effective against almost anything.

[Adamar]

Just because an arrow can hurt any shieldless target at a distance doesn't make archers effective against almost anything. Good bows are still slow and innacurate, arrows run out, and proper players still dodge them. Kill score and damage stats paint a more accurate picture of what ranged can do, despite what some people here say.

[Lichen]

Just because an arrow can hurt any shieldless target at a distance doesn't make archers effective against almost anything. Good bows are still slow and innacurate, arrows run out, and proper players still dodge them. Kill score and damage stats paint a more accurate picture of what ranged can do, despite what some people here say.

I've been archer about 3 or 4 times now. mwTatars, mwLongbow + 9pd is the equivalent damage per shot of a flamberge + 12ps only the archer gets 40 arrows and can do that damage from a distance. If better armor actually worked well protecting against that I would think it's fair (simply wear good armor if you want protection). But since you still get wrecked even in plate I don't think it is fair.

[Adamar]

I've been archer about 3 or 4 times now. mwTatars, mwLongbow + 9pd is the equivalent damage per shot of a flamberge + 12ps only the archer gets 40 arrows and can do that damage from a distance. If better armor actually worked well protecting against that I would think it's fair (simply wear good armor if you want protection). But since you still get wrecked even in plate I don't think it is fair.

And yet archers do less damage than any other class. This has been verified a long time ago.
A high damaging ranged build seems good in theory, but you still need to hit the target.

[Gurnisson]

And yet archers do less damage than any other class.

Good joke.

[Havoco]

Holy crap this thread is still alive?

[Adamar]

Good joke.

Lucky you I can't find that damn stats thread.