What has cRPG come to?

[Tzar]

(click to show/hide)

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

 

+1 Siege is the only way to play this mod atm nothing but baddies with texture abuse an high lvl loomed bundle of sticksry kite builds and random couch heroes on eu1   

[Joker86]

i'm sorry, but you guys (meaning 99% of the community) are just bad at this game.

You die to the already ridiculously weak ranged, because you're too half-witted to take a shield and right click, then you complain ranged is overpowered. You chase archers with their 3 body armour when you have 7000 body armour and when you can't catch them you say that's OP (despite the fact none of you ever have any throwing).

You get lanced in the back when you have no polearm because of your lack of any awareness, and then cav is OP.

It's really not the fault of the game being imbalanced; you're all just bad.

Moo

Really bad post.

So in your opinion everyone who is not supposed to suck is meant to play hoplite? Because that's what your opinion boils down to.

You can easily see that your argument is false if you assume the situation of having 50 shielders vs. 50 archers in a battle. With your argumentation, the shielders will win against the archers, because they have a shield. But there is this sweet phenomenon that additional melee fighters increase the effectivity of a melee group linearly, while additional archers increase the effectivity of an archer group exponentially.

This phenomenon bases on the fact that archers are almost always able to pick their target, melee fighters are not. This allows archers to attack and kill the weakest targets (e.g. shielders which are blocking into another direction), lowering the overall number of enemies, so that they can deal even faster with the rest, starting a vicious circle spiral which can only lead to the defeat of the melee fighters.

In our scenario the archers would simply run off and spread out, and take the slow shielders under crossfire. Sure as hell the shielders would lose 10 out of... 10? battles.

Of course there are other classes as well on the battlefield, and we do have a rock-paper-scissors-system, but guess who will win if you have 30 rocks, 30 papers and 40 scissors.

Just to prevent you of accusing me of something I didn't do: I don't say archers are OP. There is not a single archer in cRPG which I would call OP, never mind how mad his skills are. The NUMBER of the archers on the servers is OP.

Just imagine we would have 56 infantry players per team, 2 cavalry and 2 archers. Neither the cavalry nor the archers would be able to reach the level of efficiency the infantry would reach, because they are simply too few. It is easy to keep track of the only two enemy cav and to always be aware of them, and it is easy to keep track of the only enemy two archers and to keep your shield towards them, use the proper cover or dodge their arrows.

But now try to do the same thing against 20 archers.

You see what I am aiming at? And you see why your post is bad? Next to the fact that it is always not acceptable to suggest other people to effectively change their class, because that's no solution to balancing problems. (If we can call this a balancing problem at all).

So please, for fuck's sake, stop using the "take a shield/spear"-argument. It's false.

[Corsair831]

Really bad post.

So in your opinion everyone who is not supposed to suck is meant to play hoplite? Because that's what your opinion boils down to.

You can easily see that your argument is false if you assume the situation of having 50 shielders vs. 50 archers in a battle. With your argumentation, the shielders will win against the archers, because they have a shield. But there is this sweet phenomenon that additional melee fighters increase the effectivity of a melee group linearly, while additional archers increase the effectivity of an archer group exponentially.

This phenomenon bases on the fact that archers are almost always able to pick their target, melee fighters are not. This allows archers to attack and kill the weakest targets (e.g. shielders which are blocking into another direction), lowering the overall number of enemies, so that they can deal even faster with the rest, starting a vicious circle spiral which can only lead to the defeat of the melee fighters.

In our scenario the archers would simply run off and spread out, and take the slow shielders under crossfire. Sure as hell the shielders would lose 10 out of... 10? battles.

Of course there are other classes, too on the battlefield, and we do have a rock-paper-scissors-system, but guess who will win if you have 30 rocks, 30 papers and 40 scissors.

Just to prevent you of accusing me of something I dodn't do: I don't say archers are OP. There is not a single archer in cRPG which I would call OP, never mind how mad his skills are. The NUMBER of the archers on the servers is OP.

Just imagine we would have 56 infantry players per team, 2 cavalry and 2 archers. Neither the cavalry nor the archers would be able to reach the level of efficiency the infantry would reach, because they are simply too few. It is easy to keep track of the only two enemy cav and to always be aware of them, and it is easy to keep track of the only enemy two archers and to keep your shield towards them, use the proper cover or dodge their arrows.

But now try to do the same thing against 20 archers.

You see what I am aiming at? And you see why your post is bad? Next to the fact that it is always not acceptable to suggest other people to effectively change their class, because that's no solution to balancing problems. (If we can call this a balancing problem at all).

this argument is just boiling down to you not being very good.

Anyone who's played native for any amount of time knows that you don't kill the archers by yourself. If there are 30 players vs 30 players, as in your scenario, it's not about killing the archers. If you have a shield, you hover just outside of the range of as many archers as you can, making sure you are never crossfired, thus distracting however many enemies with your 1 player. Then when backup arrives you kill them, with ridiculous ease.

If you think it's smart to run in solo against 3 archers, you will die.

If you have the foggiest idea what you're doing, and stop them from firing at teammates, or at least distract them for a while, they will die, oh so very easily.

So yes, 50 shielders would almost always defeat 50 archers, provided the shielders had the first clue what they were doing, and stopped the archers from shooting .

[Joker86]

this argument is just boiling down to you not being very good.

Anyone who's played native for any amount of time knows that you don't kill the archers by yourself. If there are 30 players vs 30 players, as in your scenario, it's not about killing the archers. If you have a shield, you hover just outside of the range of as many archers as you can, making sure you are never crossfired, thus distracting however many enemies with your 1 player. Then when backup arrives you kill them, with ridiculous ease.

If you think it's smart to run in solo against 3 archers, you will die.

If you have the foggiest idea what you're doing, and stop them from firing at teammates, or at least distract them for a while, they will die, oh so very easily.

So yes, 50 shielders would almost always defeat 50 archers, provided the shielders had the first clue what they were doing, and stopped the archers from shooting .

I think this is simply wrong. If the archers know what they do they will always spread out and keep the targets between them, and with their higher movement speed they will win the positioning game, not the infantry. And I also dare to say that the higher the amount of archers, the more they can even get outnumbered by enemy melee players and still win the fight. I saw three good archers killing five enemy infantry, and there was nothing the infantry could have done against that.

You just made some statements without explaining them properly, and often I don't even know what you want to say with it (if you hover out of their range you can't distract them. And I didn't say you rush alone against three archers. The numbers are equal. Although the effect will be the same, because all archers will be able to attack a single enemy, which is the same result as if the enemy attacked on his own. That's that exponential effectivity increase thing again).

And I don't have a clue how a slow shielder is supposed to stop an archer from firing. Casting a blinding spell?

[Swaggart]

Right, because archers will focus on the guy holding the shield towards them, and not someone else. Yes, those distraction shielders always hypnotize archers into looking at their shield and not another target. You're so right, they won't run away if you get too close, they'll keep being mesmerized by your shield, gazing into it's magnificence until they meet a horrible death.

[Elindor]

I know I'm the 1,000,000th person to use this, but damn is it applicable right now in this thread...

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[Joker86]

I know I'm the 1,000,000th person to use this, but damn is it applicable right now in this thread...

Yeah, sorry if I sound dramatic again, but the "the game is broken for you? - Change your class!"-argumentation never helped anything, it's just a sign of ignorance, and as valuable as "tl;dr" or "nice post, would read again", with the little difference that the authors of latter posts do not even think they contributed something to the discussion.

[Corsair831]

I think this is simply wrong. If the archers know what they do they will always spread out and keep the targets between them, and with their higher movement speed they will win the positioning game, not the infantry. And I also dare to say that the higher the amount of archers, the more they can even get outnumbered by enemy melee players and still win the fight. I saw three good archers killing five enemy infantry, and there was nothing the infantry could have done against that.

You just made some statements without explaining them properly, and often I don't even know what you want to say with it (if you hover out of their range you can't distract them. And I didn't say you rush alone against three archers. The numbers are equal. Although the effect will be the same, because all archers will be able to attack a single enemy, which is the same result as if the enemy attacked on his own. That's that exponential effectivity increase thing again).

And I don't have a clue how a slow shielder is supposed to stop an archer from firing. Casting a blinding spell?

look, i shouldn't have to teach you how to play the damned game lol.

What im saying is actually how to play, im not b/sing or anything, it's what you do.

MORE DETAIL:

ok, scenario, 3 archers in a "group" (say they're spaced approx 20 feet apart, not too tight).

You are a shielder reasonably by yourself, and these archers are shooting at your friends (it's a normal fight, say ~~ 30vs30), they're killing your friends, because they are allowed to shoot.

So i have my archer protection, (my shield, my dodging, and my placement), and i have my cav protection (my 1wpf spear / greatsword, and my awareness).

So, as long as i keep my distance from the archers and i'm not overwhelmed by something, i am pretty much hard to take down right now.

These archers, are shooting at my friends, as i said. Assume all 3 archers know i'm there, so im not ganking them. They realise there's no point shooting at me, as you've been saying, and they carry on shooting at my team, whilst keeping an eye on me so i cannot gank them.

What do i do ?

I move towards one of the archers, placing myself NEAR to being crossfired, but not actually crossfired. This makes the archer I am moving towards have to displace, or he will be in melee with me, and because of my superior melee build, he should lose. So archer 1 is running away, but his buddy 2 and 3 now, they either have the choice of shooting me to stop their buddy dieing, or shooting into the main fight's melee. If they shoot into the melee, i can just pick them off 1 by 1, but let's assume they try to stop me killing 1.

So, 2 and 3 are now shooting at me whilst 1 is running. I'm hovering around the area, dodging as many arrows as i can, and basically trying to keep as close to them as possible, without putting myself in actual danger. Basically i'm just trying to grasp their attention, and every time i get either an opportunity to kill one of them, or they stop focussing me and start focussing my teammates, I move closer to threaten them more.

I hope this has better helped you understand, a general way to defeat groups of archers.

[Joker86]

So, 2 and 3 are now shooting at me whilst 1 is running. I'm hovering around the area, dodging as many arrows as i can, and basically trying to keep as close to them as possible, without putting myself in actual danger.

This is where the plan will fail against half decent archers.

A heavy infantryman blocking with his shield is neither good in chasing nor dodging. A shielder against three archers will die as sure as a pikeman will against three longswords.

There is no way a shielder can put an archer under pressure, except of forcing him to displace, which the archer will do in a way that will increase the distance again. During that time you will be shot into your back multiple times by the others.

[Elindor]

Yeah, sorry if I sound dramatic again, but the "the game is broken for you? - Change your class!"-argumentation never helped anything, it's just a sign of ignorance, and as valuable as "tl;dr" or "nice post, would read again", with the little difference that the authors of latter posts do not even think they contributed something to the discussion.

Yeah and I'm just enjoying the pointless internet argument ensue especially cause I am not hopelessly involved in this one!

[Corsair831]

This is where the plan will fail against half decent archers.

A heavy infantryman blocking with his shield is neither good in chasing nor dodging. A shielder against three archers will die as sure as a pikeman will against three longswords.

There is no way a shielder can put an archer under pressure, except of forcing him to displace, which the archer will do in a way that will increase the distance again. During that time you will be shot into your back multiple times by the others.

and there is the weakness of heavy armour.

in battle i use armour that weighs ~~ 5 total, precisely because i know that wearing heavy armour with a shield is so worthless. I can block everything i need to with my shield, and i can dodge every fight i don't need to be in, with my speed. If you will wear 25 weight of body armour with a 7 weight shield don't be surprised when you can't catch archers. It's just a bad build.

[Swaggart]

Elindor, this is the granddaddy of them all:

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[Babelfish]

look, i shouldn't have to teach you how to play the damned game lol.

What im saying is actually how to play, im not b/sing or anything, it's what you do.

MORE DETAIL:

ok, scenario, 3 archers in a "group" (say they're spaced approx 20 feet apart, not too tight).

You are a shielder reasonably by yourself, and these archers are shooting at your friends (it's a normal fight, say ~~ 30vs30), they're killing your friends, because they are allowed to shoot.

So i have my archer protection, (my shield, my dodging, and my placement), and i have my cav protection (my 1wpf spear / greatsword, and my awareness).

So, as long as i keep my distance from the archers and i'm not overwhelmed by something, i am pretty much hard to take down right now.

These archers, are shooting at my friends, as i said. Assume all 3 archers know i'm there, so im not ganking them. They realise there's no point shooting at me, as you've been saying, and they carry on shooting at my team, whilst keeping an eye on me so i cannot gank them.

What do i do ?

I move towards one of the archers, placing myself NEAR to being crossfired, but not actually crossfired. This makes the archer I am moving towards have to displace, or he will be in melee with me, and because of my superior melee build, he should lose. So archer 1 is running away, but his buddy 2 and 3 now, they either have the choice of shooting me to stop their buddy dieing, or shooting into the main fight's melee. If they shoot into the melee, i can just pick them off 1 by 1, but let's assume they try to stop me killing 1.

So, 2 and 3 are now shooting at me whilst 1 is running. I'm hovering around the area, dodging as many arrows as i can, and basically trying to keep as close to them as possible, without putting myself in actual danger. Basically i'm just trying to grasp their attention, and every time i get either an opportunity to kill one of them, or they stop focussing me and start focussing my teammates, I move closer to threaten them more.

I hope this has better helped you understand, a general way to defeat groups of archers.

So basically infantry should just stand near archers and wait for them to use up all their arrows? Seems fun.

[Corsair831]

So basically infantry should just stand near archers and wait for them to use up all their arrows? Seems fun.

who said it had to be fun, we're talking about game balance, and game balance is about win / lose not fun / boring

and besides, it is actually quite fun defeating archers through knowing how to play the game

[duurrr]

who said it had to be fun, we're talking about game balance, and game balance is about win / lose not fun / boring

and besides, it is actually quite fun defeating archers through knowing how to play the game

haha

derp