0.289 released

[Bulzur]

1000 vs 1000 battles are a complete grindfest and boring as hell. You just throw yourself at the same spot for about two hours.

That's against AI castle, they can now last for 15 min when it's between players. Quantity over quality, take the spawn, the end.
To think i waited two hours for that kind of battle...

[Garem]

The death timer as it is right now makes strat battle really not fun and about the archers i feel like the only thing that really needs to be done is make them less accurate so we stop being a bunch of sniper, other than that, reducing the damage is a bit too much

also i dont know if it was intended but most of the arrows i shot were curving left and right like crazy preventing me from touching anything and making it impossible to anticipate where the arrows would end

I appreciate that this is being said by a new archer. Congratulations on trying out the class, of course. It's a new and interesting challenge for cRPG.

What you're experiencing is the slow realization that your preconceived notion - that archers are snipers - is dead wrong. They're not. At all. Plus, even if they hit someone at ranges of 100m+ based off of the necessary luck, they aren't going to do any real damage.

Anyways, Tomas is right in both posts I saw.

[Smoothrich]

I appreciate that this is being said by a new archer. Congratulations on trying out the class, of course. It's a new and interesting challenge for cRPG.

What you're experiencing is the slow realization that your preconceived notion - that archers are snipers - is dead wrong. They're not. At all. Plus, even if they hit someone at ranges of 100m+ based off of the necessary luck, they aren't going to do any real damage.

Anyways, Tomas is right in both posts I saw.

He's not a new archer, archery has always been a solo hero sniper class, able to defeat almost any other class except shielders 1 vs 1 no matter the circumstances from any range within 3 shots.  If its a shielder, you just run away and they will die to some other bullshit within seconds regardless, or 2 shot them the moment they do something besides chase you with a shield up.

Replace 3 shot with 1 shot kill if you can aim.

[KaMiKaZe_JoE]

I'm also not a fan of the magic bonuses, because they're, well, magic. But the nature of cRPG raises certain issues...

I like the shield-wall mechanic, because it makes sense. As you get on-line with your comrades in arms, you might think Our shields are overlapping, plus I feel better that my buddies are right next to me.

However, whereas real life overlaps pleasantly with the shield wall magical bonus in crpg, it does not do so with archery. The advantage given by clumping archers IRL was one of coordination, whereby a group leader could verbally direct his subordinate's fire more easily. But communication in our game is instant and works regardless of in-game distance between players. Coordination between far-flung archers is possible, so that archers can scatter all over the map and still call their shots, concentrate their fire on specific targets/groups, or plan their movement.

Right now, regarding damage output, there's rarely a reason to lump archers together. Occasionally lumping exploits some sort of angular advantage over the enemy, but rarely is real lumping necessary. What you, chadz, are trying to do is force archers to do something that goes against the grain of current cRPG mechanics. Slapping a magical bonus on the problem ignores its source, which lies in the nature of the game we play.

But what's the alternative? I think exploiting the other aspects of this game, and something subtler, like (as has been already suggested) limiting the amount of arrows carried, and making archers less Ethiopian in their running ability. Also, the dynamic of player class interaction (I'm gay) can help here. Scattering your archers can influence their survivability:

1. Scattered archers can get rushed by cavalry, which right now depend on speed and surprise, rather than HP and armor, to kill their victims. The two means to cavalry ass-kick--survivability and surprise--are at odds right now. The faster horses are cheaper than the survivable horses.
2. Scattered archers can get rushed by shielders. They will kite and scatter even more in response to an infantry rush, which distracts them. Enter surprise-attack cavalry. Or, just keep them running.
3. Any archers are vulnerable to other archers. While harder to hit than if they are clumped together, scattered archers are more likely get killed one at a time by dedicated anti-archer archers.

tl;dr: Rather than wizardry, do something less homosexual to nerf ranged. Work with the game we have, rather than against it. The alternative is fundamentally altering cRPG at its source.

[Teeth]

That's against AI castle, they can now last for 15 min when it's between players. Quantity over quality, take the spawn, the end.
To think i waited two hours for that kind of battle...

Every siege I've played took more than an hour and was a complete grindfest, slowly grinding the tickets of the other team down. I've played quite a few two months ago.

[Garem]

1. Scattered archers can get rushed by cavalry, which right now depend on speed and surprise, rather than HP and armor, to kill their victims. The two means to cavalry ass-kick--survivability and surprise--are at odds right now. The faster horses are cheaper than the survivable horses.
2. Scattered archers can get rushed by shielders. They will kite and scatter even more in response to an infantry rush, which distracts them. Enter surprise-attack cavalry. Or, just keep them running.
3. Any archers are vulnerable to other archers. While harder to hit than if they are clumped together, scattered archers are more likely get killed one at a time by dedicated anti-archer archers.

tl;dr: Rather than wizardry, do something less homosexual to nerf ranged. Work with the game we have, rather than against it. The alternative is fundamentally altering cRPG at its source.

While I agree with your outcome...

 #1 is not true- the opposite is, in fact, true. Light horses are vulnerable to archer fire, but even Coursers take 3-4 arrows; Destriers 4-7. Light horses are pretty hard to hit until they're coming right at you when it's pretty much too late for an archer (going away is also easy, but damage is half or less because of movement). Heavy horses aren't even worth firing at as an archer, unless it's 5-6 archers against a single heavy cav. He'll still kill at least 2-3 archers before the horse can be brought down. And then you have an infantry in your group to deal with.

#2 is true, but so is the opposite. Scattered, clumped, it doesn't matter- shielders will always push you around, especially ones with some coordination. Man-to-man coverage makes archery impossible against aggressive shields.

#3 is totally wrong, in the game, in history, and by simple logic. Scattering archers makes staying alive against other archers FAR easier. Archery isn't this magical sniper rifle that you seem to think it is. When enemy archers are clumped and you miss your target, you still might hit another one nearby. When they're apart, a perfectly aimed shot going astray hits grass. So no, this is just factually incorrect.


The problem isn't range, the problem is Strategus balance. This should come as no surprise. Why don't you see throwers in Strategus? Why don't you see cavalry before plate armor shows up? This patch was treating a symptom, not the disease.

[Aderyn]

I think you just ignored the comments

1) It punishes teams that can only get 1-4 archers for a battle.
2) This will damage cav and melee focused clans and will probably increase the number of archers on cRPG as more clans ask their members to switch to ensure they can get 5+ archers for their battles. 
3) It punishes Horse Archery - how can 5 horse archers fight in close formation especially when the chances of getting 5 horse archers are minimal anyway?
4) It makes it harder to manage rosters.  Now you actually have to count your archers to make sure you have enough for your tactics.  This means that in general, commanders will have to pull in more applicants and reject more people to get the right balance.
5) It limits tactical options in battles and makes them predictable - You can only have flanking archers on both sides if you have enough archers for it. 
6) The archer heavy clans ALREADY use archer squads that stick loosely together
7) It nerfs the longbow even more.  The difference between the Long Bow speed and the Horn Bow speed is currently 11.  After the speed increase this gap goes to 19.  Between Rus and Long Bow it goes from 8 to 14.  Not only are Long Bows even slower in comparison, but they now can't hide on their own either to get shots from unexpected angles.
8) It makes defending castles/Towns harder for archers.  5 archers often can't fit close enough in a castle to fire together and by forcing the archers to group together it negates one of the main defensive principals of castle building - make your enemy attack where they can be fired upon from multiple angles.
9) It doesn't address the real problem with archery in Strat which is the fact that it is OP early on when there is very little Cav around.  Archery is pretty much balanced later in Strat when everybody has good armour and plenty of cav so why change it?

I can go on if you want

It's almost as if chadz doesn't want to read your posts thomas

[Patoson]

The new chamber-kick is hilarious! I had 1 hp, kicked a friend of mine, he chambered it and I died of the chamber-kick. Simply epic!

[Dark_Blade]

I lol'd.on strat battle I had score ~50k 25d ... but in page "Paticipated" I have so another score - 60 46 o_O I didnt leave the server while the battle... so what is this?

[Knute]

Ranged: Increase the need for logistics. Archers will run out of arrows quicker, so people have to provide weapon racks to them. In general, it's intended as a nerf for archers in strat, as we've seen many people respec their main to archers since the new round of strat was announced. I don't like that it turns into a ranged fest, so this is my proposed counter.

Edit: archers standing in close formation will have +10% damage bonus per teammate, up to where they are back to 100%. We'll have to figure out if the speed buff will then have to be removed/reduced.

If the problem is people respecing to archer early in every version of strat because people can't afford decent shields or horses to counter them, you could give everyone (or fiefs) some starting gold.  This would help shorten the peasant fight phase and possibly lead to less people respecing to archers temporarily.

If there's gold in fiefs it would also up the ante on the kickoff so people might go for a fief closer to them instead of their old claims so they won't risk losing that starting gold.

----

With the new trade system where it's just a matter of running back and forth between two points, it seems like gold is going to multiply really fast anyway.  So that might already be something that'll help shorten the window where archers are overpowered.

Lastly, the best thing about the shieldwall bonus is that it's an optional buff that rewarded players for something they were already doing.  I like the idea of archers grouping up to launch volleys of plastic arrows and relying on engineers to keep them supplied but think it would be better if there was some way to make it more of an optional buff as well so it wouldn't limit tactics.

[oprah_winfrey]

Getting valour with a 5x should give you a 6x and so on. Just for valour, keep it capped at x5 for regular multi. I guess this might be too big of a buff to heavy cav+full plate "knights". Who would be able to upkeep it with x10s or other retarded multis.
Also, can we finally get the old secret valour formula now that it is no longer in use?

Other then that, roll out the wpf changes!

[Elindor]

How does the new valor system work....I know what chadz said in first post but it doesn't seem as simple as "have highest score in a round, get valor" or "have highest overall score, get valor"...

Also, Im undecided about valor being received by winning team.  As long as this doesn't detract from the ability of the well performing players on the losing  team to get valor I guess it doesn't matter.  Kinda see valor as a "consolation prize" for well performing players on the losing team lol.

[Plavor]

Newest formula : Player score greater than average score*2

I think that the score depends on the scoregain in every round, not in total.

[dodnet]

Newest formula : Player score greater than average score*2

I think that the score depends on the scoregain in every round, not in total.

I don't like it. Valour should be either removed completely or only the losing team gets it like before.

[Turboflex]

I like the new valor system, it's a good step towards a new reward system that is mixed team multi and individual performance. Gives people incentive to play harder even if they are on a hopeless losing team, or still keep trying hard when they are on a good team and are tempted to just sit back and goof off leeching.