Cmpx, you know why I am asking for it. Come here and see my suggestion.

[Memento_Mori]

Yes that is true, some archers do that. But leaving them with no melee weapon encourages those who actually do stand and fight to run and im not sure thats a better alternative. But yes it is indeed a valid tactic to run and kite people when you're not the last guy alive, i just dont agree with encouraging it when theres plenty of archers who atm stand and fight.

I don't agree with encouraging running from melee either, but that is what most archers do & on my archer most of the time I will flee rather than fight because I know I'm far more a threat at a range than toe to toe with 3 power strike, cloth armor, and no iron flesh.
as you've said ATM there are plenty of archers who stand and fight, I'm sure they still will stand and fight with their 1h weapon just the same as they do with their 2h/pole ATM.
But lately what I see is, random archers with pole arms or 2h who will run from a melee even though they may have a weapon advantage on their opponent which is why I said the only way to stop those runners from running from melee is to glue them to one spot.

most archers run from melee because .. well they're archers, they know that melee chars probably hold the advantage in melee combat so why would they offer up an advantage to their opponent when they can simply deny it by out running the fatties in plate armor.

Obviously there's exceptions, all just my opinion but you can't stop archers from running because even with 2h/pole arm atm they run from melee, forcing every one of them to take a 1h over a quiver of arrows won't stop them from running away at the first sight of an enemy closing in to melee them.



"Buff crossbows, either only siege and heavy or all of them, because soon we, crossbowmen, won't be able to use neither 2h/polearm nor 1h+shield = 1h without shield. What means, that we will be weaker. So buff us to balance it out a bit, please."

@Dravic, plz no, already I'm lucky if I survive 2 xbow bolts don't force me into a full str build with a suit of armor just so I can survive to meet the melee & then die by a back peddling xbow player who was hiding in a tower the whole round. You want to hit people across the map? then you do it without having a decent way to defend yourself in melee, just like I don't have a decent way to defend myself from ranged across the map you shouldn't be able to decently defend yourself in melee. Fair trade off IMO, more damage to range would just further increase the rewards for not risking anything and just camping a tower all match with a crossbow until the end of the round when everyone still alive funnels up to lay the beat down just to get 1 shotted because they're so weak from actually fighting a battle not just reloading an xbow aiming and shooting.

All my (meaningless) opinion, I mean no offense am only being vocal not trying to sound hostile at all.
Just can't see giving more rewards for less risk being a good thing.

[Konrax]

You can still use a 1h/shield and xbow but you can't take the best shields, or the best xbows.

Which is fair imo.

[Joker86]

I was first working on a "quotation-volley", but then I decided to spare you it 


It's easy to see where the game is going to: fixed classes! First I thought it would be only less choices, but what I read here made me recognize the entire scale of the planned changes!

If you limit archers on 1 bow, 1 stack of arrows and 1 1hd weapon, or crossbowmen, where is the difference to native, where you can only buy certain equipment for your archer? You keep it over several rounds, that's the only one!

And making bows "worth" the two slots, as someone mentioned, would mean to make them movable ballistas. I don't know if I can appreciate this. 

Increasing the stack sizes of ammunition also creates new problems concerning hybrids.

Making polearms and 2hd weapons need 2 slots would make them absolutely inferior to 1hd + shield, due to the missing protection against ranged attacks. 

And what prevents a 1hd player with shield of taking two stacks of throwing weapons? Aren't those builds some of the worst, as they are responsible for a great percentage of the shit in the air, without having "ranged" skills except of a few points in PT? (= no ranged character, but nonetheless shit flying through the air)

All the double slot system will achieve is breaking the classes, limiting the freedom of choice, and shifting some problems. You create more problems than you solve!

Why should a player not be allowed to use a crossbow and a 2hd weapon? Is this still cRPG? You lost the view for the entire matter, all you see are small problems of it and their immediate solutions, which look good on the first glance, but are killing the game. You want to fix the issue with hybrids, and your solution is to remove them from the game? Thumbs up!


Perhaps I will make a few tables and diagrams...

[Camaris]

I was first working on a "quotation-volley", but then I decided to spare you it 


It's easy to see where the game is going to: fixed classes! First I thought it would be only less choices, but what I read here made me recognize the entire scale of the planned changes!

If you limit archers on 1 bow, 1 stack of arrows and 1 1hd weapon, or crossbowmen, where is the difference to native, where you can only buy certain equipment for your archer? You keep it over several rounds, that's the only one!

And making bows "worth" the two slots, as someone mentioned, would mean to make them movable ballistas. I don't know if I can appreciate this. 

Increasing the stack sizes of ammunition also creates new problems concerning hybrids.

Making polearms and 2hd weapons need 2 slots would make them absolutely inferior to 1hd + shield, due to the missing protection against ranged attacks. 

And what prevents a 1hd player with shield of taking two stacks of throwing weapons? Aren't those builds some of the worst, as they are responsible for a great percentage of the shit in the air, without having "ranged" skills except of a few points in PT? (= no ranged character, but nonetheless shit flying through the air)

All the double slot system will achieve is breaking the classes, limiting the freedom of choice, and shifting some problems. You create more problems than you solve!

Why should a player not be allowed to use a crossbow and a 2hd weapon? Is this still cRPG? You lost the view for the entire matter, all you see are small problems of it and their immediate solutions, which look good on the first glance, but are killing the game. You want to fix the issue with hybrids, and your solution is to remove them from the game? Thumbs up!


Perhaps I will make a few tables and diagrams...

Make some tables and diagrams. At least your arguments will be shiny then.

[Nemeth]

I was first working on a "quotation-volley", but then I decided to spare you it 


It's easy to see where the game is going to: fixed classes! First I thought it would be only less choices, but what I read here made me recognize the entire scale of the planned changes!

If you limit archers on 1 bow, 1 stack of arrows and 1 1hd weapon, or crossbowmen, where is the difference to native, where you can only buy certain equipment for your archer? You keep it over several rounds, that's the only one!

And making bows "worth" the two slots, as someone mentioned, would mean to make them movable ballistas. I don't know if I can appreciate this. 

Increasing the stack sizes of ammunition also creates new problems concerning hybrids.

Making polearms and 2hd weapons need 2 slots would make them absolutely inferior to 1hd + shield, due to the missing protection against ranged attacks. 

And what prevents a 1hd player with shield of taking two stacks of throwing weapons? Aren't those builds some of the worst, as they are responsible for a great percentage of the shit in the air, without having "ranged" skills except of a few points in PT? (= no ranged character, but nonetheless shit flying through the air)

All the double slot system will achieve is breaking the classes, limiting the freedom of choice, and shifting some problems. You create more problems than you solve!

Why should a player not be allowed to use a crossbow and a 2hd weapon? Is this still cRPG? You lost the view for the entire matter, all you see are small problems of it and their immediate solutions, which look good on the first glance, but are killing the game. You want to fix the issue with hybrids, and your solution is to remove them from the game? Thumbs up!


Perhaps I will make a few tables and diagrams...

Oh god, please stop. The amount of BS is unbearable.

[Joker86]

Oh god, please stop. The amount of BS is unbearable.

Then say where you think I am wrong! Because atm I think it's YOU who hasn't got a clue what those changes will bring!

[Nemeth]

Then say where you think I am wrong! Because atm I think it's YOU who hasn't got a clue what those changes will bring!

I was first working on a "quotation-volley", but then I decided to spare you it 


It's easy to see where the game is going to: fixed classes! First I thought it would be only less choices, but what I read here made me recognize the entire scale of the planned changes!

If you limit archers on 1 bow, 1 stack of arrows and 1 1hd weapon, or crossbowmen, where is the difference to native, where you can only buy certain equipment for your archer? You keep it over several rounds, that's the only one!

Only hight tier ones will probably be 2 slots (war/long bow, maybe strong bow), and if they are, they would probably get a slight buff to be worth it, and even cmpx himself said he's not quite sure yet if they even make them 2 slots. Same goes for xbows, only the high tier (heavy/sniper) will take 2 slots, the rest will stay unchanged.

And making bows "worth" the two slots, as someone mentioned, would mean to make them movable ballistas. I don't know if I can appreciate this. 

Maybe you can't, but I'm pretty sure there would be lot of people that would choose heavy hitting bow with reduced ammo so you have to think twice before shooting, but if you hit, make it count..

Increasing the stack sizes of ammunition also creates new problems concerning hybrids.

You have obviously no idea how hybrids plays. The difference between 15 bolts and 20 bolts is almost non existant for hybrid, while huge for dedicated crossbowman. If you can't see it, then I would recommend you creating both, so you can test it, maybe incorporate it into your graph later on.

Making polearms and 2hd weapons need 2 slots would make them absolutely inferior to 1hd + shield, due to the missing protection against ranged attacks. 

How does the new system prevent 2h/polearms from taking a shield against range? Only huscarl/board shield will take two slots, the rest one, and 2h/polearms will take 2 slots, the huge ones maybe 3. My math tells me that 2+1=3/3+1=4. I see no problem.

And what prevents a 1hd player with shield of taking two stacks of throwing weapons? Aren't those builds some of the worst, as they are responsible for a great percentage of the shit in the air, without having "ranged" skills except of a few points in PT? (= no ranged character, but nonetheless shit flying through the air)

Not much info was released about throwing, but the options are the same for every melee class in that regard. But with this sentence it's shown again that you don't play anymore, at least on EU. Hardly anyone complains about throwing now, the biggest problem is the xbow hybrids, which will be dealt with with the patch, so I believe throwing will meet the same end.

All the double slot system will achieve is breaking the classes, limiting the freedom of choice, and shifting some problems. You create more problems than you solve!

Why should a player not be allowed to use a crossbow and a 2hd weapon? Is this still cRPG? You lost the view for the entire matter, all you see are small problems of it and their immediate solutions, which look good on the first glance, but are killing the game. You want to fix the issue with hybrids, and your solution is to remove them from the game? Thumbs up!

You will be allowed to have xbow+2h/xbow+polearm/xbow+1h+shield. There will be xbows that take only 1 slot, there will be 2h that will take only 1 slot, as well as there will be polearms that take only 1 slot. Obviously, they won't be the best ones, probably not even average, but that's the tradeoff you will have to accept if you wanna go hybrid. Do you think it's unreasonable to force hybrids to choose their specialization or to be average in both their weapons? It seems to me you didn't really think the patch info that is given through, because as I said, your post is just a BS.


Perhaps I will make a few tables and diagrams...

There you go.

[Beauchamp]

there are archers that like melee weapons too and want to fight and those that don't. those that want to fight will fight even after the patch (but with 1h weapons - shouldn't be a problem as many other builds will also have to sacrifice their melee posibilities) and those that don't are running away even now. having no melee weapon at all also makes your very vulnerable - especially to (heavy) cavalry. i don't see a problem, if there will be more running archers than only a few imo.

[RandomDude]

there are archers that like melee weapons too and want to fight and those that don't. those that want to fight will fight even after the patch (but with 1h weapons - shouldn't be a problem as many other builds will also have to sacrifice their melee posibilities) and those that don't are running away even now. having no melee weapon at all also makes your very vulnerable - especially to (heavy) cavalry. i don't see a problem, if there will be more running archers than only a few imo.

many 2h weps dont have sheathes and that means that they cant have a shield also (as "sheathing" the weapon means dropping it).

it slightly worries me as a flamberge lover but i can see myself going maybe either 21 agi with higher athletics/weapon master or 18 agi and max IF.

ranged will have to use a 1h weapon which is good

there is still the option for hybrids to use good 1h, weaker shield (if huscarl takes 2), weak bow/xbow and 1 stack.

im also slightly worried about cav

players wont be able to have a spare pike to whip out and there will be a need for more dedicated anti cav

[Zisa]

many 2h weps dont have sheathes and that means that they cant have a shield also (as "sheathing" the weapon means dropping it).

it slightly worries me as a flamberge lover but i can see myself going maybe either 21 agi with higher athletics/weapon master or 18 agi and max IF.

ranged will have to use a 1h weapon which is good

there is still the option for hybrids to use good 1h, weaker shield (if huscarl takes 2), weak bow/xbow and 1 stack.

im also slightly worried about cav

players wont be able to have a spare pike to whip out and there will be a need for more dedicated anti cav

The sheath only idea.. must repeat.. terrible.
So if implemented, you with flamberge are boned if you want to bring a morning star, but I can bring a sword of tears and morning star. Still waiting for an intelligent reason for this feature.

Why should I care what melee weapon an ARCHER has? It's the fekkin xblowers I loathe, but if they end up needing to spend wpf and PD to be more effective, then again, why should I care what melee weapon they have?

Power Strike is certainly more important then wpf, and a high PS archer or thrower can put a hurt on you with 1 wpf in melee, but still at a disadvantage to a pure.

Cav would have to make decisions as well; Do lancers take a second polearm to fight on the ground OR go sword and board (AHEM, HYBRID).

Anti cav? Pikes are for beginners. Think about it, it's main function is to scare the cavalary away - to one of your team mates. You need to encourage the cavalry to come closer so you can kill them, otherwise you're making them somebody else's problem. Pikes in melee are obnoxious, so ya screw them.

[Siiem]

Anti cav? Pikes are for beginners.

 

[Dravic]

1 more question.

Lances are non-sheatable?

[Tomas_of_Miles]

Oh, ONESHOTTING PEOPLE? When? Prepatch? Wake up, that dream is not true.

yeah, 1shot peasants and agi stackers when their lvl is <20. Because when such agi stacker hit some athletics, running back saves your life vs sniper xbow.

+1
I have a masterwork sniper and sharp steels, I would expect it to one shot most people up to mail, but dudes in pilgrim disguises have even survived this. "Get headshots then!" Ok, I will try, but the reticule is a bit too large to really precision shot people from medium range.
I wanted to try a build with a pavise-shield style approach, unfortunately this is going to be impossible unless I take no melee weapon. Will any shields take more than 1 slot? And will the siege shield? I'm staying a dedicated crossbower though, no matter what. Unless of course this patch ruins the game, and I use this as an excuse to get back to real life...

[Kophka]

1 more question.

Lances are non-sheatable?

Yes, lances are a non-sheath item.

[MadJackMcMad]

+1
I have a masterwork sniper and sharp steels, I would expect it to one shot most people up to mail, but dudes in pilgrim disguises have even survived this. "Get headshots then!" Ok, I will try, but the reticule is a bit too large to really precision shot people from medium range.
I wanted to try a build with a pavise-shield style approach, unfortunately this is going to be impossible unless I take no melee weapon. Will any shields take more than 1 slot? And will the siege shield? I'm staying a dedicated crossbower though, no matter what. Unless of course this patch ruins the game, and I use this as an excuse to get back to real life...

You will most likely be hitting the arms (inc shoulder) or legs when you need to hit the chest or head.  Shots at a 90 degree angle to your target's movement direction (where the arm facing you shields the chest) are particularly vulnerable to this.  Also, running animations such as holding a 2h place the arms in front of the chest, thus they can block a chest hit.