Suggestions to re-balance throwing.

[Digglez]

I'd be fine if the larger/stronger throwing weapons took up 2 slots, but they need more ammo or drastically increase the dmg they do.

[Cheap_Shot]

It was OP in certain combinations with other equipment but your average dedicated thrower playing for the character rather than some kind of advantage was almost always at a disadvantage.

Yes, this. Being a hybrid thrower was OP, not a dedicated thrower. There were always too many disadvantages, it's just that no one cared. They'd get hit with a spear, die, and then go into a rage calling for throwing nerfs and bans. They never considered that maybe in order to make that kill, the thrower had missed several times because of the poor accuracy, and then immediately died because they weren't able to wear much armor and were slow being an all strength build.

Hiding behind the best shield and throwing axes was op. Wearing plate and hucking a bunch of lances before running in spamming a two hander was what was op.

10 PS is slow, as I am sure you know if you played 10 PT character. The point is, if you got your str that high, you will have 10 PS AND 10 PT instead of IF. Now you have a thrower and a sumo wrestler in one character. Also, regarding one shotting, there is a huge difference between one-shotting from range and one-shotting from melee - the latter first has to catch someone and then also takes a higher risk getting hit himself.

For some insight on just one aspect of what the nerfs did, it is impossible to have 10 power throw and 10 power strike at the same time, let alone 10 PT and any other skills. To get 10 powerthrow, you need 30 strength, and 12 agility minimum (you need more really). You have to convert all your extra skill points to stat points to afford it leaving you without any other skills but powerthrow and weapon master. This is just so you can put 140+ wpf in it, because each level of powerthrow lowers your wpf by 14 points. 10 PT requires 140wpf just to use, with terrible accuracy, and wearing any armor subtracts from that and means you are unable to even use the 10 powerthrow. You are slow, unarmored, and can't hit anything without getting close. The more you invest in throwing, the worse it gets now. That's upside down. If anyone with a shield looks at you, you die.

[Gorath]

This thread isn't here to argue about realism.

You're right.  However it is to argue about balance, which should be based on LOGIC.  Sometimes logic and realism happen to coincide.

Throwing, out of all the ranged, makes the least logical sense to balance around the idea of a "dedicated" thrower or throwing ONLY character.  Throwing, logically, is purely a hybrid concept and complete shit if used as the sole battlefield tactic of a warrior.  For one, it's extremely cumbersome.  We've gotten rid of most of the illogical shit that melee could do (pulling a pike out your butt magically, flamberge in your pocket, etc) and the slot system serves a more logical purpose of stopping melee from carrying said magical pocket pike + spamberge + board shield + great maul (etc).

Unlike archery, who's arrows fit into a quiver by the bunch, and x-bows who's bolts are even smaller and more compact, throwing weapons are bulky and often times taking as much room as a 1-hander or 2-handed weapon to carry.  Running around with more than 2 throwing lances for example is rediculous.  As is carrying anything BUT those throwing lances and maybe a small shield on your off hand and a weapon on your belt.  Throwing axes?  How many throwing axes logically is someone going to carry?  About as many 1h axes as they can carry.  Daggers, shuriken, darts and hell even the javelins at least have a "quiver" they can be stored in but how many should fit in there?  With the larger ones (javs and such) it's like running into battle with a golf-bag on your back.  You're only going to get one unless you ONLY plan to carry them and not fight/throw at all.

Logically, throwing only makes sense when it's used for infantry hybrid purposes.  A sidearm weapon to hit that runner/archer.  Something to soften up that shield as you approach.  Maybe drop a horse.  But that's it.  Granted I'm against artificial WPF restrictions because they don't make any logical sense either.  Someone can absolutely pick up any weapon without any training (1 wpf) and attempt to use it.  They'll just suck at it.  A more pronounced curve for wpf would be a much better route.  1 wpf and your shot goes randomly into the wild.  100 wpf and it's far more on-target, etc.

Balancing for a "dedicated" thrower is just silly and illogical.  Throwing weapons should be those things that you use if you have an extra slot and figure "fuck it, why not".

I'm all for getting rid of this arbitrary artificial wpf restriction, but the low ammo counts, and high slot requirements should absolutely stay.  Throwing should be balanced for a hybrid sidearm for infantry rather than some silly "dedicated" idea.  A PAIR of throwing axes (two, dos, zwei, ni) to go with your sword and shield, polearm or two hander.  A quiver of maybe 3 javelins on your back if you don't want the axes and want to invest more points.  Throwing lances should go, or remain 2 slots for ONE lance to keep them from being the silly absurd item they were before. 

[Seawied]

You're right.  However it is to argue about balance, which should be based on LOGIC. 

for the rest of this thread, I will contradict myself and argue about realism... despite the fact that there were entire soldiers in history known as skirmishers that had an armaments based on what cheap shot is describing.

[Gorath]

Seawied:
"In ancient and medieval warfare, skirmishers typically carried bows, javelins, slings, and sometimes carried light shields. Acting as light infantry with their light arms and minimal armor, they could run ahead of the main battle line, release a volley of arrows, slingshots or javelins, and retreat behind their main battle line before the clash of the opposing main forces. The aims of skirmishing were to disrupt enemy formations by causing casualties before the main battle, and to tempt the opposing infantry into attacking prematurely, throwing their organization into disarray. Skirmishers could also be effectively used to surround opposing soldiers in the absence of friendly cavalry.

Once preliminary skirmishing was over, skirmishers participated in the main battle by shooting into the enemy formation, or joined in melée combat with daggers or short swords. "

Highlighted some important bits.  Shooting implies a ranged weapon and not throwing weapons, though that could be a fail of english (I doubt it).  IE:  The guys throwing shit joined in melee combat once the battle started:  aka - hybrid

[Seawied]

from your same source

"Alternatively, they could act as ammunition bearers or stretcher-bearers"

the following line. Wasn't always the case that skirmishers actually joined the melee.

[Gorath]

from your same source

"Alternatively, they could act as ammunition bearers or stretcher-bearers"

the following line. Wasn't always the case that skirmishers actually joined the melee.

Sure.  Let's add that into the game.  I know, we can add water-bearers too.  And corpse clearers.  And anything else that promotes even more lame shit instead of fighting.  I know, after a thrower uses up his ammo he auto-dies.  Oh, he's not allowed to pick up a melee weapon at any point either.  That way he can have his "non-combat" role like what you're talking about above.  Throw shit, then leave the battle.  Yay, that's sure something to put in the game.

I want to fling deseased livestock via catapult at people then leave the battle and collect kills too.  Why not right?

If we're going to build around the idea of non-combat roles, then what's the fucking point of the game anymore?  It's like a crusade to make the game as lame as possible and I just don't understand it.

[Seawied]

the point of that part is that not all skirmishers carried a melee weapons. In regards to fighting, there were some soldiers who's role was only ranged. Heavy armor and weapons were not used by these soldiers.

[Gorath]

the point of that part is that not all skirmishers carried a melee weapons. In regards to fighting, there were some soldiers who's role was only ranged.

Right.  Archers. 

[Seawied]

skirmishers typically carried bows, javelins, slings, and sometimes carried light shields.

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[Gorath]

You can facepalm all you want, I have never ever ever read or heard about any primary troop in any historical battle being composed of douche's that lobbed shit and then kicked it on the sidelines doing nothing for the remainder of the battle.  I'm doing search after search right now for medieval throwing weapon soldiers in various phrasings and coming up with the closest thing being the roman legionares which were from the wrong time period for one, and specifically said to have rushed in with their GLADIUS after throwing their pilum.

[Damug]

You can facepalm all you want, I have never ever ever read or heard about any primary troop in any historical battle being composed of douche's that lobbed shit and then kicked it on the sidelines doing nothing for the remainder of the battle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Javelin_(weapon)
The Anglo-Saxon term for javelin was france.[7] In Anglo-Saxon warfare soldiers usually formed a shield wall and used heavy weapons like Danish axes, swords and spears. Javelins, including barbed angons, were used as an offensive weapon from behind the shield wall or by warriors who left the protective formation and attacked the enemy as skirmishers.[8]

Many African tribes used the javelin as their main weapon. Typical African warfare was based on ritualized stand-off encounters involving throwing javelins without advancing for close combat. In the flag of Swaziland there is a shield and two javelins, which symbolize the protection from the country's enemies.

[Seawied]

  Gorath, your own source described exactly that. I know you get a hard-on for melee characters, but this needs to be put to rest. Even if the wild idea of a soldier that used thrown missiles and retreated back to the main line was a crazy idea that was never ever thought of in the millions of battles and skirmishes fought throughout the world (:hint: this is not the case,) it still wouldn't be a valid argument to not have dedicated throwing in c-rpg. C-RPG is not a historically based game. If it were, we would not have weeabos going up against european soldiers like we do now. They certainly wouldn't be fighting alongside one another either.

Give it a rest.

[Gorath]

it still wouldn't be a valid argument to not have dedicated throwing in c-rpg.

Fine, buff throwing back to 16 missles per round, all that 1-shot and require no wpf to use accurately.  While we're at it we need to buff fist damage in order to be viable because dedicated boxers are severely underpowered atm.  With 10 PS and athletics it's impossible to injure anyone in armor heavier than mail.  It's a travesty and needs to be addressed as well.  You have no argument as to why the dedicated boxer playstyle shouldn't be a valid and viable one.  Apparently getting rid of the WPF isn't enough of a compromise as I suggested, we have to give throwers back rediculous stacks of ammo as well so to appease the "dedicated" lamersthrowers out there.

Not like there aren't enough runners from the archers that refuse to carry a melee weapon so we have to chase them for 3-5 minutes before the stupid MoF flags show up, if they're even included in the map.

[Damug]

Not like there aren't enough runners from the archers that refuse to carry a melee weapon so we have to chase them for 3-5 minutes before the stupid MoF flags show up, if they're even included in the map.

Nice hyperbole.