How to nerf archery, without destroying it.

[Ronin]

I'd say more cowardice.

[Templar_Steevee]

Being a totally bure archer with 198 wpf is letting me to shoot really fast with longbow with really nice accuracy (still far away from red dot), i need this speed to be able to shoot agaist HA and pew-pew archers

[Leshma]

I also mentioned bow rebalance, in case you didn't read the whole thing. Currenly, those twat bows are too powerful. They need to be nerfed.

[Ronin]

chicken! chickeeen!

(click to show/hide)

Seriously though, even in native (which you call rangedfest); manual blocking and close combat fighting are essential skills of being a good archer. Even more close combat skills were needed compared to the shielded (thought as a way of easy blocking) infantry. Well I made up that last part about infantry (), yet even as a best archer, there will be some time when you need to defend yourself up close. This game is more about melee combat than it is ranged. All elements of course have their use, and the game is muuuch better with all those elements around. I really have respect to a good archer/HA as I can respect to a good infantry. No element is more important than other when it comes down to effectiveness. However melee combat is essential to any kind of character, because not only shit happens but sometimes circumstances will demand it. I'm not saying melee is "superior" here, it is just essential.

In siege, sometimes flag will need to be defended urgently.
Sometimes a cav and an inf will chase you, you will have to fight in close no matter what.
Sometimes a ninja will try to stab you in the back, or someone will appear in pop up behind a corner.
Sometimes your melee will have to fight outnumbered if you're not there to guard their back.


 Can you imagine a strong (level 30 or higher) high ranked soldier, who is strong enough to pull a hornbow/longbow; but not strong enough to swing a goddamn sword? In any kind of army, high ranking soldiers were given exquisite training in close combat. It's not like "oh, so you don't have enough wpf left so lets not teach you this". Am I a fucking pokemon who can not learn more than 4 abilities?

It just doesn't appeal to me. As long as shooting speed/accuracy is fine (180 wpf is more than enough for 6 PD, even 160-170 are quite fine), invest those points into melee.

Or you'll get forever kiting archers/horsearchers because they have shit stats in melee.

The problem is, as steevee mentioned, there will be always archers with 198 wpf as long as that number is achievable and it offers some advantages.
Archers shouldn't really be forced into a decision of:
1-Beeing as competent as that archer (gayness path).
2-Sacrificing some, although minor yet still remarkable, archery advantage for some melee capability.

That's why I think some sort of wpf cap on archery. It should be based on PD and HA skill, because higher those skills you have the less wpf you will have; so more archery wpf is needed to counter that. I'm not saying archers should be forced with 160 archery wpf, make it something like 180 to get rid of that extremist 194 wpf archers.

[BlindGuy]

WARNING: TL;DR spoiler here, discussing why history should not be used as a measure of balance:

(click to show/hide)

Not that I dont agree with you Ronin about some stuff, but in very few medieval armies where archers trained in any way. They were peasants and considered scum, and they WERE scum, but also their lack of proffesional training was their strengh in melee: they were placed (In field battles) in blocks behind a man-at-arms wall, or would dig themselves in with stakes, ditches and earthworks, and their main weapons if they were ever reached by enemy forces where dependant on situation: if enemy was lesser force that had been decimated by arrowspam they would gank massively with mauls and daggers, planning to knock enemy down and overwhelm with massive numbers rather than fight any kind of pitched combat. An archer is a peasant, as as such is NEVER given quarter by the enemy: they knew this, and knew to try to fight a pitched fight no matter what their skill would result in their death. They were not trying for a fair fight, they had not come to fight by choice, and all they wanted was to live another day.

If enemy force was of comparable size, or was a cavalry unit that had manage to flank or penetrate, their main defense was to scatter and run into their closest unit of friendly troops, there to gank anyone who penetrated their allies front line, again with overwhelming numbers.

The idea that they would pull out a sword and try to fight a man at arms or a knight is ludicrous: Most melee combatants had trained every day since childhood, just as the archers had with bows, but in the art of killing in melee: You dont fight an armed and armoured knight with a crappy shortsword or a hammer.

The only times archers would be sent into a fight en masse would be in a siege situation, and their power there was again, same as above: Overwhelm enemy with numbers, not combat skill, in a close brawl where personal skill mattered less than shere weight of people hitting the enemy.

Remember, even more than in crpg: in european history the archer was a scumbag, was treated as a scumbag, and was an effective weapon when used properly simply because they were good at being scumbags.

Some cultures (asian mostly) revered the bowman as a soldier, and a noble warrior would use a bow without bringing shame on himself, but never in europe. Also a savvy military commander would NEVER want his archers to ever have to fight: it takes a lifetime to train an effective battlefield archer.

Im not trying to romaticise the English in their wars on France, but there the best commanders KNEW the value of their peasants: Forced by law to become archers, all of them, they were used to even the odds, England being realistically no match for the French in a pitched battle, simply by landmass: More land; more nobles, more nobles: more troops supplied by those nobles for the war effort. The English learnt the hard way when suppressing Welsh separatism: A peasant who knows what he is doing can easily kill a man who isnt armoured well enough, and he will do it by shooting him, and then running away: you can make an effective bow in a few hours, and fletching, while a dextrous skill, can be learnt and practised by peasants with no more means at their disposal than some geese, some trees, and a knife. A knight meanwhile needs a large support network of horse breeders, smiths, a transport train for all his gear (noone can travel 24/7 in armor, apart from anything else the armor will deteriorate) and either constant war spoils or a village paying taxes to supply him the cash he needs.

So lets not use historical accuracy as a measure of balance, ever. If we did, either longbow or maul would have to be made 1 slot, or arrows 0 slot, since a big hammer was a pretty standard piece of kit for an archer, and funnily enough, despite its effectiveness in a gank, can be made by a peasant in a few hours out of nothing more than wood, using only his knife.

Warning: complicated technical diagrams of the materials and tactics in use by archers in melee.
Step 1:

(click to show/hide)

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Step 2:

(click to show/hide)

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Now, we all know the joke horse bows are rediculously overpowered. Their damage to speed to accuracy ratio is absolute rubbish and makes the top tier bows a disadvantage to use and a stylistic choice ingame which will make the use LESS effective but at least won't look retarded, and historically archers can achieve that speed of shooting with no accuracy if taking arrows from a quiver, or can achieve that speed, accuracy and power while shooting arrows they are holding in their hand: you cannot hold 40 arrows in your hand. If you limit archers to firing 3 times, then having to take 3 arrows from their quiver, swapping hands between bow as they position the arrows in a narrow X then swapping back, then firing 3 more, thats fine, but that's not gonna happen is it?

What we will probably get is sweet fuck all, for neither game balance nor historical accuracy, and we will continue to see guys with tiny bows that are visibly designed ingame to be used on horseback shooting off laser accurate hard hitting arrows at a rate of 1 per second. Welcome back to native guys. Oh wait, in native they balanced this by giving archers no athletics. Oh well, back to native guys! At least there I can eventually fight the bundle of stickss before they can run away, if I get thru the spam. Oh wait: they dont have pierce damage? BRILLIANT!

[Templar_Steevee]

chicken! chickeeen!

(click to show/hide)

Seriously though, even in native (which you call rangedfest); manual blocking and close combat fighting are essential skills of being a good archer. Even more close combat skills were needed compared to the shielded (thought as a way of easy blocking) infantry. Well I made up that last part about infantry (), yet even as a best archer, there will be some time when you need to defend yourself up close. This game is more about melee combat than it is ranged. All elements of course have their use, and the game is muuuch better with all those elements around. I really have respect to a good archer/HA as I can respect to a good infantry. No element is more important than other when it comes down to effectiveness. However melee combat is essential to any kind of character, because not only shit happens but sometimes circumstances will demand it. I'm not saying melee is "superior" here, it is just essential.

In siege, sometimes flag will need to be defended urgently.
Sometimes a cav and an inf will chase you, you will have to fight in close no matter what.
Sometimes a ninja will try to stab you in the back, or someone will appear in pop up behind a corner.
Sometimes your melee will have to fight outnumbered if you're not there to guard their back.


 Can you imagine a strong (level 30 or higher) high ranked soldier, who is strong enough to pull a hornbow/longbow; but not strong enough to swing a goddamn sword? In any kind of army, high ranking soldiers were given exquisite training in close combat. It's not like "oh, so you don't have enough wpf left so lets not teach you this". Am I a fucking pokemon who can not learn more than 4 abilities?

It just doesn't appeal to me. As long as shooting speed/accuracy is fine (180 wpf is more than enough for 6 PD, even 160-170 are quite fine), invest those points into melee.

Or you'll get forever kiting archers/horsearchers because they have shit stats in melee.

The problem is, as steevee mentioned, there will be always archers with 198 wpf as long as that number is achievable and it offers some advantages.
Archers shouldn't really be forced into a decision of:
1-Beeing as competent as that archer (gayness path).
2-Sacrificing some, although minor yet still remarkable, archery advantage for some melee capability.

That's why I think some sort of wpf cap on archery. It should be based on PD and HA skill, because higher those skills you have the less wpf you will have; so more archery wpf is needed to counter that. I'm not saying archers should be forced with 160 archery wpf, make it something like 180 to get rid of that extremist 194 wpf archers.

Ronin, you forget about one thing - even with 1 WPF and very few PS (situation i have) it's posible to block and fight back melee and even kill them.
Archers always going to be worse in melee fight than a dedicated melee (i'm not talking about personal player's skill), putting wpf in melee is helpful but in some situations they won't help anyway.

[Okkam]

I also mentioned bow rebalance, in case you didn't read the whole thing. Currenly, those twat bows are too powerful. They need to be nerfed.

Also it's time to nerf hard Longsword, HBS, SMS, Morningstar and many other 2H weapons that's cheaper than Flamberge. Those twat weapons are too powerful. They need to be nerfed.

The problem is not about archers. Problem is - too many whiners wanna have omnipotent build that can use 1 weapon in all situation. That is stupid, because warfare must promote versatility. This is CRPG only problem, because even Native MP classes is balanced. Infantry without shields or secondary ranged weapon is cannon fodder, archer without melee is glasscanon etc. Add to this CRPG crazy armor rating, fantasy weapons like sniper xbow, german-danish swords of dreams - and viola - you've got insoluble problem with balance.

[Kafein]

Also it's time to nerf hard Longsword, HBS, SMS, Morningstar and many other 2H weapons that's cheaper than Flamberge. Those twat weapons are too powerful. They need to be nerfed.

I'd rather say the subpar melee options that are not peasant tier should be buffed. People have strong opinions about the internal balance of melee weapons, but this has very little to do with ranged/melee balance.

The problem is not about archers. Problem is - too many whiners wanna have omnipotent build that can use 1 weapon in all situation.

If you don't want one omnipotent build that can use one weapon in all situations, why are you arguing against a change in how ranged works ? I don't see good archers struggling against any particular class, yet even the best 2h get shot to death, only marginally slower than a noob would.

That is stupid, because warfare must promote versatility. This is CRPG only problem, because even Native MP classes is balanced. Infantry without shields or secondary ranged weapon is cannon fodder, archer without melee is glasscanon etc. Add to this CRPG crazy armor rating, fantasy weapons like sniper xbow, german-danish swords of dreams - and viola - you've got insoluble problem with balance.

How can "either you are archer either you are shielder" be called versatility ? A bad archer without melee is a glasscanon. Just not get into melee and you are a glasscanon that has no weakness.

[Templar_Steevee]

i can agree with Kafein, internal ballance between bows and melee weapons is different.

There's no matter when you have high lvl wht what weapon you use.

I'm not using pew pwe bows because after last patch I think they are OP, And i want to show other ranged, that "spam arrows" technicue isn't bringing mulities all the time , I even don't think what can i do with tatar or nomad bow... Long bow - best bow

[Rebelyell]

Also it's time to nerf hard Longsword, HBS, SMS, Morningstar and many other 2H weapons that's cheaper than Flamberge. Those twat weapons are too powerful. They need to be nerfed.

The problem is not about archers. Problem is - too many whiners wanna have omnipotent build that can use 1 weapon in all situation. That is stupid, because warfare must promote versatility. This is CRPG only problem, because even Native MP classes is balanced. Infantry without shields or secondary ranged weapon is cannon fodder, archer without melee is glasscanon etc. Add to this CRPG crazy armor rating, fantasy weapons like sniper xbow, german-danish swords of dreams - and viola - you've got insoluble problem with balance.

I dont get that , why only 2h weapons are there?

[Leshma]

To be honest, I'll rather have small amount of uber archers like Bagge, Stevee or even that annoying Shokoshugi than bunch of fairies running around with regular machine gun bows.

Not sure why and who did it, but achery loom changes and bow/arrow rebalance is maybe the worst idea in history of cRPG. All it did was to create horde of STR, for fun, alt, noob archers who have no time to grind gear. While that seems fair to new players, everyone who's not an archer and also dedicated long time archers suffer cause of it.

Revert the bow balance (Long Bow, only pierce bow) and quiver balance (old weight and values, no magical Bodkin tip) and you'll fix both HA and Achery Horde issue. Archers will fight among themselves to acquire looms, some will even retire their builds to get new, optimal Long Bow build and that will lower their numbers.

[Rebelyell]

To be honest, I'll rather have small amount of uber archers like Bagge, Stevee or even that annoying Shokoshugi than bunch of fairies running around with regular machine gun bows.

Not sure why and who did it, but achery loom changes and bow/arrow rebalance is maybe the worst idea in history of cRPG. All it did was to create horde of STR, for fun, alt, noob archers who have no time to grind gear. While that seems fair to new players, everyone who's not an archer and also dedicated long time archers suffer cause of it.

Revert the bow balance (Long Bow, only pierce bow) and quiver balance (old weight and values, no magical Bodkin tip) and you'll fix both HA and Achery Horde issue. Archers will fight among themselves to acquire looms, some will even retire their builds to get new, optimal Long Bow build and that will lower their numbers.

pierce dmg for all bows will always cause problems because that kind of damage bypass armor, and with all of that ranged players nowadays
it can be totally annoying

[Leshma]

Why are mongol bows so much better than european gear? Checked bows, like how Bow looks but stats suck balls. But these Horn, Tatar, tiny garbage bows have superior stats. Stop that madness, I want to play an archer but don't to look like a fool.

[kinngrimm]

pierce dmg for all bows will always cause problems because that kind of damage bypass armor, and with all of that ranged players nowadays
it can be totally annoying

keep the pierce but implement bloodfrenzy mode 
when you would kill 2 guys shortly after each other, you dont get staggered by arrows anymore for 1 minute, 30 more seconds with every additional kill while bloodfrenzy would be active.
+ you dont get staggered/interrupted
- you dont get hint/a trigger other then listening, that you were hit by an arrow, therefor possibly unaware of ranged targeting you.

[Kafein]

keep the pierce but implement bloodfrenzy mode 
when you would kill 2 guys shortly after each other, you dont get staggered by arrows anymore for 1 minute, 30 more seconds with every additional kill while bloodfrenzy would be active.
+ you dont get staggered/interrupted
- you dont get hint/a trigger other then listening, that you were hit by an arrow, therefor possibly unaware of ranged targeting you.

If some new guy posted this I would take it seriously.