All X-Bows Should be Two Slots

[Darkkarma]

IRL, crossbows require less exertion and training to use, than bows. Longbowmen were so strong that their left arms developed bone spurs, but a relative weakling could use a crossbow. Because they are mechanically drawn, the strength of the user does not effect the speed or power of the bolt. Aiming would require some training, but less than a bow where fatigue worsens aim when holding the drawn bow (as seen in the game).

Crossbows niche should be a ranged weapon that does not have skill requisites to use. They are slow to reload, and their gold expense should balance any stat-based advantage they have over bows.

In an ideal Crpg, I'd imagine dedicated crossbowmen as a sniper class. They would rely more on gold than xp (Think italian mercenary cliche). Peasant levies would enjoy sacrificing some armor/melee wpn gold for a pricey crossbow instead because of the low requirements to use. Wealthy melee infantry with some item spots to spare might take a crossbow to a siege. Basically, the way they were used irl, making an intriguing simulation of medieval warfare rather than another boring rock-paper-dildo.

It's been said time and again, realism will NEVER be a good way to balance a game. Especially with some of the other classes. My issue with all of the ranged seems to be the fact that we have so many wannabe Fallen archers running around without melee and are able to simply kite people when they are in a group. It's literally one of the lamest things i've ever seen. Especially considering that the Hammer can be a viable last resort melee weapon that also takes up no slots. There should be no reason to run and drag out games in a lot of scenarios the way they do ;especially considering how good certain bows are now, it is easily one of the most frustrating game styles in game. I mean, say what you want about any of the fallen archers, when its only them left, they almost always make sure not to delay; something that can't be said for the rest of the player base that's adopted this playstyle.

[ArchonAlarion]

It's been said time and again, realism will NEVER be a good way to balance a game.

A lot of things are said time and again. Why should I believe you? What is your criteria for balance?

What is more balanced than reality?

[Darkkarma]

A lot of things are said time and again. Why should I believe you? What is your criteria for balance?

What is more balanced than reality?

Don't take my word for it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3997HZuWjk


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HagCuGXJgUs&feature=related

Realism is also a slippery slope. If we are going to talk realism, then why don't we add a stamina system like in AOC? While we are at it why don't we add misfires?

Why don't we also have it set up to where a lone long pike man rather stopping plated chargers singlehandedly breaks both of his arms from the sheer impact of such a massive armored beast coming at him when he tries to stab it? We are better off making this a combat game with realistic themes and combat modes for the sake of immersion while keeping in context that this is still just a game, rather than some medieval combat simulator.

Reality has a nasty habit of being terribly unbalanced more often than not.

I honestly don't even care if there isn't a rock paper scissors combat triangle system set in place for balance, but when one playstyle becomes more universally practical than any other class,then you do not have balance.

[Tydeus]

Crossbows niche should be a ranged weapon that does not have skill requisites to use. They are slow to reload, and their gold expense should balance any stat-based advantage they have over bows.

Gold should never be used as the main balancing factor for items. Were this the case you could essentially add a machine gun to the game that you have to buy for 1,000,000 gold and a stack of bullets costing 100,000. It wouldn't change the fact that while in use, during the battle the item would be blatantly overpowered.

[ArchonAlarion]

Don't take my word for it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3997HZuWjk

I don't understand this video's relevance. If a longbow propelled arrow from distance x can penetrate plate armor y, than I would hope it would be reflected accurately in Crpg. Whether the video experiment accurately simulates the physics of medieval combat/armor/weaponry is another matter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HagCuGXJgUs&feature=related

This video seems to support my argument.

Realism is also a slippery slope. If we are going to talk realism, then why don't we add a stamina system like in AOC? While we are at it why don't we add misfires?

Why don't also have it set up to where a lone long pike man rather stopping plated chargers singlehandedly breaks both of his arms from the sheer impact of such a massive armored beast coming at him when he tries to stab it?

It would be neat if these things were added to the game.

Reality has a nasty habit of being terribly unbalanced more often than not.

Physics is perfectly balanced if you catch my drift. The average combat utility difference between two items is difficult to calculate. Gold cost is the way that this gap can be bridged (under a fair gold gaining system).

@Tydeus: Machine guns are not in the game  for the purposes of aesthetics. Imo, there are enough fanciful, cartoony "balanced" games out there; I would like to see a realistic medieval combat simulation.

Should a naked man throwing rocks be "balanced" against a knight on horseback? Where do you draw the line?

[Darkkarma]

I don't understand this video's relevance. If a longbow propelled arrow from distance x can penetrate plate armor y, than I would hope it would be reflected accurately in Crpg. Whether the video experiment accurately simulates the physics of medieval combat/armor/weaponry is another matter.


This video seems to support my argument.

It would be neat if these things were added to the game.

Physics is perfectly balanced if you catch my drift. The average combat utility difference between two items is difficult to calculate. Gold cost is the way that this gap can be bridged (under a fair gold gaining system).

@Tydeus: Machine guns are not in the game  for the purposes of aesthetics. Imo, there are enough fanciful "balanced" games out there; I would like to see a realistic medieval combat simulation.

Should a naked man throwing rocks be "balanced" against a knight on horseback? Where do you draw the line?

 The idea behind the the armor vs plate video is that despite being within the guaranteed kill zone of the bow, it was completely neutralized by the  heavily defended plate of the armor. I didn't even go into the fact that plate armor was practically sword proof unless one was using a tapered blade or something akin to a Halberd. It is still up for debate, but Plate armor is largely viewed as being damn near impenetrable to arrows and bolts 8/10 times. Does that sound like a fair example of realism to base a game off of?  Also, the point behind the Xbow vid was that it was shown to be impractical in almost every sense when compared to the long bow. The Velocity wasn't really much greater in most cases, and when it was, it took near 30 seconds to reload a single shot, giving it no mobility and making it a terrible weapon in any environment other than a heavily fortified wall. A crossbow of similar firing rate to it's bow counterpart was virtually inferior to it in every way.

A truly realistic medieval combat simulator would be just that, a simulator. It would no longer really be a video game as most people know it. It would be like comparing piloting in a flight simulator to the piloting one does in one of the battle field games. I'd love to see a medieval combat simulator, even if done in mount and blade; but DON'T try and bring it into CRPG, it simply would not work without destroying the game as we know it.

[ArchonAlarion]

The idea behind the the armor vs plate video is that despite being within the guaranteed kill zone of the bow, it was completely neutralized by the  heavily defended plate of the armor. I didn't even go into the fact that plate armor was practically sword proof unless one was using a tapered blade or something akin to a Halberd. It is still up for debate, but Plate armor is largely viewed as being damn near impenetrable to arrows and bolts 8/10 times. Does that sound like a fair example of realism to base a game off of?

Yeah, it does. Unfortunately m&b cannot account for spots of thinner armor and gaps in armor. That being said, plate should cost a lot of gold and be well protective. At a certain cost, a player cannot maintain plate armor, thus limiting its usage.

 

Also, the point behind the Xbow vid was that it was shown to be impractical in almost every sense when compared to the long bow. The Velocity wasn't really much greater in most cases, and when it was, it took near 30 seconds to reload a single shot, giving it no mobility and making it a terrible weapon in any environment other than a heavily fortified wall. A crossbow of similar firing rate to it's bow counterpart was virtually inferior to it in every way.

So why was the crossbow so widely used in the middle ages? Because it was easy to use.

A truly realistic medieval combat simulation would be just that, a simulation. It would no longer really be a video game. It would be like comparing piloting in a flight simulator to the piloting one does in one of the battle field games. I'd love to see a medieval combat simulator, even if done in mount and blade; but DON'T try and bring it into CRPG, it simply would not work.

As long as the game fairly awards gold and that there is a cost to using better equipment, then I think there will be balance. Balance should be thought of as an accidental state, rather than some goal when comparing weapons. The purpose of gold is to close the gap.

[Darkkarma]

Yeah, it does. Unfortunately m&b cannot account for spots of thinner armor and gaps in armor. That being said, plate should cost a lot of gold and be well protective. At a certain cost, a player cannot maintain plate armor, thus limiting its usage.

 

If you honestly think that the potential random chance of having to pay 800-1k for plated armor makes it mean that it isn't cheap when based of of realism then idk what to tell you.

My melee monkey character regularly walks around in full plate or transitional and I have yet to go broke with a budget of only 15k to work with. Strength builds that go with plate armor are currently one of the toughest battle builds out there, they literally cleave through most other combat builds and are usually only brought down by scores of ranged fighters or much more skilled fighters(those come far and few between). This balance also gets even worse when said plate user uses Items such as a sword and board build. Go look at Ishtar Neo and tell me i'm wrong with his steel pick and steel shield. You honestly think that making plate more realistically impenetrable than it is now when one can make a heavily ironfleshed, power strike happy strength build would be offset simply by the fact that armor costs alot? With as broken as that build would be, people with such a set up would win so often and hold onto a multiplier so often that upkeep would be totally neutralized.

[ArchonAlarion]

You honestly think that making plate more realistically impenetrable than it is now when one can make a heavily ironfleshed, power strike happy strength build would be offset simply by the fact that armor costs alot? With as broken as that build would be, people with such a set up would win so often and hold onto a multiplier so often that upkeep would be totally neutralized.

I believe that armor should be buffed and base health significantly nerfed. I also dislike the current gold gain system. Buffing plate armor is not the sole change I'd like to see  and I agree that it alone would "Unbalance" the game.

[Darkkarma]

I believe that armor should be buffed and base health significantly nerfed. I also dislike the current gold gain system. Buffing plate armor is not the sole change I'd like to see  and I agree that it alone would "Unbalance" the game.

Fair enough, cheers.

[ArchonAlarion]

okiedokie 

[Tydeus]

@Tydeus: Machine guns are not in the game  for the purposes of aesthetics. Imo, there are enough fanciful, cartoony "balanced" games out there; I would like to see a realistic medieval combat simulation.

Should a naked man throwing rocks be "balanced" against a knight on horseback? Where do you draw the line?

I like how you state aesthetics so you can try to escape from speaking to my actual point. It was simply an analogy that can just as easily be restated with a medieval weapon. For example: They could implement another sword much like the Flamberge, except with 200c and costs 500K gold. This item would never be balanced by the upkeep costs. The fact would always remain that at 200c you would still 1shot everyone, regardless of anything they could do. It would be rare, sure, but it would most certainly be the most overpowered item on the battlefield.

[ArchonAlarion]

I like how you state aesthetics so you can try to escape from speaking to my actual point. It was simply an analogy that can just as easily be restated with a medieval weapon. For example: They could implement another sword much like the Flamberge, except with 200c and costs 500K gold. This item would never be balanced by the upkeep costs. The fact would always remain that at 200c you would still 1shot everyone, regardless of anything they could do. It would be rare, sure, but it would most certainly be the most overpowered item on the battlefield.

You are still wrong. Theoretically, if gold cost reflected the average effectiveness of the uber-flamberge, then it WOULD be balanced. You could use it for maybe a couple battles and then it would break; good luck with the upkeep.

MORE IMPORTANTLY, the uber-flamberge stats should fit its aesthetic representation in the game. Thus, the 200c uber-flamberge would need to be modeled like a light-saber/chainsword/weeaboo thing to reflect the 200c stat. That does not fit aesthetically with the game.

Historical weapons are researched -> modeled -> assigned appropriate stats -> given gold cost to reflect there effectiveness.

[Tydeus]

You are still wrong. Theoretically, if gold cost reflected the average effectiveness of the uber-flamberge, then it WOULD be balanced. You could use it for maybe a couple battles and then it would break; good luck with the upkeep.

MORE IMPORTANTLY, the uber-flamberge stats should fit its aesthetic representation in the game. Thus, the 200c uber-flamberge would need to be modeled like a light-saber/chainsword/weeaboo thing to reflect the 200c stat. That does not fit aesthetically with the game.

Historical weapons are researched -> modeled -> assigned appropriate stats -> given gold cost to reflect there effectiveness.

Should a naked man throwing rocks be "balanced" against a knight on horseback? Where do you draw the line?

You missed the point, completely. I don't see how this is so hard to see. Even if the weapon was made disposable and could only be used in one round before it was destroyed, as I stated before, it would still be the most overpowered item on the field.

I think I know why this is so hard for you to understand, you're trying to simplify "balance" way too much. Throwing rocks are indeed balanced when we look at the larger picture, not when we look only at your example. Your example would have us believe that to be balanced, one must be able to pick any item at random and be just as likely to kill any other person in a 1v1 situation. This is not how the game was balanced, nor is it, to my understanding, ever going to be. High tier weapons are balanced with other high tier weapons, weapon types are balanced with other weapon types.

To think that 200 cut damage for a melee weapon isn't excessive is a bit...

[Gorath]

that to be balanced, one must be able to pick any item at random and be just as likely to kill any other person in a 1v1 situation.

It may not be how this game was balanced, but that is in fact true balance.