All X-Bows Should be Two Slots

[Tydeus]

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

Indeed I would call that "true balance". Though I don't know of any game that is so simple that it is able to use that method for balancing. There are several systems that become unbalanced only when you take character skill into account. Many times you have to decide whether you're balancing for casual players or balancing for competitive players, among many different things. Risk vs Reward is an example of how an item can appear to be both underpowered and overpowered at the same time. Balancing is rarely, if ever, so easy that one can just balance one item, with all other items. The idea that there is a working, universal concept of balance, is rather abstract.

It's important to realize that this mod has heavy rpg elements that don't allow for developers to use the "true balance" method when trying to balance items.

[ArchonAlarion]

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...

YOU MISSED THE POINT ENTIRELY.

A 200c flamberge will never exist BECAUSE to be believably "200c" it would have to be modeled as a light saber or some shit and THAT DOESN'T FIT with the game aesthetically!

Physically/historically a weapon can only be so powerful. THEREFORE, no super-crazy-death weapons would ever be a problem.

On your second point: Just because some fighting style can be made distinct from another fighting style doesn't mean it has to be "balanced" with all the rest. Maybe throwing weapons just suck dick, and you have to be poor peasant or a chucking badass to use them, huh? Gold cost and leveling limit the use of stronger fighting styles.

[Darkkarma]

YOU MISSED THE POINT ENTIRELY.

A 200c flamberge will never exist BECAUSE to be believably "200c" it would have to be modeled as a light saber or some shit and THAT DOESN'T FIT with the game aesthetically!

Physically/historically a weapon can only be so powerful. THEREFORE, no super-crazy-death weapons would ever be a problem.

On your second point: Just because some fighting style can be made distinct from another fighting style doesn't mean it has to be "balanced" with all the rest. Maybe throwing weapons just suck dick, and you have to be poor peasant or a chucking badass to use them, huh? Gold cost and leveling limit the use of stronger fighting styles.

You're assuming that this game is following a 100 % realistic standard when designing it's items. They are somewhat based off of realism, but at the same time, it's far from an exact trade. I find it hard to believe that items such as the barmace or even the long maul could be swung around with such ease as they are in the game. Granted they fixed the barmace because of how ridiculous it was, but yeah. Even in starwars games, lightsabers don't do such an insane amount of damage because it would be one of the most broken weapons in the game. I guarantee you that none of the starwars games have weapons that do that much damage unless said damage is totally neutralized/balanced out by other weapons or defensive items.

[ArchonAlarion]

You're assuming that this game is following a 100 % realistic standard when designing it's items.

I'm not assuming that, but I would like it to be the case. I'd prefer to see highly realistic combat on the map (the actual fighting), but outside of combat (leveling, item costs, generations, etc.) the game can be designed to compensate for unfairness. Gold/XP gain, upkeep, skills can limit players from always choosing an "objectively" better build. Even then, reality isn't as unfair as you might believe  ; almost everything can and was countered, even mounted knights. Whether the game engine itself can handle such a thing is another matter. I'm simply being optimistic.

They are somewhat based off of realism, but at the same time, it's far from an exact trade. I find it hard to believe that items such as the barmace or even the long maul could be swung around with such ease as they are in the game.

Definitely. Heavy hafted weapons would be quite cumbersome and slow (relatively), but they have enough weight to crush or break through plate. Greatswords can be swung extremely fast, but really shouldn't be able to cut through plate (although the pierce isn't too bad currently, excepting the lolstab). Greatswords are good dueling weapons, or for use against lightly armored opponents, but they really should not be effective as they are now. These weapons simply could not cut through plate like they do now. On the other hand, other 2h weapons are too fast relative to swords. In my ideal game, Greatswords would be mostly relegated to the duel server, or occasionally drawn dramatically by a noble knight on his last stand (Obviously I'm exaggerating slightly, not every 2h sword is the same). Imo their unrealistic advantages actually diminish their coolness.

There are whole styles of play, build niches, and tactics that are going unused because of unrealistic weapon stats.

Crossbows, fortunately still have their most of their niche.

[Damug]

YOU MISSED THE POINT ENTIRELY.

A 200c flamberge will never exist BECAUSE to be believably "200c" it would have to be modeled as a light saber or some shit and THAT DOESN'T FIT with the game aesthetically!

It'd be balanced if you could only swing it once every 4 seconds and you were totally helpless and immobile during those 4 seconds while reeling your arm back to swing again.

[Tydeus]

YOU MISSED THE POINT ENTIRELY.

A 200c flamberge will never exist BECAUSE to be believably "200c" it would have to be modeled as a light saber or some shit and THAT DOESN'T FIT with the game aesthetically!

Physically/historically a weapon can only be so powerful. THEREFORE, no super-crazy-death weapons would ever be a problem.

I didn't miss the point, I chose to completely ignore it as it holds zero relevance to what I was talking about. Go back, read what I first quoted, then read my reply to it. You need to either take back your gold balancing statement, or actually defend it as that is what I have been arguing against.

On your second point: Just because some fighting style can be made distinct from another fighting style doesn't mean it has to be "balanced" with all the rest. Maybe throwing weapons just suck dick, and you have to be poor peasant or a chucking badass to use them, huh? Gold cost and leveling limit the use of stronger fighting styles.

Throwing weapons are currently in a shitty position for dedicated throwers. If you're suggesting that they're not balanced for casual players but they are for competitive players; well that's you speaking, not me. You should be a bit more clear here with what you're implying.

[ArchonAlarion]

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.

"Skills 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 have a 100 skill points to use and a stack of bullets would require 50 skill points. It wouldn't change the fact that while in use, during the battle the item would be blatantly overpowered."

Gold cost is not the only way to limit the use of more effective items. Generally, harder hitting melee weapons will be heavy (If they are based on reality), so a low lvl char is not only slower swinging them, but also softer hitting; it may be more effective for them to take a 1h+shield, spear, throwing, or crossbow. Incentives to regenerate chars can be used to continually refresh the supply of lower level chars.

Much of the problem is the artificial division of weapons into "classes", which is partially the fault of the skill system and partially the fault of faddish conceptions about "medievaly" multiplayer games. If I'm a built, dexterous knight, why can't I draw a goddamn nomad bow? Really? What the hell is "power draw" anyway? I can wield a halberd, but I'm gonna struggle with bow that a peasant can use? Isn't power draw based on strength? Why is shield agility? What is the difference between a big 2h axe and a smallish poleaxe? A whole different proficiency category?

So much bullshit that boxes chars into class "paths," which forces the weapon styles to be equally effective for the bbbbbbbaaaaaaaallllllllllllllaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnncccccccccccccccceeeeeeeeeeeee.

There are no classes. Free yourself from the oppressive class system!!@!@!@

If you are strong you can wield a bow, hurl a spear, strike with an axe, and lift a shield. If you are a weak peasant, take a crossbow!

[Tzar]

Lol archonAlarion you clearly dont wanna lose your lol hybrid weapon we get it now  your arguments are a joke

but we dont care because we want range spam fest to end so we will keep on trying to make the normal xbow 2 slots until they give in..

[ArchonAlarion]

Lol archonAlarion you clearly dont wanna lose your lol hybrid weapon we get it now  your arguments are a joke

I have never used a crossbow in Crpg. I always play specialist builds (thus far, at least).

In other words, stfu.

but we dont care because we want range spam fest to end so we will keep on trying to make the normal xbow 2 slots until they give in..

So it is inconceivable that a man could carry a crossbow, bolts, and a morningstar?

I think I personally could manage a crossbow, bolts, morningstar, and a smallish shield, but that would be 6 slots. Making crossbows 2 slots means that they are really 3 slots because of ammo. THAT IS STUPID.

So anyone with a crossbow can either take 2 ammo, a shield, or a 1 slot weapon (whoopee over 0 slot wpns)?

Bye rhodoks. Remember those days of crossbow, shield and sword?  NOPE, BALANCE; PRAISE BE TO BALANCE!

Rock, Paper, and Holy Scissors AMEN!

[hiresx]

Your all kind of idiots for getting so arguementitive over crossbows.

I'm a dedicated Xbowman that runs a 10/30 build with 10 athletics/10weapon master at level 30. I use the Crossbow with 2 stacks of steel bolts and a melee weapon for "blocking" though I fail misserably at it. Damage wise the crossbow pretty much does nothing to heavily armored people unless I shoot them in the face or at point blank range.

At that point If I were a hybrid 2hander build shotgunning someone would probably be no different then hitting them with my weapon unless they are an amazing blocker. The only time my "damage" really shines is against cav because of their general highspeeds self impaling themselves on bolts for far more damage then I'd normally do.

Now the people I personally run into that use the xbow/2hander hybrid rarely stack up against an actual archer and I also see them get owned atleast 2/3rds the time against other dedicated 2 hander builds.  There are a couple of people who have the skill in both sniping and melee to make this seem rediculously overpowered build but those are like 1 in every 20-30 people you see I can really only name off Hospitaller_Frogger of people who strike me as making this build seem overpowered.

Now in regards if xbows are made into 2slotters it wouldn't really affect me much since I'd still have the same load out no matter what it would just change my weapon to a 0 slotter instead of a 1, but I don't think crossbows are strong enough to warrant any kind of change or 2 handers for that matter as 14 shots unless all shotgunned into peoples faces/chests with this weapon are minimal damage at full range unless the person it's hitting has a lot of momentum. So really this build only hurts low armored people like archers (who tend to run from melee guys anyways while drawing and firing till out of arrows) and jackass dedicated xbowmen like me.

[Tzar]

visitors can't see pics , please register or login


EU_1 as we speak 50% of the teams are wielding 2h/pole with their loomed xbows fun fun fun.....

[Tydeus]

"Skills 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 have a 100 skill points to use and a stack of bullets would require 50 skill points. It wouldn't change the fact that while in use, during the battle the item would be blatantly overpowered."

First of all, this argument isn't the same as my argument, at all. If you're actually talking skill points, then simply because of game mechanics, you'd never even be able to equip the weapon, thus it's essentially not in game. Second, gold has no relation to ones character aside from a mild increase in the average amount of gold one has, per gen of one's character. Skills on the other hand, are obtained through levels and are limited in supply. Gold has no cap. Because skills are limited, if you pump all of your skills into one thing, you're nerfing your character in several different aspects. There is no comparison here for gold.

Gold cost is not the only way to limit the use of more effective items. Generally, harder hitting melee weapons will be heavy (If they are based on reality), so a low lvl char is not only slower swinging them, but also softer hitting; it may be more effective for them to take a 1h+shield, spear, throwing, or crossbow. Incentives to regenerate chars can be used to continually refresh the supply of lower level chars.

Much of the problem is the artificial division of weapons into "classes", which is partially the fault of the skill system and partially the fault of faddish conceptions about "medievaly" multiplayer games. If I'm a built, dexterous knight, why can't I draw a goddamn nomad bow? Really? What the hell is "power draw" anyway? I can wield a halberd, but I'm gonna struggle with bow that a peasant can use? Isn't power draw based on strength? Why is shield agility? What is the difference between a big 2h axe and a smallish poleaxe? A whole different proficiency category?

So much bullshit that boxes chars into class "paths," which forces the weapon styles to be equally effective for the bbbbbbbaaaaaaaallllllllllllllaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnncccccccccccccccceeeeeeeeeeeee.

There are no classes. Free yourself from the oppressive class system!!@!@!@

If you are strong you can wield a bow, hurl a spear, strike with an axe, and lift a shield. If you are a weak peasant, take a crossbow!

I kind of agree with the emboldened statement, it would indeed be nice not being confined to one playstyle. This is an "rpg" though, so classes will be inevitable. Without classes, crpg would truly be native, but with more equipment.

[ArchonAlarion]

First of all, this argument isn't the same as my argument, at all. If you're actually talking skill points, then simply because of game mechanics, you'd never even be able to equip the weapon, thus it's essentially not in game. Second, gold has no relation to ones character aside from a mild increase in the average amount of gold one has, per gen of one's character. Skills on the other hand, are obtained through levels and are limited in supply. Gold has no cap. Because skills are limited, if you pump all of your skills into one thing, you're nerfing your character in several different aspects. There is no comparison here for gold.

Currently, yes you are right about gold being relatively unlimited. Would you agree that gold gain could be modified to make what I'm describing possible?

I kind of agree with the emboldened statement, it would indeed be nice not being confined to one playstyle. This is an "rpg" though, so classes will be inevitable. Without classes, crpg would truly be native, but with more equipment.

Native also has classes, sorta (infantry, archer, cavalry). I don't understand why a "role-playing" game needs to have rigid classes though. Classes will come about naturally. Like I said, the skill system would need to be changed, however unlikely that is.

[Aspect]

-1 to this topic.

The flexibility and versatility of builds really makes cRPG interesting.
Making all xbows two slots will just limit the variety of builds we have in the game.

Sure, balance matters, but in the end it still comes down to the skill level of the player.

Signed,
Kolee

[Tomas_of_Miles]

-1 to this topic.

The flexibility and versatility of builds really makes cRPG interesting.
Making all xbows two slots will just limit the variety of builds we have in the game.

Sure, balance matters, but in the end it still comes down to the skill level of the player AND the coordination of the team..

Signed,
Kolee