All X-Bows Should be Two Slots

[Darkkarma]

Stationary targets take player skill out of the accuracy equation in which case it becomes almost entirely about the crossbow. I won't argue the K:D bit as I'm not a crossbowman. I'm satisfied with "sub-par" the first time I pick-up a crossbow in two months and only have 1 wpf. I've never thought crossbow damage was the issue, which would probably be the largest contributing factor to K:D. I honestly had at the very least, a 40% accuracy rating with the crossbow but that can't be seen without an assist counter. I was hitting people but not dealing deadly amounts of damage per shot, not like I was using a Heavy or an Arbalest either though.

I find it hard to take the "situational" argument seriously, especially when we're talking about not even having to put wpf into a crossbow to begin with. If you're only talking about rain or maybe extremely heavy fog, I can only imagine that fucks over dedicated crossbowmen far more than one that hasn't put anything into it to begin with, since they can just fall back to their melee spec.

The issue for me has never been damage per shot, it's been the ease at which one can be useful or even good with a crossbow at 1 wpf (I can only assume, had I put my miaodao down and gotten a heavy or arbalest, I'd have been a much better crossbowman). What's to stop a team of 30 people in a battle server from all having ranged, consisting of Archers, throwers and all of the melee using crossbows with 1 wpf? Strategically speaking, it's a solid strategy, especially for a pub. When you can just run from melee indefinitely and wait for a teammate or two to pick the chasing infantry off, the only thing that can stop archers/crossbowers in this situation, is cavalry. The problem with cavalry being a viable counter to this strategy is that you'll never have enough people on your team as cavalry(most people don't have 3+ riding) and if you run with fewer than that, your horses are going to be sitting ducks due to the number of ranged they have to go up against. But even then, that example assumes the best case scenario for cavalry, flat ground with little to not trees or buildings(There are very few of these types of maps in actual play, if any). Worse still, is that for the crossbowmen, they're actually dedicated melee, not crossbowmen at all. Even if you do manage to get the upper hand against "crossbowmen", you didn't against the other weapon they're carrying and also much more proficient with.

I can already hear the screams of how far fetched this is and that it's just theoretical and will never happen. The problem is that I've already seen the NA 80 man become damn close to this, several times. You can attest to this Karma, you were there with Marcus yesterday for the map where it was just about at its worst yet.


On a side note, I did notice that when there were very few people on, my accuracy was perfect. If I missed a shot, it was because I misjudged something. But as the population on the server rose however, my bolts were veering off into random directions quite often. I can only assume this is due to the same issue that fucks my feints, blocks and animations up, under the same playercount, packet loss. This paired with rain could really fuck over crossbows but I don't think this should be used to balance a class.

I apologize man, I think I misunderstood you, I'm in 100 percent agreement that regular and lower end crossbows are too easy to hybrid with. I would personally like to see a steeper wpf requirement added in OR something akin to a power draw stat given for crossbows. Doing this IMO, would bring down the FOTM ranged ratio down considerably. All we'd have to worry about then is them all going archer and doing lame ass loki style tactics.(which you can bet they will do by and large)

[MouthnHoof]

If you don't want to completely screw over xbowmen who like sword n board, give them a crappy 0 slot shield that can take arrows (high armor) but gets wrecked by melee (low health) and of course cannot be used on horseback, is small but heavy.

0-slot shield would be acceptable if it is also "cannot sheath". It will drop to the ground every time you pull out the xbow, but you can pick it up when you move. It is not like you reload on the run anyway.

[ArchonAlarion]

Reality has nothing to do with game balance.

It can. Why have crossbows at all? Why do  they need a long reload time? Why make them separate from bows at all?

If you have no criteria for determining how a weapon should function, then you can argue for it to function any way imaginable. "Balance" is not criteria. You can eliminate all weapons but daggers and shields and have a "balanced" game.

You cannot use "balance" as an argument for how a weapon should function, because alterations in other areas of the game can "unbalance" the weapon once again, thus making the whole point of your original alteration meaningless.

Realism is a (more or less) set in stone, objective standard to measure changes against. We know from accumulated knowledge that real life has its own balance, and where it is not "fair", limitations can be imposed to ensure all players have a chance to be entertained/empowered. I believe these "balancing" changes should be out of combat limitations, not a distortion of item function itself. Gold cost is a portion of this out of combat balancing action.

The xbow has its place, but not as a no skill requirement ranged weapon to make melee on equal footing with other dedicated ranged weapon users.

That is the entire point of this weapon. It is not a 'crossbow" if it does not function like one.

Gold cost is not an effective balancing tool for a general class of weapons, only for differentiating between lower and upper tier version of that weapon.

Why? The Gold cost, weight cost, and slot cost is already enough for me to refuse a crossbow for my melee chars.

On top of this is the hidden cost of wasting my melee chars potential by dinking around with a crossbow instead of using my melee weapons I'm paying for.

ALSO, if the difficulty of bows and throwing were based on Strength, then more hybrids would use them if their strength was high enough for the choice to be effective. Crossbows do not require much strength to be used, but are slow to reload and expensive.

At a certain strength, it would become more effective to use a cheaper bow than a crossbow. Longbowmen were better than crossbowmen, but required almost lifetime strength training. Ideally, crossbows are good for wealthy chars who lack strength (something like a 4th generation peasant).

[Chaos]

It can. Why have crossbows at all? Why do  they need a long reload time? Why make them separate from bows at all?

If you have no criteria for determining how a weapon should function, then you can argue for it to function any way imaginable. "Balance" is not criteria. You can eliminate all weapons but daggers and shields and have a "balanced" game.

You cannot use "balance" as an argument for how a weapon should function, because alterations in other areas of the game can "unbalance" the weapon once again, thus making the whole point of your original alteration meaningless.

Realism is a (more or less) set in stone, objective standard to measure changes against. We know from accumulated knowledge that real life has its own balance, and where it is not "fair", limitations can be imposed to ensure all players have a chance to be entertained/empowered. I believe these "balancing" changes should be out of combat limitations, not a distortion of item function itself. Gold cost is a portion of this out of combat balancing action.

That is the entire point of this weapon. It is not a 'crossbow" if it does not function like one.

Why? The Gold cost, weight cost, and slot cost is already enough for me to refuse a crossbow for my melee chars.

On top of this is the hidden cost of wasting my melee chars potential by dinking around with a crossbow instead of using my melee weapons I'm paying for.

ALSO, if the difficulty of bows and throwing were based on Strength, then more hybrids would use them if their strength was high enough for the choice to be effective. Crossbows do not require much strength to be used, but are slow to reload and expensive.

At a certain strength, it would become more effective to use a cheaper bow than a crossbow. Longbowmen were better than crossbowmen, but required almost lifetime strength training. Ideally, crossbows are good for wealthy chars who lack strength (something like a 4th generation peasant).

An extra few thousand gold should not give an untrained infantryman the same competitive range capabilities as the dedicated archers who trained specifically for this purpose. This has been agreed upon by most of the community as good game balancing.

While realism provides a basis for the game's concepts, realism does not have to strictly govern every function and should not because the game lacks many elements that affect reality (the game is far cruder and intended to equally empower each player in a variety of different ways, hence not every player with some gold buying a warhorse and plate armor to trample entire teams of peasants to death)

And while obviously a melee character should stick to melee as yours does, they do not because they have recognized the value of having ranged capabilities, capabilities that they should not have without sacrificing melee proficiency

[Damug]

An extra few thousand gold should not give an untrained infantryman the same competitive range capabilities as the dedicated archers who trained specifically for this purpose.

A few thousand extra gold does no such thing.  Put a posse of untrained infantrymen carrying crossbows up against a posse of dedicated archers at range in game.  The archers will win every time.

[Starfucker]

I'm not sure if this is possible, but I'd like to see a reload speed skill added for crossbowmen. The more you skill points you put into reload the faster you can shoot again and the less time you spend as a sitting duck. The speed of the crossbows would be lowered so that you need maybe 3 reload skill to achieve the current reload speed.

It could replace strength as the requirement for crossbows, so that some skill investment is necessary to use crossbows. It would reward dedicated crossbowmen with quicker reloads, while still allowing hybrids. It should be strength based both for realism purposes (it takes strength to reload a crossbow) and for balance purposes (dedicated crossbowmen could emphasize reload speed or accuracy, giving incentive to put more in strength than is required to carry a crossbow).

Right now crossbows standout as the class with no dedicated skills, and I feel that a power draw type skill  would go against the spirit of the class. I want to reward dedicated crossbow and legitimate hybrids while removing the ability to buy a couple of extra hits and kills at the beginning of a battle.

[Chaos]

A few thousand extra gold does no such thing.  Put a posse of untrained infantrymen carrying crossbows up against a posse of dedicated archers at range in game.  The archers will win every time.

Put a posse of trained crossbowmen against a posse of dedicated archers at range in game and the archers will still win. This is how it should be, and I'm quite happy with this disparity keeping dedicated archers as the kings of range and dedicated xbowmen as underdog competitors with a slightly different function on the battlefield. Good cover obviously helps the xbowmen's cause but then the difference between the chances of the untrained infantry with xbows and the dedicated xbowmen is too small atm, especially if both groups are using the regular xbow.

And a strength based reload speed skill is actually a great idea as far as I can imagine. Good looks, Starfucker +1

[Malaclypse]

All 2handers and polearms should be 3 slots, with maybe a few lower tier items being 1-2 slots imo, lances for cav among those. This wouldn't really hurt dedicated PA/2h players, but would kill pocket xbows with no skill investment.

[Chaos]

All 2handers and polearms should be 3 slots, with maybe a few lower tier items being 1-2 slots imo, lances for cav among those. This wouldn't really hurt dedicated PA/2h players, but would kill pocket xbows with no skill investment.

This would prevent hybrid infantry from taking good 2h/polearm and 1h+shield, which I'm not sure is completely desirable, certainly not from an anti cav perspective which must also always be kept in mind.

[ArchonAlarion]

I don't like the idea of items having any other requirement than strength.

If I'm able to wield a great maul, I can definitely pick up a crossbow and shoot it without trouble. If I the player am unskilled at using crossbows, this should be the determinant of how well I fare.

Attributes represent aspects of the character that the player cannot directly control through mouse and keyboard movements (such as a char's physical strength).

Skills are for unlocking/improving certain aspects of the game that are supposed to be complicated, professional activities IRL but which the game has made simple (riding a horse = press f and go).

I do not believe crossbow usage (compared to all other tools/activities in the game) has been simplified enough to warrant a skill barrier. In fact it would be far easier to shoot a crossbow than to effectively swing a poleaxe.

The strength attribute already represents an entry barrier. Crossbows should have a low XP/Strength barrier, but a high Gold barrier, adjusted to an efficient cost. This could mean that crossbows become more expensive, I haven't looked into it too too far.

[kukufarikki]

I don't like the idea of items having any other requirement than strength.

If I'm able to wield a great maul, I can definitely pick up a crossbow and shoot it without trouble. If I the player am unskilled at using crossbows, this should be the determinant of how well I fare.

Attributes represent aspects of the character that the player cannot directly control through mouse and keyboard movements (such as a char's physical strength).

Skills are for unlocking/improving certain aspects of the game that are supposed to be complicated, professional activities IRL but which the game has made simple (riding a horse = press f and go).

I do not believe crossbow usage (compared to all other tools/activities in the game) has been simplified enough to warrant a skill barrier. In fact it would be far easier to shoot a crossbow than to effectively swing a poleaxe.

The strength attribute already represents an entry barrier. Crossbows should have a low XP/Strength barrier, but a high Gold barrier, adjusted to an efficient cost. This could mean that crossbows become more expensive, I haven't looked into it too too far.

god no, i already lose money as it is wearing light-medium armor and an arbalest with its 1000 gold repair plus 130 for bolts, almost every freaking round

[Starfucker]

I don't like the idea of items having any other requirement than strength.

If I'm able to wield a great maul, I can definitely pick up a crossbow and shoot it without trouble. If I the player am unskilled at using crossbows, this should be the determinant of how well I fare.

Attributes represent aspects of the character that the player cannot directly control through mouse and keyboard movements (such as a char's physical strength).

Skills are for unlocking/improving certain aspects of the game that are supposed to be complicated, professional activities IRL but which the game has made simple (riding a horse = press f and go).

I do not believe crossbow usage (compared to all other tools/activities in the game) has been simplified enough to warrant a skill barrier. In fact it would be far easier to shoot a crossbow than to effectively swing a poleaxe.

The strength attribute already represents an entry barrier. Crossbows should have a low XP/Strength barrier, but a high Gold barrier, adjusted to an efficient cost. This could mean that crossbows become more expensive, I haven't looked into it too too far.

I've never shot a crossbow, so I can't comment on the amount of skill needed to shoot one. I don't think just anyone would be able to pick up a crossbow and use it efficiently.  This isn't a realism discussion though, it's a balance discussion.

As you said the strength attribute is the entry barrier for crossbows. With a whopping 10 strength entry barrier, only peasants and extreme agi whores are unable to carry one. The issue  at hand though is that there is almost nothing stopping anyone with  more than 10 strength from picking up a crossbow and using it to  augment their kills. I say almost because there is an issue of cost. Cost is a terrible balancing mechanism. We should never allow people to just buy kills. The playing field is quite uneven when it comes to gold, and an increase in cost would only dissuade the poor.

[Gorath]

I've never shot a crossbow, so I can't comment on the amount of skill needed to shoot one. I don't think just anyone would be able to pick up a crossbow and use it efficiently.

Point.  Pull trigger.

That's it.  Just like any modern day gun.  Sure you can train yourself to be more accurate, control recoil better, etc. but in the long run any pleb with one finger and a thumb can point and shoot a gun/xbow.

[ArchonAlarion]

. Cost is a terrible balancing mechanism. We should never allow people to just buy kills. The playing field is quite uneven when it comes to gold, and an increase in cost would only dissuade the poor.

Is it cost itself that is  ineffective or the current gold gain/repair/cost system?

People are already "buying" kills by spending their time leveling up.

[MouthnHoof]

Cost is a terrible balancing mechanism. We should never allow people to just buy kills. The playing field is quite uneven when it comes to gold, and an increase in cost would only dissuade the poor.

Horses and plate - spend the cash get the kills.

but I agree that this is not the solution to the over abundance of crossbows. Unsheathable 0-slot 2H/poles is.