Ranged stagger: Should it stay or should it go

[Awea]

Stunns make it harder.

cool.
Sorry.

[Kafein]

Honestly, I think the game was far better balanced when cut weapons had a good chance of actually glancing against high armor values back in older cRPG. So people used fast swords to kill light infantry and often had backup hammers or picks to deal with heavy armor. Totally reasonable.

A couple years ago they totally fucked the soak/whatever values for armor that basically made cut do one half as much damage and pierce/blunt be way way stronger, but removed cut glancing. So in turn people went to full STR builds with great swords and bardiches to do similar damage and were the best in every situation (often still are.)

Now they nerfed WPF so basically everyone takes a million hits to kill regardless of build or IF because most weapons do pathetic damage against armor, unless you are using an awlpike type weapon or pierce ranged, which do relatively far too much damage on top of their other benefits.

Aka nerf buff fix armor penetration/soak values and you will find yourself with a more balanced game overall.

Cherish that upvote

[Rumblood]

Honestly, I think the game was far better balanced when cut weapons had a good chance of actually glancing against high armor values back in older cRPG. So people used fast swords to kill light infantry and often had backup hammers or picks to deal with heavy armor. Totally reasonable.

A couple years ago they totally fucked the soak/whatever values for armor that basically made cut do one half as much damage and pierce/blunt be way way stronger, but removed cut glancing. So in turn people went to full STR builds with great swords and bardiches to do similar damage and were the best in every situation (often still are.)

Now they nerfed WPF so basically everyone takes a million hits to kill regardless of build or IF because most weapons do pathetic damage against armor, unless you are using an awlpike type weapon or pierce ranged, which do relatively far too much damage on top of their other benefits.

Aka nerf buff fix armor penetration/soak values and you will find yourself with a more balanced game overall.

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[Gafferjack]

Without ranged stun, low damaging projectiles will become pointless.

Not really. Even just the normal stun of being damaged is enough to make an attack that would have been blocked a hit. Additionally, it's easier to stun somebody repeatedly to prevent them from firing/reloading/moving/whatever with faster weapons (which are typically less damaging), simply because you have more projectiles in the air.

Right now they are used to interrupt enemy attack and stop him in his tracks.

You don't need rangedstagger for that, it just makes it ten times easier to line up another shot (or swing at somebody, etc). And, obviously, it makes archers (or throwers, or crossbowmen) on hills able to send you flying downhill at top speed.

That is to say, rangedstagger isn't an enjoyable game mechanic, at least for me and many others. It's like being kicked, except it has incredibly long range and can be achieved completely by accident and without intention.

Essentially, it's RNG bullshit. It needs to be removed, and any ranged balance changes after that can be applied if neccessary.

[Rumblood]

Essentially, it's RNG bullshit. It needs to be removed, and any ranged balance changes after that can be applied if neccessary.

The anti-ranged lobby will just have it removed, then 2 weeks later be right back here lobbying to have the balancing changes reverted because they were "too much", "bring it down because now XXXX is ridiculous". Then after getting the balancing change reduced, a month later they'll be back here again lobbying to have another balance change reduced as well, or completely remove the one that "needs to be brought down to a realistic number".
It's a never ending cycle. No matter what has been done to ranged, the same lobbying group is always here trying to get those classes removed or reduced to uselessness. It has been going on since the mods inception. They will never be happy unless those classes are removed. 

[Canary]

Yes, of course. We ought not to remove a bogus, unfun and inconsistent mechanic because people will complain about marginally related changes when they happen at the same time as the removal.

Or it could just be removed like polestagger was without any kind of statistical compensation.

[Rumblood]

Yes, of course. We ought not to remove a bogus, unfun and inconsistent mechanic because people will complain about marginally related changes when they happen at the same time as the removal.

Or it could just be removed like polestagger was without any kind of statistical compensation.

A great number of the players in the community don't buy your characterizations of that feature. A great number may, but it may simply be the very vocal minority that has always existed in the anti-ranged lobby. And if it does get removed, it sure as hell better not be replaced with "marginally related changes".

[Kafein]

Did I see someone use a slippery slope argument?

[Rumblood]

Did I see someone use a slippery slope argument?

It wasn't an argument at all. No attempt was made to state the benefits or detriments of various changes. It was a flat out prophecy.

[Canary]

A great number of the players in the community don't buy your characterizations of that feature. A great number may, but it may simply be the very vocal minority that has always existed in the anti-ranged lobby.

Sounds like the vocal minority of anti-polestagger-removal lobbyers. They didn't buy that removing polestagger would leave polearms in a place to compete on par with the other melee classes. Except instead of assuming what you call a "vocal minority" is inherently wrong, foot-based polearms are the least used melee weapon on battle servers currently (that is, the least damage dealt comes from them compared to 1h and 2h).

(for the record, I was all for the removal of polestagger as a bogus, unfun and inconsistent mechanic and I didn't feel polearms particularly needed drastic, sweeping buffs just because it was removed)

And if it does get removed, it sure as hell better not be replaced with "marginally related changes".

It would be fair to have it replaced by nothing, in all honesty. What I meant by"marginally related" was that, in your example, if people complained about ranged after it received a mechanics nerf, it would be because of a noticeable statistical change to an item or several items occurring at the same time as the removal of a game mechanic; a change that wouldn't directly be tied to the mechanics nerf except in the perspective that it was recompense for the loss of a very significant game mechanic. A buff occuring at the same time isn't necessarily because of the loss of ranged stagger, should it happen. As mentioned before, polearms didn't get buffed at all when polestagger was removed. Only a few specific polearms have ever been buffed since then, as well, almost a year later.

[Rumblood]

If people complained about ranged after it received a mechanics nerf, it would be because of a noticeable statistical change to an item or several items occurring at the same time as the removal of a game mechanic

That's really an assumption that 3 years of cRPG has proven to thus far be mistaken. Anti-ranged will always be here asking to reduce its effectiveness, no matter what you do. Even if you reduce it to exactly what they ask for, they will be back in a month asking to reduce it more.
And I will always be here just as loud as they are. Anytime you aren't, changes get ramrodded through because apparently everyone must agree since nobody is in opposition. I'm not even making this up, many of them have admitted on these boards that the removal of ranged is their ultimate goal.
In the meantime, actual issues are not addressed because they are given what they are clamoring for instead of what the game needs.

[darmaster]

Honestly I can't believe some people are actually thinking it's a good feature; it has no reason to exist, just like polestun. 

[Canary]

That's really an assumption that 3 years of cRPG has proven to thus far be mistaken. Anti-ranged will always be here asking to reduce its effectiveness, no matter what you do. Even if you reduce it to exactly what they ask for, they will be back in a month asking to reduce it more.
And I will always be here just as loud as they are.

We could just drop the argumentative "THE ___ LOBBY SUCKS" attitude and go back to the merits of changes and stop being so dismissive.

Is your argument really to never nerf ranged at all because people will complain about it whether it's nerfed or not? I am having trouble accepting the credibility of what you've been saying based on some of your posts I've been reading.

Anytime you aren't, changes get ramrodded through because apparently everyone must agree since nobody is in opposition. I'm not even making this up, many of them have admitted on these boards that the removal of ranged is their ultimate goal. In the meantime, actual issues are not addressed because they are given what they are clamoring for instead of what the game needs.

The people who actually make balance changes haven't said any such thing, and they've typically ignored baseless and nonsensical lobbying as much as you're dismissing any proposed negative change or rebalance to ranged weapons based on some overblown strawman lobby.

I'm curious as to what "actual issues" haven't been addressed, in your opinion. Several changes, most within the last few months, have gone leaps and bounds to improve broken mechanics and remove outdated flaws the game engine has had since its inception. Balance changes are actually being discussed and implementation of changes are not subject to rare whimsy and select opinions without discussion any longer. Here you're not only dismissing the idea that someone might have a valid opinion because of what extreme view their idea might align with, but you're also dismissing the actual process of game balance that goes on and the changes that have been made and are being made.

[Sandersson Jankins]

visitors can't see pics , please register or login


I used to pity EU1, but holy shit we're right there with them now, except NA doesn't have the luxury of a populated siege server.

The main problem is that there is no class balance between teams in-game. Nothing prevents all the archers from getting balanced to a single team and making life hell for the other team. Ideally, banner balance should take priority, with a roughly 50% class balance in regards to cavalry and ranged players. This requires some amount of coding which I'm completely ignorant about, if it is even feasible/possible.

Of course, there's also the problem of the counter to ranged (besides lol git a shield scrub, which is moot when you can shoot under and under shields with bows/throwing, and through shields with arbalest) is more ranged. People get tired of getting hit by nothing but projectiles every single round, so they level an alt or get on a skip the fun ranged character, making it even worse for the poor motherfuckers that don't do that.

I can't think of a good way to prevent that problem, besides removing ranged from the game, which would be stupid. Ranged is great if less than 2/5 of the server is ranged.

[Andswaru]

(click to show/hide)

I used to pity EU1, but holy shit we're right there with them now, except NA doesn't have the luxury of a populated siege server.

The main problem is that there is no class balance between teams in-game. Nothing prevents all the archers from getting balanced to a single team and making life hell for the other team. Ideally, banner balance should take priority, with a roughly 50% class balance in regards to cavalry and ranged players. This requires some amount of coding which I'm completely ignorant about, if it is even feasible/possible.

Of course, there's also the problem of the counter to ranged (besides lol git a shield scrub, which is moot when you can shoot under and under shields with bows/throwing, and through shields with arbalest) is more ranged. People get tired of getting hit by nothing but projectiles every single round, so they level an alt or get on a skip the fun ranged character, making it even worse for the poor motherfuckers that don't do that.

I can't think of a good way to prevent that problem, besides removing ranged from the game, which would be stupid. Ranged is great if less than 2/5 of the server is ranged

.

Welcome to hell, in the free repec we got a while ago i made sure to rebalance my main melee build as a strength whoring ironflesh hero, nearly useless with a sword in melee, decent against shielders with my maul since people seem to panic when they see a mauler.
I can take 3 arrows and have a SLIM surival chance with my 63 body armour. Horsed range were nearly usless against me except for the arrow stun, will be interesting too see how this plays out now with the new changes to Horse ranged. Of course I still get 1 shot to the head.. dont even know why i bothered getting a helmet 

visitors can't see pics , please register or login
 visitors can't see pics , please register or login