Thx for unleashing the next ranged shitstorm

[Kafein]

Yes, I do like glancing. I think the game was better before they fucked with armor soak and crap, where high armor was more likely to cause glances against cut weapons. Instead they took away glances while also lessening cut damage for whatever reason turning people into HP sponges. Attacks should be lethal if they are well placed and timed, but spamming at someone without skill should be more likely to cause a glance, letting your opponent continue a swing and getting a hit. I think it makes the game more skill based and gives armor more of a purpose than increasing effective HP.

I agree with you there (I should go see a therapist asap), however glances were much too unpredictable. Nobody likes knockdown because it's based on RNG. Armor soak was extremely random afaik so the difference was more luck than skill.

[San]

Back then, armor was much more randomized, so often times a well placed swing would cause a glance. With the lack of randomization, it could more safely go back to that, but that would also increase damage by a large margin all around, especially ranged (oddly, penetration with the old values reduced damage instead of an increase). In fact, most glances back then can be argued that thy occurred due to RNG, while glances today are more timing-based.

[Algarn]

Stop crying. I need 6 bodkin arrows with NINE fucking power draw to kill a guy with a plate (of course, longbow +3), and 5/4 shots to kill a guy wearing a rus scale armor or something around. But, I'm still getting 1/2 hits by 1h cav, and by other backstabbing cunts, whoever they are. Even if myself, know that I'm pissed off by finishing the round with one arrow in the head and four arrows in the chest, I don't want to see ranged nerfed again. Why ? Ranged in general on foot is probably the hardest thing after horse archery when you see the scores guys like Goztepe or whoever, good at melee and at ranged, can get. He gets like 5:1 on half of cases when playing melee, and 2.5:1 on 1/3 of cases when playing ranged. Furthermore, I barely see any other ranged than me often topping the scoreboard (score, no kills). If you got the same level of skill when playing ranged or melee, you 'll do less kills in 3/4 of cases with a bow than with a 2handed sword, or a polearm , etc.

Ranged doesn't need a nerf, or a counter, since any class can counter ranged, it all depends of situations. I say, fuck the autobalance, putting all ranged in a team, and all other guys in another is simply terrible. A good autobalance would solve the problem, not the fucking nerf/buff/nerf/buff infernal cycle.

[Macropus]

To make up for no ranged capability the ranged player should be similarly handicapped when they're at melee range.

Nope, because Melee > Ranged. Pure melee is more effective than pure ranged.

[Thryn]

Yes, I do like glancing

1/10 rhetorical question, see me after you're done writing a book over agincourt

[Kafein]

Ranged doesn't need a nerf, or a counter, since any class can counter ranged, it all depends of situations.

Of course it depends on the situation. Considering the situation in which there is one archer stuck in a cage and three shielders jump into the cage to finish him, ranged doesn't need a nerf. That's absolutely a reasonable argument.

I say, fuck the autobalance, putting all ranged in a team, and all other guys in another is simply terrible. A good autobalance would solve the problem, not the fucking nerf/buff/nerf/buff infernal cycle.

"Hey guys, classes are balanced and ranged doesn't need a nerf or a counter but when one team is filled with ranged the game sucks for the other team for some reason. I totally am not contradicting myself."

[Grumbs]

Nope, because Melee > Ranged. Pure melee is more effective than pure ranged.

Its a different role. Ranged have a much bigger choice in who they deal damage to as they don't have to step close to the target. More sources of damage can be applied to one target at a time than melee (2-3 with melee before you start team hitting). There is little or no test of skill between players (it is one sided, not really PVP so even the best players will get killed by the worst). They are a constant threat to cav wheras cav can maneuver away from melee to pick off targets. They soften up targets before melee fights can take place..this means that KDR can be scewed - a ranged player will deal damage to more varied targets while melee will typically focus on a few per round if they get in melee range

You get that totally different role alongside good melee capability, especially as a xbow player will no skill investment worth mentioning. Plus you can have a shield that can delay melee for however long the shield lasts, or can defend against other ranged, or manual block and have good melee weapons.

Also look at the level 35 builds you can have as an archer:

18/24:

4IF
6PS

This makes you as good as most lvl 30's in melee except for armour which has plus and - elements to it (speed or protection)

8 Athletics (kite or extra damage bonus in melee)
8 WM (high archer WPF and decent 1 or 2 hand WPF)
6 PD (all you need for any bow)

It lets you hybrid and be master of all trades. This kind of build compliments good players and makes bad players look mediocre or good. Optionally use a low PD bow, 1 stack of arrows, 2 hander and light/medium armour.

Or play xbow and have it even easier. I even pick up xbows on the battlefield and kill things with 1 wpf

[Algarn]

"Hey guys, classes are balanced and ranged doesn't need a nerf or a counter but when one team is filled with ranged the game sucks for the other team for some reason. I totally am not contradicting myself."

If there are 50/50 archers, it can be fine. Not about nerfing or not, even if the numbers are high, it's still much harder to play than heavy cav. As I said, auto balance should solve this problem.

[Kafein]

If there are 50/50 archers, it can be fine.

You keep on confirming my point. If there's 50/50 archers nobody cares. If there's 0/100 archers the team with 0 archers will suffer regardless of the rest of that team's composition. Even full shielders or full heavy cav isn't gonna cut it against full archers.

Not about nerfing or not, even if the numbers are high, it's still much harder to play than heavy cav.

Depends on what you call hard to play. Any idiot can play ranged, survive a round until the end and eventually make a kill or two. Any idiot can charge with his heavy horse and possibly make a kill that way, blowing all your upkeep out the window for basically nothing. The difference is, it takes skill, that even the best cav players don't have, to survive for long as cav.

As I said, auto balance should solve this problem.

Again, forcing class-based balance is fixing the symptoms and not the actual problem. We would not need any kind of class balance if the classes were actually balanced. Right now we need class balance because a full ranged team has the advantage over a balanced team. If that doesn't tell you there's something horribly wrong with the game, I don't know what does.

[Mr.K.]

Again, forcing class-based balance is fixing the symptoms and not the actual problem. We would not need any kind of class balance if the classes were actually balanced. Right now we need class balance because a full ranged team has the advantage over a balanced team. If that doesn't tell you there's something horribly wrong with the game, I don't know what does.

That's the most retarded thing I've read from you in a quite a while and that's saying something. Team full of two-handers should never ever be able to beat a team full of archers, nor should a team full of archers be able to beat team full of heavy cav.

Full ranged team doesn't have advantage anyway.  Full melee team will win every round if you put them up against a full cav or ranged team. Problems arise when there's just enough ranged and melee on one team, but the other team is lacking one or the other. Then the ranged has enough support that can stop the melee from chasing and the melee gets support from the archers. The full melee team will get shot to pieces - as it should. This is why we need class balance.

[Kafein]

Is this the thread where we are supposed to contradict ourselves all the time ?

Team full of two-handers should never ever be able to beat a team full of archers,

And it doesn't. In this case the balance works correctly as it is.

nor should a team full of archers be able to beat team full of heavy cav.

Yet a team full of archers does beat a team full of heavy cav, perhaps with some exceptions if the map is extremely favorable to cav.

Full ranged team doesn't have advantage anyway.  Full melee team will win every round if you put them up against a full cav or ranged team.

Fact check : no.

Problems arise when there's just enough ranged and melee on one team, but the other team is lacking one or the other. Then the ranged has enough support that can stop the melee from chasing and the melee gets support from the archers. The full melee team will get shot to pieces - as it should. This is why we need class balance.

So you start criticizing me for saying things I didn't say, then you point out that against a balanced team "The full melee team will get shot to pieces - as it should." which is exactly my point. A balanced team should be the optimal team. But it isn't. You can have 0 cav and 60% ranged in your team and still win more often than not. That is the real problem. If a balanced team is better, then we don't need class balance to make sure that teams don't get too strong when they are unbalanced, because they will actually be weaker.

[Rico]

Compare it to Bec de Corbin and Awlpike with 36p each, and usually at least 7 PS and 150+ wpf, a Short Sword with 29p, 5 PS and 50 wpf is very weak.

Having a Short Sword against an S-keying dos handres hero is also a pretty bad matchup.

[Grumpy_Nic]

Compare it to Bec de Corbin and Awlpike with 36p each, and usually at least 7 PS and 150+ wpf, a Short Sword with 29p, 5 PS and 50 wpf is very weak.

Having a Short Sword against an S-keying dos handres hero is also a pretty bad matchup.

S-keying doesnt work vs ranged 

[Mr.K.]

So you start criticizing me for saying things I didn't say, then you point out that against a balanced team "The full melee team will get shot to pieces - as it should." which is exactly my point. A balanced team should be the optimal team. But it isn't. You can have 0 cav and 60% ranged in your team and still win more often than not. That is the real problem. If a balanced team is better, then we don't need class balance to make sure that teams don't get too strong when they are unbalanced, because they will actually be weaker.

I may have misunderstood what you meant, sorry about that. There are some people that actually think everything should be able to counter anything, so even two-handers should be able to kill horse archers or at least be immune to them. However I think where we disagree is what constitutes a balanced team.

What's the acceptable amount of archers in your opinion? On a siege map, why wouldn't team half filled with ranged rather than cavalry be better? Then we could very reasonably in my opinion question why the heck do we play siege maps on the battle server anyway. Over half of the maps highly favor ranged classes, even though the classes themselves aren't that strong when they can be countered. Other than horse archers who can't be and who have been ridonkulously overbuffed.

Yet a team full of archers does beat a team full of heavy cav, perhaps with some exceptions if the map is extremely favorable to cav.

On most maps high number of heavy cav will decimate the enemy team, doesn't matter if it's ranged or infantry. You could see the Barabes doing that at one point. Though you could say this is is mostly because people seem to have zero interest in checking their surroundings before they engage the enemy. For me personally cavalry very seldom causes much problems even in high numbers.

[Macropus]

full heavy cav isn't gonna cut it against full archers

I call it bullshit, cav would wreck the archer team on any map except for siege ones.