Thx for unleashing the next ranged shitstorm

[San]

That makes sense. Most of the xbow players I see simply hide in the back/whichever place has the best cover available and snipe while hidden from view.

[Kafein]

I don't see why a melee character shouldn't have a significant advantage in melee range. To make up for no ranged capability the ranged player should be similarly handicapped when they're at melee range. That to me is a fundamental of game balance - pros and cons, strengths and weaknesses, playing to your strengths and minimising your weaknesses by the way you play. If a ranged player finds himself in melee range I don't see why he should have such good melee capability as well. Simply having manual block eliminates the melee player's damage, the same as a shield can. Why do they need more?

About shields..they obviously give you an extra layer of protection - both from actual counters i.e ranged (melee vs melee with few downsides isn't a counter), and it allows even the worst players to take a melee player out of the combat until the shield breaks, unless they outnumber the person 2:1+ and can nudge. If you don't spend your time hitting a shield they will just run away to reload, if you do spend your time hitting the shield you aren't helping your team in more effective areas. Then add on top the ridiculous 1 hand stab and they even have 0 slot 1 handers with a 29 pierce insta stab and OK swings. The balance is just really bad when it comes to hybriding melee with ranged

They don't need more and they really don't have more at the moment, that's my point. You are arguing like 0 slot 1h are the best weapons out there when factually they are the absolute worst by a very large margin.

In my opinion a pure melee should not hard counter a ranged class in melee neither should a pure ranged hard counter melee at range. I think the current state of the first issue is fine, because if you are a better player you can beat a bad player with a much better melee build. That's why melee combat in Warband is awesome. The other issue is much more problematic in its current state because pure range does indeed hard counter infantry at range, and it's one of the hardest counters in the game.

The point I agree with you is that shields are globally too good for people that rely on shields to waste time (armpit sweat does this, all the time), and something should probably be done about that. On the other hand, I think you need to acknowledge you bias when you say 0 slot 1h are too good.

[Grumbs]

My argument is that 0 slot weapon stats are too good for the number of slots they take up. 29 pierce 1 hander stab with decent reach and decent side swings is too much. They allow you to have very good ranged and melee with a shield even

Don't know if link will work, but look at the Broad Short Short for eg. I'd rather use that than a lot of 1 slot weapons

http://c-rpg.net/index.php?page=equipshop&cat=onehanded#!?page=itemdetail&id=520

When I say why do they need more..I mean shields only defensively counter a ranged attack, you can't follow up with an attack of your own. So why do ranged need to have good melee to follow up after a manual block? The manual block or shield block in melee completely eliminates the melee damage. Why do you need more considering melee don't do anything against ranged with the shield? Its having your cake and eating it, pewpewing when it suits, then doing decent melee when that suits

I don't even think ranged should use more than light armour, but they do. Plus decent melee weapons (archers use 2 handers even), plus a shield.

[Kafein]

My argument is that 0 slot weapon stats are too good for the number of slots they take up. 29 pierce 1 hander stab with decent reach and decent side swings is too much. They allow you to have very good ranged and melee with a shield even

Don't know if link will work, but look at the Broad Short Short for eg. I'd rather use that than a lot of 1 slot weapons

http://c-rpg.net/index.php?page=equipshop&cat=onehanded#!?page=itemdetail&id=520

When I say why do they need more..I mean shields only defensively counter a ranged attack, you can't follow up with an attack of your own. So why do ranged need to have good melee to follow up after a manual block? The manual block or shield block in melee completely eliminates the melee damage. Why do you need more considering melee don't do anything against ranged with the shield? Its having your cake and eating it, pewpewing when it suits, then doing decent melee when that suits

I don't even think ranged should use more than light armour, but they do. Plus decent melee weapons (archers use 2 handers even), plus a shield.

I think the power that ranged classes have in melee is fine. It puts them at a considerable disadvantage against any dedicated melee class such that ranged players only survive an encounter with melee if they are considerably more skilled in melee than whoever attacks them. What you are advocating is basically to remove all possibility to express that skill, and I think it's a terrible idea with respect to everything Warband stands for. I'm running around with very light or no armor at all and a 1h weapon and I don't have much issues killing archers and crossbowmen in melee, at all. Even considering that I'm basically using equipment that makes their job of killing me in melee as easy as possible, as 0 slot anything sucks against any kind of serious armor. When I use my 2h 24/18 char with heavy armor I seldom block against those guys. I have reach, speed, damage, weapon weight, HP and armor significantly better than them, I don't really need a brain.

I acknowledge the same issue as you :

Why do you need more considering melee don't do anything against ranged with the shield?

But I would rather change the way a melee player can deal with range (that is, improve it) rather than change the way a range player can deal with melee. Any nerf of the latter can only remove skill from the game and turn this into a RPS a little bit more, and I can't accept that.

[kono yaro!]

The melee ability of archers is not the thing you want to touch to bring the ranged frustation down. They would only kite more plus it doesn't make any sense.
It's not the ranged melee that we're concerned with, is it?

[Thryn]

mah 2 cents

+1 to slowing ranged projectiles

Buff cav, idc what stats - getting killed by them is better than this ranged shit

[Grumbs]

I think the power that ranged classes have in melee is fine. It puts them at a considerable disadvantage against any dedicated melee class such that ranged players only survive an encounter with melee if they are considerably more skilled in melee than whoever attacks them. What you are advocating is basically to remove all possibility to express that skill, and I think it's a terrible idea with respect to everything Warband stands for. I'm running around with very light or no armor at all and a 1h weapon and I don't have much issues killing archers and crossbowmen in melee, at all. Even considering that I'm basically using equipment that makes their job of killing me in melee as easy as possible, as 0 slot anything sucks against any kind of serious armor. When I use my 2h 24/18 char with heavy armor I seldom block against those guys. I have reach, speed, damage, weapon weight, HP and armor significantly better than them, I don't really need a brain.

I acknowledge the same issue as you :
But I would rather change the way a melee player can deal with range (that is, improve it) rather than change the way a range player can deal with melee. Any nerf of the latter can only remove skill from the game and turn this into a RPS a little bit more, and I can't accept that.

I see what you mean, but ranged vs melee can never be player vs player. The player getting shot can only try to avoid being hit..even if it was harder to hit players with projectiles they will only every be defensive counters. Especially when there are enough projectiles around, they will hit something regardless. When you get in melee range then its player vs player as both can do damage to each other and have the same counters. So I still don't see how it could be balanced to justify mixing good ranged ability with good melee.

I know RPS isn't desirable but projectile vs player will always be RPS even with a big overhaul of the ranged mechanics. It will still only be one player testing his own abilities rather than two players comparing them together. Even if you add more viable defensive counters, thats all they will be. Only one of the players can actually deal damage to the other until it comes to melee vs melee, and then there isn't really enough of a shift in power with the way the game is balanced atm. The better melee player will win, or the one who does best in that instance taking into account that they may well have been shot plenty already and whatever other factors might come into play. In practice it makes for some very bad game balance. You don't even need to attack back to completely negate damage by using manual block (or even use a shield), and when you get a chance you can kite again and its back to R,P,S

[Kafein]

In my opinion if you reduce missile speed there will be a point at which that comparison will be fair, even if melee is unable to retaliate at range (which indeed isn't going to change for good reason). Slower missile speed means the one being shot can make a conscious effort of dodging the projectiles instead of just moving around hoping to not get hit. Hence yes that can be a comparison of skill at dodging and skill at shooting, which is fine by me.

[Johnnyfirs]

Perhaps you could add 0 difficulty shields?
They'd break pretty fast, but it's better than trying to dance your way out of an arrowstorm.

[Thryn]

As it has been stated before, shields should require a strength difficulty.

For instance:

Steel Shield
difficulty: 5      = 15 STR to wield

I find this is a logical suggestion, but if we (by we, I mean weapon balancers) implemented it, it will force upon us some more stat changing and some shielder buffing and some more respeccing and some more (etc etc rant rant)



Conclusion: mod is ded

[Renay]

The solution is simple, we need plated donkeys that require 0 riding skill

[Smoothrich]

Just add a chance for ranged damage to be deflected if you (or a horse) have decent armor on, so they focus on shooting light cav and other archers/agi stacked light guys and let the manly men brawl in the center like the HP sponges we want to be.

I think all pierce damage should be like this, highly damaging but a chance to be deflected like a glancing blow against decent armor. Make stabbing less mindless.

Pitchforks and crap shouldn't rear horses every time at bizarre angles either, add an element of skill so head-on charges still rear, but at the sides or bad timing and you glance. Hell you should still have a chance to be knocked down if you rear a horse with a polearm, since there's no "bracing" mechanic.. which would be a great addition if there was still a coder on the team

[Thryn]

Just add a chance for ranged damage to be deflected if you (or a horse) have decent armor on, so they focus on shooting light cav and other archers/agi stacked light guys and let the manly men brawl in the center like the HP sponges we want to be.

I think all pierce damage should be like this, highly damaging but a chance to be deflected like a glancing blow against decent armor. Make stabbing less mindless.

Pitchforks and crap shouldn't rear horses every time at bizarre angles either, add an element of skill so head-on charges still rear, but at the sides or bad timing and you glance. Hell you should still have a chance to be knocked down if you rear a horse with a polearm, since there's no "bracing" mechanic.. which would be a great addition if there was still a coder on the team

Deflects = shitty in game (do you like glancing?)

Pitchforks and crap have good reason enuff to rear ponies

[Johnnyfirs]

Just add a chance for ranged damage to be deflected if you (or a horse) have decent armor on, so they focus on shooting light cav and other archers/agi stacked light guys and let the manly men brawl in the center like the HP sponges we want to be.

I think all pierce damage should be like this, highly damaging but a chance to be deflected like a glancing blow against decent armor. Make stabbing less mindless.

This. So much.
If you read the novel "Azincourt" by Bernard Cornwell (based on tons of historical sources) you'd see the same. A good chunk of the heavy plated french cavalry wore the famed milanese plated armor from Italy, an armor that was shaped and formed to make arrows glance off it. Sure many of these arrows would still hit and sure the French lost the battle of Agincourt, but this kind of armor was still revolutionary in a time where the shield was fading away and replaced by tincans.
I'm not an expert in history, but this seems pretty logical too.
Maybe add a chance of deflecting arrows on the high tier armors? Not sure how it would be calculated tho.

[Smoothrich]

Deflects = shitty in game (do you like glancing?)

Pitchforks and crap have good reason enuff to rear ponies

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.

This. So much.
If you read the novel "Azincourt" by Bernard Cornwell (based on tons of historical sources) you'd see the same. A good chunk of the heavy plated french cavalry wore the famed milanese plated armor from Italy, an armor that was shaped and formed to make arrows glance off it. Sure many of these arrows would still hit and sure the French lost the battle of Agincourt, but this kind of armor was still revolutionary in a time where the shield was fading away and replaced by tincans.

They lost bad at Agincourt because their cav did a frontal charge against massed archers, and the horses weren't armored at that time, just the knights were. So tons of horses got maimed in the mud pits, causing the cav charge to fail, and the rest was French infantry being pinned in by a mass of numbers on shit terrain, with their heavy armor and exhaustion causing everyone to fight terribly, fall in mud, and get wrecked by light infantry and men at arms.

Archers inflict terrible damage and morale shock against untrained, underequipped troops or unarmored horses, but armor was basically invented and perfected to minimize the risk from arrows and most weapons.

There's a Muslim account of the Battle of Arsuf during the Third Crusade, which is paraphrased on Wikipedia. "Baha al-Din also described the difference in power between the Crusader crossbow and the bows of his own army. He saw Frankish infantrymen with from one to ten arrows sticking from their armoured backs marching along with no apparent hurt, whilst the crossbows struck down both horse and man amongst the Muslims." Shit like this definitely has a place in a medieval combat game, annoys me that it doesn't really.