Dear balancers.

[CrazyCracka420]

Keep in mind conquest isn't the only way to solve this problem. Rather than trying to script/help script conquest+battle/xp system, players can simply choose to make battle maps which don't give any advantages to ranged or cav. To clarify, that's not to say you're giving them disadvantages, just that you're not allowing for height advantages, long range shooting or wide open areas.

Might sound boring(these types of maps were among the most popular back in the ATS server days), but each of those grants an advantage to either ranged or cavalry. Arena is one such example of this type of a map (although it's a bit extreme in how straight forward it is). Your choice.

I think the magic carpet (the Sarranid town looking map) is a good example.  It has pretty narrow corridors (but some open areas too) but it's pretty much all flat ground. 

[karasu]

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[Templar_Steevee]

Anything promoting a ranged player fighting in melee instead of turning tail and running away to kite is a great thing.

Lots of ppl (ranged) will run away anyway. I don't know why devs decreased quivers weight (irrationat way to prevent kiting but it works) after most of archers get accostumed to it.

Archers already have good 0 slot melee weapons to fight, but stil many of them hardly ever use them.

From my experience i know that tiny 0 slot swords are deadly even with 1 wpf and 2 PS( i have those values). Almost all is about what ranged have in their minds, not options devs can give them.

Why ppl are playing as HA and HX? Because only classes can counter them are other ranged (mounted ranged have huge benifit compere them to foot ranged players: faster positioning and easier way to choose their targets, insane possibility of kiting). If mounted ranged is dying to cav 1v1 its mostly because of their unaware or mistakes them made.

[Algarn]

Agreed with the first portion completely. Classes are fairly balanced in my opinion currently, but the mod would heavily benefit from some sort of class-balancing between teams. Of course, I've got no knowledge of how difficult (or even possible) this would be to implement.

I don't feel that ranged should have any increased time to draw a side-arm. Anything promoting a ranged player fighting in melee instead of turning tail and running away to kite is a great thing.

Quite strange to me, people on a side wanting ranged to fight instead of kiting like bitches, but on another side, people saying archers are way too powerful at melee. I'd myself love to fight instead of running, but I'm forced to kite, even with 5 athletics, since I can't even face an average melee player who got better weapons/armors than me. I'll die in a stupid way getting spammed, instead of surviving after taking him down in 40% of cases.

[San]

Lots of ppl (ranged) will run away anyway. I don't know why devs decreased quivers weight (irrationat way to prevent kiting but it works) after most of archers get accostumed to it.

A proposal was made by you know who about increasing headshot damage and lowering quiver weight. Headshot damage failed and quiver weight barely passed on the condition that the weight would slowly decrease and may be raised if it's deemed problematic again. Should the weight perhaps be increased again?

I think that ranged have mediocre melee abilities. They lack the wpf that pure builds have. The people complaining probably aren't pure builds themselves.

[Huscarlton_Banks]

I dunno why people are mentioning 0s weapons when most of the actual complaining about archers seems to be about fast missile speed/draw speed 1s bow users/HA, am I missing something?

I don't think that the quiver weight change did that much, most of the archers/crossbowmen I fight just drop their stuff and run, otherwise I'll end up catching them unless they're naked. I like to pick up the crossbow and run away if they drop it, usually gets them to actually fight.

Open, flat-ish maps tend to be seen as more fun, but people shouldn't be surprised if archers/crossbowmen get really annoying when they have clear LOS from a huge distance and barely have to adjust for height changes in most maps.

[Templar_Steevee]

I don't think that the quiver weight change did that much, most of the archers/crossbowmen I fight just drop their stuff and run

In 90 % when i drop my bow I fight with my OP 0 slot sword and 2PS or run away to find a better weapon.

[Grumbs]

Lots of ppl (ranged) will run away anyway. I don't know why devs decreased quivers weight (irrationat way to prevent kiting but it works) after most of archers get accostumed to it.

Archers already have good 0 slot melee weapons to fight, but stil many of them hardly ever use them.

From my experience i know that tiny 0 slot swords are deadly even with 1 wpf and 2 PS( i have those values). Almost all is about what ranged have in their minds, not options devs can give them.

Why ppl are playing as HA and HX? Because only classes can counter them are other ranged (mounted ranged have huge benifit compere them to foot ranged players: faster positioning and easier way to choose their targets, insane possibility of kiting). If mounted ranged is dying to cav 1v1 its mostly because of their unaware or mistakes them made.

Yup, making ranged strong in melee dilutes the purpose of the melee class, and it simply gives ranged players more options rather than encourages them to stop kiting. Ranged will still kite as much as they possibly can, its only when they are forced into melee that they will then try to use melee. Why on earth the devs though it would be different is beyond me. If you drop your ranged weapon when you're forced to you get huge speed bonus + great melee weapons. If you want to do well in melee you should need to play a pure melee class

[Mr_Oujamaflip]

Cavalry and Ranged control engagements because they can hit you when you can't help it, particularly ranged, cav has some degree of risk but they can still pick and choose when they want to fight. This is an inherent ability the class has and there is no way to nerf it.

What needs to be done is to give infantry players alternate ways of dealing with them, stakes are an example of dealing with cavalry (and can often work really well) and siege shields the same with archers, the problem is open maps give these ranged and cav too many options in bypassing infantry counters, cav can just run about all day ninjaing people who get separated and archers can just move to a different place.

It's less prevalent on city maps due to natural funnels etc but it's not something that can really be fixed through item balances because there are too many variations of build.

In regards to promoting teamwork like someone was saying maybe we should get rid of kills and deaths and just have points and have points added for assisting teammates, blocks etc. Anything you do that's positive. Have them get reduced at teamhits and teamkills or being by yourself for ages cos that's not contributing.

[Jona]

I don't think that the quiver weight change did that much, most of the archers/crossbowmen I fight just drop their stuff and run

If I recall correctly, for a short period of time just before the quiver weight increase the devs instead implemented a system where the more athletics you have, the lower your ranged wpf (or something similar). Anyone remember why this didn't work out? Nothing is worse than finally closing the gap between you and a ranged guy, only to have them drop their gear and use their 8+ athletics and light armor to run circles around the entire map before you finally just give up. As Huscarlton said, with xbows you can pick up their weapon so they can't come back to it (assuming you can sacrifice the 2 slots) but with bows you can't. Nothing is worse than catching up to an archer, only to have him drop his bow, run a marathon with you, and then return to the bow and pick it up to finish you off since there is once again a huge gap between you. I guess if archers were kind of forced to not invest in athletics then they arguably get indirectly buffed by having that many more skill points to toss around, but if they invest these in more PS or maybe more WM that helps them melee, then I don't see there being much of a problem. Even if the archers opt to use these points to become better dedicated archers (pretty much a pure WM and PD build) then by all means, let them be effective at ranged. They aren't going to be much more than a stationary turret, so cav, infantry, and even other ranged will actually be able to kill them with relative ease.

On a side note, anyone who knows how to block can be effective at melee with or without any dedicated wpf. All an archer needs to do is put points into PS and they are "effective at melee." I know this first hand by having ~30 wpf in 1h on my main, yet I still hybrid as a 1h/pole hoplite. I do perfectly fine using the 1h. The only difference between a build with dedicated wpf and without is an ever so slight speed increase and more importantly a damage increase. If you have a veteran player where blocking comes as naturally as breathing, then it doesn't really matter how much wpf or PS they have... if they know the mechanics of melee combat well enough, they can be good in most melee scenarios. That said, I still question the logic of making 0 slot weapons that could block... it just really, really didn't seem necessary. It helps out melee hybrids a lot, I get that, but it also allows ranged to carry another what... 15-20 arrows/bolts? As I said, before, in this day and age of crpg you don't need the best build, looms, and weapons to win. By now you are either a skilled veteran or a hopeless noob. While the 0 slot 1handers might not stack up perfectly with the 1 slot, more expensive ones, this doesn't matter all that much. They are barely inferior weapons, and in the hands of someone who knows what they are doing, even with minimal PS/wpf, they can work wonders. The problem with crpg nowadays is everyone is too good, plain and simple. If all ranged never had any melee experience, then sure, give them the weapons, they will still fail regardless. Nothing is worse than a melee veteran hopping on their ranged alt... they know how to melee really well, and are now having only a slight disadvantage in melee they are able to sling shit at you from across the map... that's just the worst imo. If you know how to melee, for the sake of this mod... just play your melee class.

[Sandersson Jankins]

Quite strange to me, people on a side wanting ranged to fight instead of kiting like bitches, but on another side, people saying archers are way too powerful at melee. I'd myself love to fight instead of running, but I'm forced to kite, even with 5 athletics, since I can't even face an average melee player who got better weapons/armors than me. I'll die in a stupid way getting spammed, instead of surviving after taking him down in 40% of cases.

Lots of ppl (ranged) will run away anyway. I don't know why devs decreased quivers weight (irrationat way to prevent kiting but it works) after most of archers get accostumed to it.

Archers already have good 0 slot melee weapons to fight, but stil many of them hardly ever use them.

From my experience i know that tiny 0 slot swords are deadly even with 1 wpf and 2 PS( i have those values). Almost all is about what ranged have in their minds, not options devs can give them.

Why ppl are playing as HA and HX? Because only classes can counter them are other ranged (mounted ranged have huge benifit compere them to foot ranged players: faster positioning and easier way to choose their targets, insane possibility of kiting). If mounted ranged is dying to cav 1v1 its mostly because of their unaware or mistakes them made.

I think I shouldn't have quoted Digglez from the first page of the thread. I believe he was the only one with a gripe against ranged drawing their weapons too quickly, which isn't precisely even the same thing as "ranged are too powerful in melee", although tangentially related.

Keep in mind my experience is limited to NA1 and a EU strat battles long ago. It does not seem like the majority of our "dedicated" ranged attempt to kite, perhaps it is more like half. I agree that it is exceedingly difficult to overcome a pure melee as a dedicated archer, especially if that pure melee is high level or skill, both of which are likely. However, it is certainly possible. I see certain ranged players do extremely well against melee, either scoring kills against them even without proficiency or dissuading them from fighting by inflicting enough damage. I've not read the entire thread thoroughly but I does not seem like many people are indeed complaining about ranged having decent melee capability without melee-related stats.

I think it was very wise to make a larger selection of 1h weapons 0slot so ranged could take advantage of them. It may be the case in EU that ranged do not use them, preferring their feet to a sword. As before, I've got very limited experience of EU play.

(Oops, I guess I didn't see that Jona doesn't like the numerous 0slot weapons. Well uh, fuck you Jona, you're wrong or something. But for real, a large thing to consider is the ungodly weapon-stun that 0slot weapons are encumbered by. Fighting multiple targets with a dinky-ass shortsword is very difficult, especially if you've not dropped your bow and are weighed down by that and its ammunition. If you HAVE dropped your bow and are fighting multiple people with a build not suited for melee and overcome these people, they certainly deserve to lose. If you're forced to run or fight for an extremely long period of time, which is likely considering your blocking is not affected by your sub-par melee capabilities, swing speed is only slightly affected, but damage is heavily affected, the enemy team will have successfully prevented your ass from shooting, which is what your main threat is.)

(click to show/hide)

I agree, extremely skilled melee players that choose to use ranged weapons and then style on jackasses with their 1wpf 0PS melee are pretty much cunts.

[Algarn]

I think I shouldn't have quoted Digglez from the first page of the thread. I believe he was the only one with a gripe against ranged drawing their weapons too quickly, which isn't precisely even the same thing as "ranged are too powerful in melee", although tangentially related.

Keep in mind my experience is limited to NA1 and a EU strat battles long ago. It does not seem like the majority of our "dedicated" ranged attempt to kite, perhaps it is more like half. I agree that it is exceedingly difficult to overcome a pure melee as a dedicated archer, especially if that pure melee is high level or skill, both of which are likely. However, it is certainly possible. I see certain ranged players do extremely well against melee, either scoring kills against them even without proficiency or dissuading them from fighting by inflicting enough damage. I've not read the entire thread thoroughly but I does not seem like many people are indeed complaining about ranged having decent melee capability without melee-related stats.

I think it was very wise to make a larger selection of 1h weapons 0slot so ranged could take advantage of them. It may be the case in EU that ranged do not use them, preferring their feet to a sword. As before, I've got very limited experience of EU play.

(Oops, I guess I didn't see that Jona doesn't like the numerous 0slot weapons. Well uh, fuck you Jona, you're wrong or something. But for real, a large thing to consider is the ungodly weapon-stun that 0slot weapons are encumbered by. Fighting multiple targets with a dinky-ass shortsword is very difficult, especially if you've not dropped your bow and are weighed down by that and its ammunition. If you HAVE dropped your bow and are fighting multiple people with a build not suited for melee and overcome these people, they certainly deserve to lose. If you're forced to run or fight for an extremely long period of time, which is likely considering your blocking is not affected by your sub-par melee capabilities, swing speed is only slightly affected, but damage is heavily affected, the enemy team will have successfully prevented your ass from shooting, which is what your main threat is.)

(click to show/hide)

I agree, extremely skilled melee players that choose to use ranged weapons and then style on jackasses with their 1wpf 0PS melee are pretty much cunts.

I often use my sword against an ennemy I can't kite, since my bow is dealing crap damages with 9 PD (I'm not even joking). Still end up dead because 40 wpf only, which 9 PS isn't able to compensate.

[Sandersson Jankins]

I often use my sword against an ennemy I can't kite, since my bow is dealing crap damages with 9 PD (I'm not even joking). Still end up dead because 40 wpf only, which 9 PS isn't able to compensate.

Are you a 27-15 build, with 9 PD and 9 PS? Certainly you'd be able to at least hold your own against a pure melee build unless they're very good. If you didn't drop your bow before engaging in melee, which is quite reasonable to do, you would be at a distinct disadvantage because of the ludicrous movement penalty that arrows inflict, of course. I'm not claiming that you'd be able to easily dispatch any motherfucker that came your way in melee with such a build, but I do feel that you are not at a tremendous disadvantage, assuming you've dropped your ranged equipment. Yeah, it sucks a bit to fight with only 40wpf, but to be frank, wpf does not seem to have an incredible amount of impact on swing speed; it is more important for determining damage.

[Algarn]

Are you a 27-15 build, with 9 PD and 9 PS? Certainly you'd be able to at least hold your own against a pure melee build unless they're very good. If you didn't drop your bow before engaging in melee, which is quite reasonable to do, you would be at a distinct disadvantage because of the ludicrous movement penalty that arrows inflict, of course. I'm not claiming that you'd be able to easily dispatch any motherfucker that came your way in melee with such a build, but I do feel that you are not at a tremendous disadvantage, assuming you've dropped your ranged equipment. Yeah, it sucks a bit to fight with only 40wpf, but to be frank, wpf does not seem to have an incredible amount of impact on swing speed; it is more important for determining damage.

Of course, I can always stab one or two guys, but never do anything more. I always die at the end, and not even to particularly good players sometimes, they just got a shield, plus 180 wpf, and just spam me, since I gotta block three times in a row to be able to attack once ... My thought is, do archers need to be nerfed even more at melee, since the problem is fast/huge missile speed bows ?

[Jona]

Don't get me wrong Sandy, I am all for archers choosing meleeing over kiting any day. But the fact that they can have a variety of good melee weapons that enhance their ability to use ranged (by allowing them to have more ammo) is kind of counter productive. Blockstun is an issue for all 1handers, and the 0 slot weapons aren't really much lighter. The knobbed mace is 1.7, for instance. The broad short sword is 1.3, which is a pretty good weight for a shorter 1hander. Also, any strength archer won't suffer from blockstun as much since they might very well have more strength than the opponent they are facing in this day and age.