The problem was never ranged

[Golem]

That was irony.
Do I really have to say that?

Yes?

[Penitent]

IRL there were plenty of 2h soldiers.  In late medieval times, armor got so good that a shield wasn't as necessary.  Knights kept a longsword (2h) attached to their saddle for when they dismounted or had their horse injured.  Also, 2h foot soldiers were mixed in with pike squares to help defeat infantry, or other pikes.

Archers were always effective.  Even a fully armored knight could get hurt under a hail of arrows.   It was the cavalry's job to scatter them and drive them from the field.

However, unlike CRPG, historical battles were not fought with individual archers running around shooting at individual 2h knights. 
At the same time, just like CRPG, teamwork was the order of the day.  Units won battles.   

[Rico]

the community awakens

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[Gravoth_iii]

Buff shields to be OP, even low tier ones. Much more widths, closer to the new viking shield. This way archery could still be damage dealing, as long as people have a reliable strong counter.

[darmaster]

stpo nrffing rnged pls ;))

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[Turkhammer]

IRL there were plenty of 2h soldiers.  In late medieval times, armor got so good that a shield wasn't as necessary.  Knights kept a longsword (2h) attached to their saddle for when they dismounted or had their horse injured.  Also, 2h foot soldiers were mixed in with pike squares to help defeat infantry, or other pikes.

Archers were always effective.  Even a fully armored knight could get hurt under a hail of arrows.   It was the cavalry's job to scatter them and drive them from the field.

However, unlike CRPG, historical battles were not fought with individual archers running around shooting at individual 2h knights. 
At the same time, just like CRPG, teamwork was the order of the day.  Units won battles.   

Unlike crpg, mob tactics were usually not the rule of the day.  Like crpg, the horse and not the armored rider was the usual archer's target.  The legs were far more vulnerable than the knight.
If you reference RL you must also mention that it was only a small portion of a Medieval army that was heavily armored due to expense, unlike crpg where everyone who puts in the time can be a heavily armored 2 hander.

At Crecy, around 7500 English long bow archers loosed around 90,000 arrows in the 40 seconds it took the French knights to cross the open ground of the valley separating the two forces.  That's 12 arrows in 40 seconds or 18 per minute.  These figures are estimates based on accounts and the performance of modern day expert archers using yew long bows.  This fire was sufficiently devastating that it piled up tangled windrows of dead and dying men and horses and thus impeded the attackers even more.

The French QQ'd about ranged spam too.  They complained that it was wholly improper that so much nobility was laid low by men of no consequence (meaning archers).

At Crecy archers made up about 50% of the English army.

[CrazyCracka420]

Unlike crpg, mob tactics were usually not the rule of the day.  Like crpg, the horse and not the armored rider was the usual archer's target.  The legs were far more vulnerable than the knight.
If you reference RL you must also mention that it was only a small portion of a Medieval army that was heavily armored due to expense, unlike crpg where everyone who puts in the time can be a heavily armored 2 hander.

At Crecy, around 7500 English long bow archers loosed around 90,000 arrows in the 40 seconds it took the French knights to cross the open ground of the valley separating the two forces.  That's 12 arrows in 40 seconds or 18 per minute.  These figures are estimates based on accounts and the performance of modern day expert archers using yew long bows.  This fire was sufficiently devastating that it piled up tangled windrows of dead and dying men and horses and thus impeded the attackers even more.

The French QQ'd about ranged spam too.  They complained that it was wholly improper that so much nobility was laid low by men of no consequence (meaning archers).

At Crecy archers made up about 50% of the English army.

Only difference for people in real life, they can QQ all they want, it's up to them to find a solution to a problem.  They don't have devs to nerf something for them.  And like IRL, cRPG players have the ability to overcome obstacles on their own without QQ'ing and hoping devs fix the problem for them.

Instead of asking (crying) for devs to remove the wall, maybe you should try going over/around/through the wall.  Or avoid the wall entirely and wait for flags to come up    Admittedly, crying and blaming someone else for your problems, has always been easier than overcoming the obstacles on your own.

Also I'm pretty sure Pentinent (or maybe it was SKeith) mentioned that most people won't be wearing extremely well made plate armor on the battle field.

I personally feel crpg has been nerfed too much over the years.  Some things from native definitely needed to be toned down (things like the lance stab radius, or the damage and missile speed of arrows, or the original shield mechanics in crpg that allowed people to gain shield hit points the more the shield got hit).  But the path we've been down over the last 5 years is you listen to enough cry babies on the forums, and then you nerf thing/item A.  Now thing/item B becomes "OP"due to nerf on thing item A, so you nerf thing/item B.  Now thing/item C becomes OP due to the nerf of thing/item B, so now you nerf thing/item C?  Now thing/item A is OP again, time for another round of nerfs. And the cycle continues.

Where do you stop?  Won't somebody end the nerfs?  Combat does start to feel clunkier after all the nerfs begetting nerfs.

[Screaming Idiot]

Some history here to back up the arguments made ITT:

The bulk of medieval infantry, especially considering the general context cRPG fits into, were defensive infantry (usually pikemen, shielders, or a mix of both) supported by crossbowmen or longbowmen (usually the former since they were cheaper and easier to use than the latter). Any infantry using two handed weapons (such as large axes, voulges, bastard swords, longswords, and the occasional greatsword) would never be put in the direct line of fire of enemy archers, especially if they were not using plate armor and/or they were up against armor-piercing crossbows (common on the late 14th and early 15th centuries). These troops would usually act as shock troopers to break the ranks of opposing infantrymen, especially pikemen since they could either outrange them or close in for CQC, something pikes fail to do.
Anyone who is under the illusion they can charge into a group of archers without a shield, a teammate with a shield or by ambushing them into CQC is a damned fool, both within the functions of this game and irl.
In my experience, even when I used to run with poles/2h I never tried to chase down enemy archers without full plate (excluding crossbowmen), shielder support, ample cover provided by obstacles, or getting the drop on them. Plus, if archers had a clear shot on me while engaging other infantrymen, I would move to cover and take care of business like, you know, a person with common sense.

[Gravoth_iii]

Get a shield.
Get Ironflesh.

[Golem]

Some history here to back up the arguments made ITT:

The bulk of medieval infantry, especially considering the general context cRPG fits into, were defensive infantry (usually pikemen, shielders, or a mix of both) supported by crossbowmen or longbowmen (usually the former since they were cheaper and easier to use than the latter). Any infantry using two handed weapons (such as large axes, voulges, bastard swords, longswords, and the occasional greatsword) would never be put in the direct line of fire of enemy archers, especially if they were not using plate armor and/or they were up against armor-piercing crossbows (common on the late 14th and early 15th centuries). These troops would usually act as shock troopers to break the ranks of opposing infantrymen, especially pikemen since they could either outrange them or close in for CQC, something pikes fail to do.
Anyone who is under the illusion they can charge into a group of archers without a shield, a teammate with a shield or by ambushing them into CQC is a damned fool, both within the functions of this game and irl.
In my experience, even when I used to run with poles/2h I never tried to chase down enemy archers without full plate (excluding crossbowmen), shielder support, ample cover provided by obstacles, or getting the drop on them. Plus, if archers had a clear shot on me while engaging other infantrymen, I would move to cover and take care of business like, you know, a person with common sense.

So you're basically saying, not all crossbows should be able to penetrate high-tier armor or deal much damage, to a wearer of said class of armour.
All in favour?

[Horns]

This is a stupid cancerous thread. Stop coming up with new ways to play the blame game and suck itta fuck up.

[Tiger]

The problem is not ranged being OP, its the players refusing to adjust to the metagame.

Truth.

[Screaming Idiot]

So you're basically saying, not all crossbows should be able to penetrate high-tier armor or deal much damage, to a wearer of said class of armour.
All in favour?

Well, its more on a per-crossbow basis, as there is not necessarily a clear "breaking point" for what sort of crossbow/bolt can pierce plate. I can certainly say, however, that an Arbalest could penetrate plate at long-range while a Hunting Crossbow would struggle to do so at any distance besides point-blank. The crossbows in between should have a gradually increasing penetration ability (LEAST PENETRATION: Hunting-Light-Regular-Heavy-Arbalest :MOST PENETRATION), although most crossbows should do fine against the majority of players who use light-medium armor (heraldic mail up to, say, rus scale armor). The trade off, of course, would be the weight, longer loading time, high WPF scaling and STR requirement, although the heaviest (Arbalest) should not have a STR requirement of 24 which, besides being unrealistic, doesn't really make sense unless you were loading bolts by hand (which is dumb, because almost all crossbows used hook-drawn mechanisms and the Arbalest specifically used a specialized crank mechanism called a windlass).

[Gurgumul]

The trade off, of course, would be the weight, longer loading time, high WPF scaling and STR requirement, although the heaviest (Arbalest) should not have a STR requirement of 24 which, besides being unrealistic, doesn't really make sense unless you were loading bolts by hand (which is dumb, because almost all crossbows used hook-drawn mechanisms and the Arbalest specifically used a specialized crank mechanism called a windlass).

Crossbows should have relatively low (up to 9 maybe) or no STR requirements, because it doesn't take much strength to hold and shoot it. Reloading, however, does require stronk mooscles, so their rate of fire should be strongly dependant on STR, rather than WPF. I suggest making WPF dictate accuracy, and STR dictate reload time or even allow drawing by hand if game's engine allows for that.

[Turkhammer]

I personally feel crpg has been nerfed too much over the years.  Some things from native definitely needed to be toned down (things like the lance stab radius, or the damage and missile speed of arrows, or the original shield mechanics in crpg that allowed people to gain shield hit points the more the shield got hit).  But the path we've been down over the last 5 years is you listen to enough cry babies on the forums, and then you nerf thing/item A.  Now thing/item B becomes "OP"due to nerf on thing item A, so you nerf thing/item B.  Now thing/item C becomes OP due to the nerf of thing/item B, so now you nerf thing/item C?  Now thing/item A is OP again, time for another round of nerfs. And the cycle continues.

Where do you stop?  Won't somebody end the nerfs?  Combat does start to feel clunkier after all the nerfs begetting nerfs.

I think the devs are in way too deep and are lost in balance hell.

Crossbows should have relatively low (up to 9 maybe) or no STR requirements, because it doesn't take much strength to hold and shoot it. Reloading, however, does require stronk mooscles, so their rate of fire should be strongly dependant on STR, rather than WPF. I suggest making WPF dictate accuracy, and STR dictate reload time or even allow drawing by hand if game's engine allows for that.

The average 5'6" medieval soldier could load them using leg strength or both arms or a windlass.  The devs really ought to look at how many shots per minute a RL crossbow archer could fire.  But I'm afraid modeling on RL examples is not popular here.