OP Horse Archers

[Overdriven]

Well this sounds a bit more reasonable, but just because other people are posting stupidly biased things doesn't mean you have to to "balance" it up lol :p

Ignore the stupid suggestions, bring forth the good ones instead!

And imo, there can never be too much discussion, that's what this forum is for right? If you want to highlight other issues than those concering horses in themselves, fine do so, but let people discuss what they want to^^

Throwing is not melee.

Agreed. Glad we have reached an amiable position

I shall try to in future. But my rant switch automatically switches to on when I see posts like that. Guess I have to trust in the people who matter to actually look past those posts.

I know throwing isn't strictly melee. But that's also like saying melee players don't use crossbows. A lot do. Dedicated melee fine. But surely tossing throwers back into the equation (who have melee tendencies, or at least used to, unless dedicated) could help even things up a little? I'm not sure how to adequately help pure melee without nerfing HA to much. I know changing manoeuvre should help this from the horse bumping in circles idea. But if you ride at a slow speed and circle and pump arrows into 2h say, then manoeuvre doesn't wholly matter because of your slow speed.

[Bulzur]

Just wanted to add something in the discussion :

I really hate wannabees horse archer who just puts points in riding skill to get the horse they want. Then, you just have to ride a bit to evade arrows, halt to shoot with NO penalty, and move again. It gives all the advantage of a foot archer with 5 PD (put riding skills instead of athletics), and yet you can really choose your opponent, and be AS deadly as a 5 PD foot archer (who also needs 6 arrows to kill a medium armored guy).

I also see more of those clearly abuser around (even MonkeyArcher, a decent foot archer, seems to be doing that now, with another of his WARPIGS friends).
Seriously, this is just plain nonsense.

Even by balancing horses (less maneuver, more hp), this kind of irritating playstyle will stay untouched.
"But when you ride you have a big malus" seems to only "work" when you actually move. If, i say if, this could be modified so that you get this big malus AS SOON as you're on the horse, it will really help a lot.

So basically :

-balance horse (nerf maneuver (speed too ?)/buff hp (armor too ?) )
-add a 5 PD bow for foot archers (or add a message to tell them to go 6 PD if they want to stay on foot)
-Make the ranged malus apply when you're on a horse, and not when the horse is moving (or at least make a different malus apply, wich is totally deleted with 4 HA for example)

And then, probably, things will change a bit. Real dedicated and good HAs will still be usefull, fake ones will die easily, and good archers can still compete with good HA)

PS : Notice i didn't say nothing about the bumpshot from HA, wich is, imo, really a skill, and not a "break the balance" factor. Having an horse gives you an advantage. Balancing it doesn't mean removing that advantage, but making it a normal one, and not an overwhelming advantage.

@Overdriven : Still waiting for your reply in Keshian's horse balance, you had said you'll post there after the battles, and i'm sure you've noticed how cav played a very important role in it. ;) Even against organized infantry.

[Overdriven]

Just wanted to add something in the discussion :

I really hate wannabees horse archer who just puts points in riding skill to get the horse they want. Then, you just have to ride a bit to evade arrows, halt to shoot with NO penalty, and move again. It gives all the advantage of a foot archer with 5 PD (put riding skills instead of athletics), and yet you can really choose your opponent, and be AS deadly as a 5 PD foot archer (who also needs 6 arrows to kill a medium armored guy).

I also see more of those clearly abuser around (even MonkeyArcher, a decent foot archer, seems to be doing that now, with another of his WARPIGS friends).
Seriously, this is just plain nonsense.

Even by balancing horses (less maneuver, more hp), this kind of irritating playstyle will stay untouched.
"But when you ride you have a big malus" seems to only "work" when you actually move. If, i say if, this could be modified so that you get this big malus AS SOON as you're on the horse, it will really help a lot.

So basically :

-balance horse (nerf maneuver (speed too ?)/buff hp (armor too ?) )
-add a 5 PD bow for foot archers (or add a message to tell them to go 6 PD if they want to stay on foot)
-Make the ranged malus apply when you're on a horse, and not when the horse is moving (or at least make a different malus apply, wich is totally deleted with 4 HA for example)

And then, probably, things will change a bit. Real dedicated and good HAs will still be usefull, fake ones will die easily, and good archers can still compete with good HA)

PS : Notice i didn't say nothing about the bumpshot from HA, wich is, imo, really a skill, and not a "break the balance" factor. Having an horse gives you an advantage. Balancing it doesn't mean removing that advantage, but making it a normal one, and not an overwhelming advantage.

@Overdriven : Still waiting for your reply in Keshian's horse balance, you had said you'll post there after the battles, and i'm sure you've noticed how cav played a very important role in it. ;) Even against organized infantry.

I can see your point. But is there away to do something about HA's shooting when still, without damaging their ability to shoot whilst moving? (question to devs who happen to be reading). I know I do it sometimes, rarely, but if there is a foot archer in an annoying position, or I see the opportunity to stop and shoot because I see a guaranteed hit without any danger to me, then I will do it.

I forgot about that thread because it's dropped down a few since I've been on. I'll take a stroll there now 

[Lorenzo_of_Iberia]

Bulzur a small point if I will Cavalry did so well on the battles because the cav played to support the infantry, not the other way round Cav perform well in k/d due to the nature of their role, they are however somewhat limited without the infantry.

My opinion on HA? My god are they annoying however I can barely feel the hit from a ha when I'm in medium armour, my horse on the other hand doesn't have this luxury. Compared to a Longbow HA damage is nothing.

You can nerf horses again but the best players are still gonna kill you because its not their horse that is the deciding factor, it's you're unawareness. This is my response to anyone who wants to claim cav are OP.

Now I'll sit here patiently and wait for throwing to come back in. When it does you infantry / lancers / archers are gonna wish I was using JUST a strongbow off horse 

[Dezilagel]

Agreed. Glad we have reached an amiable position.

I shall try to in future. But my rant switch automatically switches to on when I see posts like that. Guess I have to trust in the people who matter to actually look past those posts.

I know throwing isn't strictly melee. But that's also like saying melee players don't use crossbows. A lot do. Dedicated melee fine. But surely tossing throwers back into the equation (who have melee tendencies, or at least used to, unless dedicated) could help even things up a little?

Well, I'm dedicated (no xbow, no throwing, no nothing) noshield melee (as you may have figured out lol), and I know that alot of melee players do not bring xbows because they find it amusingly fun, it's because they feel like they need to do so to be on par with the other melee guys bringing their xbows. Some of them do ofc find the change in pace fun/satisfying, but many would just drop them if they weren't so bloody effective (at 0 wpf...).

And about htrowing melee tendencies... You have to remember that anyone who carries a ranged weapon will always hesitate to go into melee against someone who doesn't, unless that person is choosing to ignore their advantage (which is rare), this will always stay true. Also, if two people are carrying roughly equally powerful ranged arsenals, and roughly equal defenses (shields) there's little sense in switching to melee for any of them. (As you will be disadvantaged in melee from the damage of the other persons' ranged weaponry, or you might just not get to melee at all). This is why I'm abit worried about the upcoming throwing buff. I do have faith in the balance team that they will try to balance it as good as possible, but if throwing is returned to a level of effectiveness where everyone not dedicated ranged or cav is carrying a couple of stacks (which was the case pre-patch, and those spears/lances/whatever hurt ALOT), we are going to se a HUGE decline in the amount of melee battles actually happening on the battlefields. And a large increase in shielders, since those are going to be the guys that actually get's to the melee brawl. And how does agi vs str fit into this? from my pov this is going to be a huge str buff since PT is what any thrower wants to stack, while hp/armor is your main defence. Not to mention that str is already very powerful. shielders might want to stack abit more agi due to shield hp/coverage, but that is already the case.

tl:dr Throwing is not a way of fixing melee vs HA, since it doess not promote melee in any way.

Glad you've chilled out bro 

[Overdriven]

Well, I'm dedicated (no xbow, no throwing, no nothing) noshield melee (as you may have figured out lol), and I know that alot of melee players do not bring xbows because they find it amusingly fun, it's because they feel like they need to do so to be on par with the other melee guys bringing their xbows. Some of them do ofc find the change in pace fun/satisfying, but many would just drop them if they weren't so bloody effective (at 0 wpf...).

And about htrowing melee tendencies... You have to remember that anyone who carries a ranged weapon will always hesitate to go into melee against someone who doesn't, unless that person is choosing to ignore their advantage (which is rare), this will always stay true. Also, if two people are carrying roughly equally powerful ranged arsenals, and roughly equal defenses (shields) there's little sense in switching to melee for any of them. (As you will be disadvantaged in melee from the damage of the other persons' ranged weaponry, or you might just not get to melee at all). This is why I'm abit worried about the upcoming throwing buff. I do have faith in the balance team that they will try to balance it as good as possible, but if throwing is returned to a level of effectiveness where everyone not dedicated ranged or cav is carrying a couple of stacks (which was the case pre-patch, and those spears/lances/whatever hurt ALOT), we are going to se a HUGE decline in the amount of melee battles actually happening on the battlefields. And a large increase in shielders, since those are going to be the guys that actually get's to the melee brawl. And how does agi vs str fit into this? from my pov this is going to be a huge str buff since PT is what any thrower wants to stack, while hp/armor is your main defence. Not to mention that str is already very powerful. shielders might want to stack abit more agi due to shield hp/coverage, but that is already the case.

tl:dr Throwing is not a way of fixing melee vs HA, since it doess not promote melee in any way.

Glad you've chilled out bro 

Throwing lances give me nightmares.

I remember the days of everyone carrying some form of throwing. But hopefully the slot system will effect that to an extent.

Hmm. It's difficult then, because what in reality can really be an effective counter for melee against HA? Honestly I can't think of anything other than sticking with archers/throwing when they are around. And I'm not even sure melee should have an effective counter.

But then the question becomes, should HA be so effective against melee? Well I'd argue that reducing the ability to circle bump, will help shielders and other melee to an extent. It will mean they will have some ability to fight back. Especially with the reduced acceleration. Which is very noticeable when trying to get away from melee fights. So maybe that will be enough?

From a damage perspective however, I don't think that's the right route to take. HA do small amount of damage in comparison to most other classes. And with a horse nerf of some kind, it might make it more difficult for HA to just run around pumping arrows into the same person till they die.

In all honesty I'm hoping that will put off some HA. I have noticed an increase in HA recently. Though most of them are pretty crappy. But the more HA there are the more annoying it is for me as well  HA like to shoot/duel other HAs.

[Bulzur]

Bulzur a small point if I will Cavalry did so well on the battles because the cav played to support the infantry, not the other way round Cav perform well in k/d due to the nature of their role, they are however somewhat limited without the infantry.

My opinion on HA? My god are they annoying however I can barely feel the hit from a ha when I'm in medium armour, my horse on the other hand doesn't have this luxury. Compared to a Longbow HA damage is nothing.

You can nerf horses again but the best players are still gonna kill you because its not their horse that is the deciding factor, it's you're unawareness. This is my response to anyone who wants to claim cav are OP.

Now I'll sit here patiently and wait for throwing to come back in. When it does you infantry / lancers / archers are gonna wish I was using JUST a strongbow off horse 

I don't see how it could have been the other way around : Infantry supporting cav. Since infantry is so much slower. 
Just saying a cav support is WAY better than another team of infantry support AND archer support. Infantry, because they are slow and previsible, archers, because even when they aim right, they don't one shot you (except headshots).

I don't care if best players cavs kill many ! It's suppose to be like this. But i care when noob cav kills many with no skill and just a light/heavy spear and a courser/destrier/arabian horse.  Awareness is also a bit... overused. I'm aware of two cavs coming to me, i can dodge/block the first one, usually can't the second one. That's the power of organized cav. Sure kill, even on an awared player, providing he doesn't use a bamboo spear/long spear/pike. That leaves plenty of targets.
And no other class got this possibility, to quickly and surely kill one ennemy, whom you can pick up easily since you're on horses wandering on the all map with a good speed.

Good old days of throwing on horse back ! I  do wish they'll be back.^^
Remembered by teammates with 10 PT and thoses one-shotting-horses throwing lances. He shots the horse down, i headshot the cav. We had great timing, and life was definitely easier back then. xD

I can see your point. But is there away to do something about HA's shooting when still, without damaging their ability to shoot whilst moving? (question to devs who happen to be reading).

If you ADD a malus while just being on horse, but makes it null with 4 Horse Archery, then it wouldn't penalize at all the dedicated horse archers. Maybe some would still steady before shooting, but they would shoot nearly as accurately when moving slowly anyway, so no big deal.



Still, i'm really pleased we can discuss this. I'm maybe siding with the "anti-cav", even if i'm trying my best to be objective, and same for you GKs on the other side. Hopefully we'll reach a deciding point on wich both can agree, and then we can present the result of this "already 13 pages" topics to the devs, and see what they think of it. 

[Overdriven]

If you ADD a malus while just being on horse, but makes it null with 4 Horse Archery, then it wouldn't penalize at all the dedicated horse archers. Maybe some would still steady before shooting, but they would shoot nearly as accurately when moving slowly anyway, so no big deal.

Still, i'm really pleased we can discuss this. I'm maybe siding with the "anti-cav", even if i'm trying my best to be objective, and same for you GKs on the other side. Hopefully we'll reach a deciding point on wich both can agree, and then we can present the result of this "already 13 pages" topics to the devs, and see what they think of it. 

True. But then it would make it hard until level 30, which is when most dedicated HA get that 4 HA because of the 24 agi requirement. It's already tricky till 30 because of that lack of 4 HA and all the WM. I like the idea in general though. I wouldn't suggest reducing the HA requirements by any standards. But perhaps rooting out all but the most dedicated may not be such a bad thing. I know I'm dedicated enough to grind to level 30 for that elusive 4 HA. And I'm sure I still would be even if it was a bit crappy before you hit that 4 HA.

Just depends how badly we want to put people off

[Torp]

Well thank you, you just made replying a lot easier. You used the word 'annoying' instead of 'OP'. That already makes your post redundant. You can't nerf a class for being 'annoying'. You can when it is 'OP'.

...

And I've been trying to think of a way to help archers against horse bumping cav (I used to play as an archer so know how annoying it is).

derp?

[Overdriven]

derp?

No.

[Cyclopsided]

True. But then it would make it hard until level 30, which is when most dedicated HA get that 4 HA because of the 24 agi requirement. It's already tricky till 30 because of that lack of 4 HA and all the WM. I like the idea in general though. I wouldn't suggest reducing the HA requirements by any standards. But perhaps rooting out all but the most dedicated may not be such a bad thing. I know I'm dedicated enough to grind to level 30 for that elusive 4 HA. And I'm sure I still would be even if it was a bit crappy before you hit that 4 HA.

What is with you guys and getting 4 HA on a 15/24 build.
You shoot weak arrows at people slightly more accurately at the cost of massive amounts of damage if you instead had higher PD. No wonder you think HA are bad, you play with a weak HA build!

I play currently with 21/18 7 PD 3 HA 6 WM 6 Riding and it would beat your HA 4 out of 5 times in HA fights.

But the best HA build I tried was 27-12 with 9 PD/ 4 WM/ 4 riding /2 HA /(4 ath or 4 IF, depends on if foot archer or not), And i wish my HA was still that build because it raped so violently. The damage on it is insane. it is still accurate, although does shoot a bit slower.

All your complaints have been stemming from your bad build and poor horse choice. Stop it. Stop making bad decisions.
If you have eyes and are aware of situation, you don't need high riding to dodge every lancer and 2 shot his horse (since you do more damage with 9 PD). HA want maneuver not speed, speed makes you inaccurate. Stop choosing bad horses like a courser ffs.

God I keep reading this thread and when I do it just makes me disappointed. Switch your set up overdriven, see the light that is a better HA character.

[Overdriven]

What is with you guys and getting 4 HA on a 15/24 build.
You shoot tiny weak arrows at people slightly more accurately at the cost of massive amounts of damage if you instead had higher PD. No wonder you think HA are bad, you play with a weak HA build!

I play currently with 21/18 7 PD 3 HA 6 WM 6 Riding and it would beat your HA 4 out of 5 times in HA fights.

But the best HA build I tried was 27-12 with 9 PD/ 4 WM/ 4 riding /2 HA /(4 ath or 4 IF, depends on if foot archer or no), And i wish my HA was still that build because it raped so violently. The damage on it is insane. it is still accurate, although does shoot a bit slower.

All your complaints have been stemming from your bad build and poor horse choice. Stop it. Stop making bad decisions.
If you have eyes and are aware of situation, you don't need high riding to dodge every lancer and 2 shot his horse (since you do more damage with 9 PD).

The extra WM and HA makes a big difference to horse archery. The extra PD might work for you in NA. But in EU I can assure you, that extra accuracy would mean you are dead to most HA in EU easily.

Most HA I have ever spoken to rely on the 15/24 build. You're the first I've ever seen post that states otherwise. I'd be interested to see what EU's best HA stats are. But judging from the amount of damage they do with body shots (same as mine) and the amount of headshots they get, I'm fairly confident they have that 4HA.

Edit: And where's that video?

Also, there is no poor horse choice. Poor in the sense that you aim to kill poorly armoured inf all the time, sure. But I aim on chasing cav down, making them chase me and then owning them. An arabian or say desert. Even a destrier, would be useless for that, you'd have to manoeuvre back and fourth all the time and hope that a lance doesn't catch you in the side. On the other hand my courser isn't great for bump shooting inf and wheeling round inf.

Anyway. You're one of the only people who has claimed they can get such amazing K/Ds all the time with HA. I've seen it happen in other cases, but not consistently and only when EU's best are at their best.

I'd like to now go back to the peaceful/unranting posts that had just developed thank you

[Cyclopsided]

The extra WM and HA makes a big difference to horse archery. The extra PD might work for you in NA. But in EU I can assure you, that extra accuracy would mean you are dead to most HA in EU easily.

Most HA I have ever spoken to rely on the 15/24 build. You're the first I've ever seen post that states otherwise. I'd be interested to see what EU's best HA stats are.

Edit: And where's that video?

I haven't played a game in 5 days, and am still working on course work. When I get this done I'll play and record. I take 5 minute breaks and will read the forum between a chapter and such.

[Overdriven]

I haven't played a game in 5 days, and am still working on course work. When I get this done I'll play and record. I take 5 minute breaks and will read the forum between a chapter and such.

And I have to be up for work in less than 6 hours so no more replying for me

[justme]

i hate when HA forcing intentional draw..