Seems the opposite to me, I haven't mentioned 3m distance at all and even so, at 150m, realistically, it should take 10+ arrows at least to kill a stationary plated knight (or more) based on loss of velocity, armor exposure, etc.... I'm sure there's plenty of anecdotal YT vids out there showing this.guys i understand your points but an archer needs to be evaluated at 150m not 3 ( i hope you understand that that's confirmation bias as a proof )
Archers need to be 'evaluated' at ALL ranges from 3m up to 300m; and as of now, the difference between one at 3m and one at 300m is maybe 3 hits.
Yes, but I shouldn't be compelled to train my smithing to get that HP perk, or get Athletics to 250; considering you have to fight/move on foot to train that stat (really grindy or to cheese it), meaning you can't use a 'mount and blade away'.but anyway, i don't think you guys are wrong but also an Un-atheltic character is going to be more fickle in combat, an old or weak commander can't fight on the same level of the younger or stronger ones, that's simply natural. better armor perks in smithing and athletics can change that for the MC, but obviously not for the troops ( outside of capatins perks or party leading ones that target specific tiers of units or even better: culture, meaning that there might be a bonkers perk that actually makes playing with 1 faction only more rewarding ).
They can't simulate splintering damage from arrows or exposure to specific body parts (ie face) or for parts of armor that should be near impenetrable; let alone the added load for 'aiming' calcs for it. So the only way to mimic it is by reducing the damage of each hit to equalize a realistic representation. Ie say a skilled archer should have a 10% chance to hit the exposed parts of the armor of a knight, make it so each hit arrow is around 1/10 damage so that after around 10 hits, knight dies (+added variables TBD on the other armor values, arrow dmg, distance, etc....because no way will they add another hit-check for each projectile in a battle if it hits a protected segment or exposed segment of a unit (besides the current head-body-leg-arm setup)Armor should be better? more than likely, especially against headshots and cut weapons. but also a warrior shouldn't be reckless and expect, without protection ( shield or men around him ), to charge a group of archers with minimal consequences. a good one that can keep his cool can land the shot in the weakest part of the helmet and kill, or wound you right there.
It's the opposite mostly, all we've been getting is short 'will discuss internally', 'WIP', 'too complicated', etc...then it either goes silent or they add in a change that is completely off target of what a majority want. Which always leads to this spiral of frustration in communication, and in turn, their fear of communicating back, and cycle continues. It's up to their community manager to do their work to ensure these things don't get to where they are and the fact that it has shows how disconnected things are between the forum and TW.I understand the need and want to have more protection but we have no idea if TW isn't testing the system on their own while holding all info to not disappoint people who look forward to such a change.
Knowing how oftentimes they have been criticized in the past it wouldn't be surprising to me if that's the case. if i were in that situation with a pressing community of disappointed customers i wouldn't really say that out load and possibly avoid the forums entirely or they might also be asked to by management.