Hamel的最近内容

DanAngleland 说:

What is the problem with archers having lower athletics? They are all about shooting people from range; if running away from infantry is a big part of your success/enjoyment as an archer then it probably needed nerfing. You shouldn't often be in a situation where you are threatened by infantry anyway, either you are too close to the action or your teammates weren't doing their job if you keep getting killed by infantry. Can it really be such a pain for archers to be nerfed slightly? Maybe we should give cav better athletics as well so they can run away when dehorsed!

P.S. For clarification, I often play as an archer, and am reasonably good at it, though I hate strafing duels with enemy archers. I enjoy doing a good job of leading a shot, taking down enemy cavalry and nailing two-hander enemies as they weave.

点击展开...

You don't seem to have read much of what has actually been said. Archers running away is mostly unaffected since they can still sprint. Archers weren't even good at running away from infantry that weren't heavily encumbered, before. They were only good at running away when the infantry was distracted, since they wouldn't be able to sprint after the archer.

The problem is that these changes primarily affect archers' melee and dodging abilities. Something that they were already very disadvantaged at. The changes have made archers even more of glass cannons, and I don't think that's very good for gameplay.

I'm not quite sure where you're playing (maybe siege), but in the servers I'm on, archers almost always end up in melee at some point or another. If an archer wants to be anywhere near as effective as infantry, they have to at least be vaguely close to the action. Frequently, enemy infantry will come from the action with the intent to kill you. I'm not sure what you do in these situations, but generally your only choices are either to run, or stand and fight. Standing and fighting mostly ends in melee, since you stand little chance of shooting someone coming straight at you with a shield. Sometimes they just throw things at you. Which, I might add, are awfully hard to dodge with less athletics.

Sure, you could avoid that situation by holding back and camping something. However, sniping is rarely as effective as other methods, as enemies often coincidentally change direction as your missile flies, adding an almost random miss chance. And, of course, it's fairly easy to spot snipers, as the arrows flying by your head make it easy to determine which direction they are originating from. Additionally, holding back away from your teammates means it's all the more likely stray enemies will decide to close on your position and kill that pesky archer.

Either way, you'll probably end up in melee at some point. Unless you have enough archers to reach critical mass, but that is considered "archer spam", and is frowned upon. When enemies are coming for you, your choices are generally: Melee, run to a better position and then melee, or run and hope your allies come to save you.

Which ultimately brings us to the question: Should archers have to fight 2.5x harder in melee, instead of 2x harder? Should archers have to rely on their (sometimes idiotic) teammates more than they already do? Should archers be the ultimate glass cannon? Is this fun?

I would say no. Don't make archers even more fragile. Reverse the athletics nerf and lower their quiver sizes. There wouldn't be so much arrow spam, and archers would be less willing to sacrifice a quiver to pick up a shield. Everyone loves to hate arrow spam, and I don't think picking up shields is an intended part of their class balance.

Also, most cavalry definitely do not need more athletics. Unlike archers, they have good melee stats and shields. For instance, the Swadian Man-at-Arms have the highest one-handed proficiency in the game, and comparable skills to Vaegir Infantry (besides the athletics).

Edit:

crazyboy11 说:

-falcion looks out of place (am I a butcher or an archer?)

点击展开...

Some have suggested that they give Vaegir archers the Khergit sabres instead. Those sabres are pretty awesome, and more thematically correct for Vaegirs.

Balion-Romans 说:

Oh stop. You out ran me as an archer today, Asheila. You guys make it sound like archers are baby lambs tied to a steak and every other class is either an F16 or Sabertooth tiger.

点击展开...

We're talking about specific parts of the class, here. I at least never said archers can't maintain a decent clip over long distances anymore. Heck, I suspect any class that was sprinting could outrun any other class that wasn't (except maybe 0 athletics cav). The athletics nerf has primarily affected the archers' ability to accelerate, as I understand it (the change is definitely more noticeable when they're not sprinting, in any case). Thus the archers' dodging and melee capabilities are what is primarily affected. That is what I consider to be the problem.

I don't think anyone is saying archers are a totally worthless class because of this (less useful than infantry, maybe), but I am saying that archers got a nerf to an aspect that didn't need it. I mean, really, were there any people (smart people) actually complaining that archers were too good in melee?

Also, mmmm steak. 

Balion-Romans 说:

Stop exaggerating. You dimish whatever point you were actually trying to make.

点击展开...

I'm not really exaggerating. Against vaegir or nord archers, good cavalry players can run them down most of the time, try as they might to dodge. It was already very difficult to avoid the good cav even before the patch. Trying to dodge good cav is like trying to jump out of the way of a homing missile.

It is much easier to hit the low athletic archers with ranged weapons now. I can say this from having had lots of things thrown and shot at me while I tried to dodge, and (more importantly) from having thrown and shot lots of things at archers trying to dodge. They move and switch directions slower, making it easier to predict their movements.

And I am seriously considering what the point in playing an archer is. I mean, infantry are more versatile, and I genuinely get more kills and am more of an asset to my team as infantry. I only play archer, just like all the other classes, for the fun of it. It has just become distinctly less fun now when the inevitable melee comes.

After further testing, it would appear Vaegir and Nord archers can't dodge most anything. These archers are sitting ducks against cavalry and projectile weaponry. It's amazing how much difference a single point in athletics can make in split-second maneuvers. I'm beginning to wonder why I even bother playing archer at all, infantry seems more effective.

Also, fix those stairs! :<

Madnes5 说:

everyones talking bout the falcion, the knobbed mace is way better because of the knock down. As an archer you dont want to be out ranging an inf anyway so falcion size doesnt really matter as u will be up close and personal in fights and wit lower athletics the chances of u successfully range fighting an inf is low, knobbed mace will do better vs armour than a falcion and even tho vaegir archers were nerfed the mace is still better than sarranid swords.

点击展开...

The reason weapon length is important for archers is not so they can out range infantry, but so infantry don't out range them. A very real issue now that archers have even lower athletics.

Courtney 说:

If you're spending more time in melee than firing from far away as an archer, then you're definitely playing the wrong class or you're not playing it correctly. Archers normally don't engage in melee until towards the end of the round. By that time, if you're any good, you should have racked up several kills already. You do have a bow you know, which is a pretty deadly weapon. You already have a huge advantage dealing death from far away; you should be at a disadvantage at close range.

点击展开...

That all depends on the skill of the people you're shooting at, as well. In my experience, most skilled players will be able to dodge or block almost all of your shots. Unless they're distracted by your allies. But, if you're far enough away to be vaguely safe from melee, you stand just as much chance of hitting your teammate as the enemy, due to people moving around during melee.

Shooting people that are unaware of you is all well and good, but they're generally aware of you after the first shot. So you better hope they're low on health or you get a HS. The most skilled players generally pay enough attention to their surroundings to spot you before the first shot.

And you're delusional if you think archers are nearly as good in melee as infantry. The scimitar was a crutch, and I don't think the vaegir archers need it back. Giving archers shields is a separate exploit, and should be dealt with separately instead of nerfing the whole class to punish those who pick up shields.

I think archers should get their athletics back and vaegir archers should either get the scimitar for money or some kind of cheap sabre. Additionally, if people really want to nerf archers, decrease their quiver sizes to discourage picking up shields and constant shooting.

Courtney 说:

Archer is a support class that isn't meant to fight solo and up close anyway...just sayin'.

点击展开...

Just like how Infantry aren't supposed to fight solo? Sometimes it happens anyway. Most of the time, archers will end up in melee eventually, because enemy infantry want to be in melee. Frequently, archers end up in melee alone.

In these situations, infantry can still pull off some good moves through skill or luck, and win the day in the face of adversity. This is considered fun. In the same situations, are archers are just supposed to lay down and die, because they're a "support class"? Maybe they're supposed to run away, and piss everyone off because they lack e-honor?

Archers used to have a hard enough time pulling off spectacular feats of melee skill to defend themselves, because of their many disadvantages. Apparently those disadvantages weren't enough. Apparently people don't think archers deserve to have fun, they should just die when the infantry get to them. Apparently, getting shot by an arrow somehow makes the enemy a haxing, aimboting, stupid archer noob, but getting stabbed or slashed in the back by a turtle is acceptable, because that required skill, unlike aiming a bow it seems. APPARENTLY, playing a support class means you're just supposed to fire arrows over your allies' shoulders while the real players decide your fate. Maybe you'll get lucky and actually hit an enemy with all those arrows you're randomly spewing around, you archer noob.

Screw. That.

Who's to decide which classes are the "support class"? Playing as an archer, it always feels like the infantry are supporting you. Archers are the most offensively powerful class in the game. Infantry are definitely the most defensively powerful. But, apparently, the guys who spew long-ranged death are the support class.

Courtney 说:

Oh I agree that the nerf to Vaegir archers is a little extreme, especially the atrocity of having a spiked club as the default weapon, but I do think that they were OP before the patch. My comment was just addressing the people who are complaining about the nerf simply because they no longer can run around solo killing everyone as a Vaegir archer.

点击展开...

People are complaining because archers are even weaker in melee than they were before. Their ability to defend themselves in melee has been further crippled. There are few things more annoying than being ran down by some bads because of your entirely inferior stats.

Even Vaegir archers never stood a better chance of solo killing everyone than any other class.

So, I tried out the patch last night, and the experience matches my suspicions. Though the athletics decrease was even more noticeable in melee and less noticeable over long distances than I thought it would be.

It's definitely even harder than before to melee as an archer. Sure, it's still quite possible to fight a scrub in melee, but your chances against a skilled opponent are pretty much nil. Running (which is mostly unaffected by the changes due to the sprinting mechanic) certainly seemed a much more tempting concept than standing my ground. I usually stood my ground before, even if the chances were poor. But, now that the chances of survival are very poor, it's generally better just to run away.

The Vaegir archers suffer the most. They are now entirely limited to short weaponry, in addition to the athletics nerf. Because of this, they are easily out ranged in melee by anyone with even the slightest idea of what they're doing. It is also very easy to get around a Vaegir or Nord archer, making it significantly easier to flank or get sideswipes. In fact, it is fairly trivial for any two infantry to flank and kill an archer, with actual player skill having little impact. 'Nids are less affected by the nerfs than the others, as they always had crossbow level athletics and they're keeping their scimitars. I suppose Sarranids arguably have the best archers in the game now, since so many people prefer the nomad bow anyway.

While I didn't have much opportunity to dodge couched lances, dodging enemy projectiles is way more difficult than before. I can't really expand upon this more than that, but I can say I got hit by a number of crossbow bolts that would have been easily dodged before.

Archers always had terrible melee proficiencies and skills, moving and swinging slower and sometimes taking 3-4 hits to kill someone when they frequently only needed 1 to kill in return (assuming they're not wearing that expensive armor, which is definitely not feasible now). Now they also dodge at a snail's pace. There was a lot of camping last night, and I can't say I blame them.

Speaking of camping, archer ranged capabilities seem to be completely unaffected. On one Nord Town map we Vaegirs camped the spawn and archer spammed, and there was much rage. Nothing unusual going on there, except that there was a very high amount of campers, and relatively few people playing infantry due to Vaegir inf sucking now.

That was my experience playing archer, anyway. Playing infantry and cavalry was pretty much the same, though running down archers was a lot easier.

I did notice, however, a bug in the equipment screen when playing Nord Huscarl. When I attempted to buy: Some nord hat, a leather jerkin, the best nord sword, a heavy round shield, and a pack of light throwing axes. The gold meter said it was below 1500, something like "1465". However, when I actually spawned, I started with some lousy axe instead of throwing axes, and future viewing of the equipment screen read something over 1500, like "1545". The equipment loadout was, however, unchanged.

Fritigern 说:

ITT people who don't understand balance.

点击展开...

1. a state of equilibrium or equipoise; equal distribution of weight, amount, etc.

In this case, an equal distribution of class strength. In theory, the strengths and weaknesses of a class should come out to a general total strength that is roughly equivalent to that of other classes. Additionally, each class's strengths and weaknesses should connect into one another to grant different players advantages or disadvantages based on the circumstances. This makes the game interesting and mostly fair, in theory. Seems pretty straightforward to me. At least it would be if people could agree on how strong the classes are.

Captain Lust 说:

Asheila 说:

Even if athletics is reduced by one, the decision should have been to nerf or buff one or the other, not both. Decreasing archer athletics by 1 or increasing infantry athletics by 1, but both at the same time is a bit much, and more of a double buff to infantry.

点击展开...

We didn't raise the infantry athletics. Did you hear that from me? Where did I say that?

点击展开...

Shema was getting confused earlier in the thread, I think.

Rallix 说:

A higher athletics allows for better melee footwork, and less penalty from weight.
An archer isn't supposed to specialize in any of those things. An archer provides ranged support.

点击展开...

Archers are already nowhere near specialized in melee. The planned changes only make the already weak (melee-wise) archers weaker. Many people think archers are already weak enough in melee. Thus, we wonder why the athletics changes are still going through when so many have spoken against it. The answer? Lust apparently doesn't care what we think and is going to do what he thinks is best.

Also, screw the "archers are a support class!" philosophy. Archers are just as much a class as any other, and deserve to be played and enjoyed just as much as the rest. Getting effortlessly run down by infantry isn't fun. Balance isn't making infantry superior and making all the other classes support it. Balance is giving each class strengths and weaknesses, and having them all support each other. An all archer team should have just as much chance of survival (little), as an all infantry or all cavalry team. /rant

Captain Lust 说:

Azrooh 说:

Better bows? They're less accurate, slower, and their arc is different enough from the nomad bow to throw your aim off. They're pretty terrible.

点击展开...

And thus your credibility was lost.

点击展开...

I wouldn't say Azrooh's statement is without credibility. While I prefer larger bows, they do have a lot of drawbacks (hah, I made a funny), and which ones are better mostly comes down to personal choice and circumstance.

Large bows do more damage and have better shot speed (generally having an easier time hitting at long range), but smaller bows have better speed, accuracy, and prices. In my experience large bows tend to be better at longer ranges (especially against cavalry), while small bows tend to be better for close range encounters (especially against other archers).

Azrooh 说:

Those spiked clubs? Last I checked those things were barely capable of not wiffing against armor due to 21p being pathetic damage. If I remember correctly, pierce damage has more difficulty with wiffs than blunt, so everyone's best off upgrading to the club after that.

点击展开...

19. 19p.

点击展开...

Oh, right. 

They're so terrible I haven't even looked at them in ages.

OliESC 说:

Lots of Stuff

点击展开...

Well said.

Captain Lust 说:

Seems like a bit of an overreaction to a 1 point athletics change. I said in the chat (where your friend behaved quite unpleasantly) that I think the gold changes will be a far more significant change for the most part.

点击展开...

It doesn't seem like an overreaction to me. You're nerfing a part of a class that most people don't want nerfed. People complain and provide legitimate reasons why they think it's a bad change. Rather than address these points (perhaps legitimately, you don't have all day I imagine), you ignore them, minimize the effects, and push the changes through anyway. Presumably because you think we're all wrong, and that you have a better idea what's best for the players as a whole. People are understandably upset.

I don't think the gold changes will affect me as much as the athletics changes, actually. When I play archer, I never use heavy armor (even in scrims) because it limits my ability to dodge and maneuver in melee. I don't think heavy armor really fits the archer's style.

Weaker weapons or armor can be compensated for by blocking and hitting more, but lower athletics will limit my ability to avoid being outmaneuvered by infantry (and thus be unable to block), dodge couches and projectiles, and dodge out of range of short and powerful weapons like one-handed axes or warhammers.

Edit:

Juvenile 说:

Guarantee that club glances half as often as those garbage free swords. Scimitar being available for Sarranid archers kinda makes up for the pea-shooter bows they use.

点击展开...

Those spiked clubs? Last I checked those things were barely capable of not wiffing against armor due to 21p being pathetic damage. If I remember correctly, pierce damage has more difficulty with wiffs than blunt, so everyone's best off upgrading to the club after that.

But yeah, Sarranids are pretty much weak Vaegirs, and need every advantage they can get.

Captain Lust 说:

Disappointing to see people running their mouth with nonsense. Also, not communicative at all? I've got to come on here and make a post every time I fart? or more accurately every time someone can't be bothered to read back in the thread to something I've written which hasn't changed? I'd get nothing else done.

点击展开...

I guess this is at least partially directed at people still wondering about the reasoning for the changes to ranged units? So, for the convenience of those lazy people who can't be bothered to read the whole 91 page thread to find ol' Lust's reasoning:

http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,253533.msg6373055.html#msg6373055
http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,253533.msg6373193.html#msg6373193
http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,253533.msg6380220.html#msg6380220
http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,253533.msg6386390.html#msg6386390
http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,253533.msg6388529.html#msg6388529
http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,253533.msg6442490.html#msg6442490

I think that's pretty much all the relevant stuff. Keep in mind most (if not all of these) were posted before the changes were lowered to a one point decrease.

It could be theorized that Lust's reasoning remains the same. Theoretically he feels that ranged units losing a point of athletics will help the competitive scene by making aggressive archer tactics a more dangerous maneuver.

Some critics felt that sprinting will dilute the effect on long range travel and that close range movements such as melee and dodging will be more strongly affected. In general, critics seemed to think: that athletics was the wrong place to change archers, that a nerf was unnecessary in the first place, or that the changes were made too late in the game's lifespan. Or all the above. Reception to the changes has been primarily negative. It seems likely that the changes were lessened due to outspoken disdain for them.

Since the elusive Lust has been spotted, I'll ask my question again.

Why are you guys still lowering ranged unit athletics? It seems that public outcry has convinced you that lowering it by 2 or 3 points is a bad idea. So why lower it by 1 point? It's still going to have a noticeable negative impact on archer melee and couch/missile dodging. Is this what you're trying to accomplish? Are you considering how the changes will affect public play? And what merit does a one point athletics decrease actually bear?