Beta Patch 1.157 - Patch pre-release! Steam release on Wednesday.
- Thread starter captain lust
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
- Status
Norsking said:
Lol what's the point in even arguing with someone who is THAT bad at the game
Yeah and you think that affects me somehow? I'm just trying to put your biased opinions down as the incredible mediocre player you are. Sit down small son. It's a dirty job but somebody has to do it 
But, that's simply not how it is.Norsking said:
Alright, there are two scenarios.
Open, and Closed map.
Like a plain and a village.
On the open map, there are a few ways to assign your team's classes.
The first is 'Mixed.' For example in a team of 8, you might field 2 inf, 3 archers, 3 cav.
The next is Archers/Cav, 4 archers, 4 cav, no inf.
The third is all-cav.
The fourth is all-inf.
Nobody goes all-archers on an open map.
A balanced build will be beaten by the second, archer/cav. The second build will be beaten by all-cav. The all-cav will be beaten by the all-inf.
The all inf will be be beaten by the balanced or other mixed builds.
This is not the rule, but it's generally what happens on an open map.
On closed maps, things are much more complex, and I'm a bit fuzzy on how things go. But generally, a balanced build with a low cav factor works out well. Because high numbers of cav cannot always win against ranged spam on closed maps.
Essentially, a closed map's winner is determined by smart calling, skilled specialists at classes, and maintaining ranged/cav support for infantry superiority.
People lose against all-archer teams in closed maps because they think they can skirmish against* a bunch of skirmishers. The whole point of skirmishers/ranged units is that they love it when you try to play cat and mouse with them, instead of pushing them like the plushy cottonballs they are.
Edit: What's that? It's the sound of silence. Amazing. I'm glad I stopped with the dickwaving, and regret starting to in the first place.
Rallix said:
It's the result of an excellent post
EDIT: And late night ^^
Archerflame and I wasn't invited? What the hell guys, srsly? Let me just read the whole thing and I might join in after it.
UPD: Finally finished browsing through the flame. And I would like just to say that a little archer nerf would be most appreciated, for example, reducing accuracy to the point when archers are not that ridiculously accurate to headshot from 300+ meters(approximately ofc), headshot a horseman with 100% chance when he's riding at him trying to thrust him with a lance/slash with a sword and especially when he's riding at him with a couched lance.
And maybe, as was mentioned before, increase armour's resistance to projectiles, as I see armour now as mostly useless. But, if speaking about competitive gameplay, I, as I mostly play cav now, rarely get to the point of wearing armour so don't really care about it lol, though infantry would appreciate it.
Let me just tell a little about my gameplay experience. For me, cavalry is anything but carrey, since it really depends on other classes. For example, I never attack any not mounted class openly. Usually I try to sneak behind and go for a backstab and even more often I get kills from "killstealing" when my infantry teammates are tying the enemy up with a melee, by backstabbing, bumping, bumpslashing et cetera.
And from my personal experience 90% of archers on public and almost 100% if speaking about competitive gameplay can easily kill me if I try to ride at them openly by a headshot and I find it ridiculous. And it's not just me, none skilled cav openly attacks archers, not even Shema, I played with him for a while.
Reducing the accuracy will be enough, everything else about the archers is at least satisfying imo.
It would be perfect, as I mentioned in the thread I made not so long ago, to handicap archers by removing the crosshair or making it to shake, or even make it invisible and shake lol, but it's just way too big change for this point of the game, still I hope to see something like that in the sequel.
But really, at this point it might be just too late to change anything, and reducing the accuracy will just bring a sh*tstorm to the forum, which I will gladly join.
Warning - while you were typing 2 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.
UPD: Finally finished browsing through the flame. And I would like just to say that a little archer nerf would be most appreciated, for example, reducing accuracy to the point when archers are not that ridiculously accurate to headshot from 300+ meters(approximately ofc), headshot a horseman with 100% chance when he's riding at him trying to thrust him with a lance/slash with a sword and especially when he's riding at him with a couched lance.
And maybe, as was mentioned before, increase armour's resistance to projectiles, as I see armour now as mostly useless. But, if speaking about competitive gameplay, I, as I mostly play cav now, rarely get to the point of wearing armour so don't really care about it lol, though infantry would appreciate it.
Let me just tell a little about my gameplay experience. For me, cavalry is anything but carrey, since it really depends on other classes. For example, I never attack any not mounted class openly. Usually I try to sneak behind and go for a backstab and even more often I get kills from "killstealing" when my infantry teammates are tying the enemy up with a melee, by backstabbing, bumping, bumpslashing et cetera.
And from my personal experience 90% of archers on public and almost 100% if speaking about competitive gameplay can easily kill me if I try to ride at them openly by a headshot and I find it ridiculous. And it's not just me, none skilled cav openly attacks archers, not even Shema, I played with him for a while.
Reducing the accuracy will be enough, everything else about the archers is at least satisfying imo.
It would be perfect, as I mentioned in the thread I made not so long ago, to handicap archers by removing the crosshair or making it to shake, or even make it invisible and shake lol, but it's just way too big change for this point of the game, still I hope to see something like that in the sequel.
But really, at this point it might be just too late to change anything, and reducing the accuracy will just bring a sh*tstorm to the forum, which I will gladly join.
Warning - while you were typing 2 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.
That's nice, dear.Orion said:
Tork789 said:
You should definitely not take this opportunity to display your lack of metagame knowledge again.
If you choose the saddle or courser horses no wonder you complain about them dying so quickly, instead of buying weapons and armors I'd recommend you at least buy a hunter, it has more health and armor.
They already are a supportive role, in competitive game, if they get attacked by cavalry or a group of infantry, they are as good as dead unless the clan sends infantry or cavalry to save them or they are already stationed near the archers. They don't have shields or spears, so they can be easily over-spammed with throwing projectiles or ran over by cavalry, even if they get a shield they need to sacrifice half of the ammo.
I doubt nerfing archer speed will change where they are stationed or how they behave, you, Captain Lust, are just making them weaker without any good reason because you are influenced by the "big players" like the archer hater clan - Niflheim.
Norsking said:
They already are a supportive role, in competitive game, if they get attacked by cavalry or a group of infantry, they are as good as dead unless the clan sends infantry or cavalry to save them or they are already stationed near the archers. They don't have shields or spears, so they can be easily over-spammed with throwing projectiles or ran over by cavalry, even if they get a shield they need to sacrifice half of the ammo.
I doubt nerfing archer speed will change where they are stationed or how they behave, you, Captain Lust, are just making them weaker without any good reason because you are influenced by the "big players" like the archer hater clan - Niflheim.
Hamel
Sergeant Knight
There should be a rule against people from infantry focused clans with little or no experience playing archers from posting opinions about archery nerfs.
People should branch out more, I think the game is more enjoyable if you play all the classes. It would probably help with all this class specific hate, too.
(My apologies to anyone who thinks I'm specifically referring them. I might be, though.)
People should branch out more, I think the game is more enjoyable if you play all the classes. It would probably help with all this class specific hate, too.
(My apologies to anyone who thinks I'm specifically referring them. I might be, though.)
I think everyone here will find this interesting.
I brought 10 or even more people to this game and one feature they all shared.
Failing to get kills as infantry and cavalry due to their lack of experience, they eventually went ranged classes(archers and crossbowmen) and got their first kills, and all of them made a conclusion that it's a lot easier than trying to kill someone in melee or mounted.
I brought 10 or even more people to this game and one feature they all shared.
Failing to get kills as infantry and cavalry due to their lack of experience, they eventually went ranged classes(archers and crossbowmen) and got their first kills, and all of them made a conclusion that it's a lot easier than trying to kill someone in melee or mounted.
Tork789 said:
If there's a lot of archers well then you are right, but in competitive play there is often 1-2 at one place which you can cav+inf charge and nobody is saying you should charge blindly, what I tell my cavalry is to wait until the fighting starts or for a good moment to strike (ex: the archer walks away too far from his team).
Tork789 said:
Then they need more practice at melee, it's quite obvious that it's easier to shoot someone in the back or while the person is distracted by other teammates, than approach him at melee, it's not because archers are over-powered.
Tork789 said:
Tork789 said:
Contradiction? Anecdotal evidence from new players isn't good support for your claim of competitive knowledge, because new players aren't competitive players.
Besides, as any truly competitive archer would tell you, competitive archer play isn't about getting kills, it's about enabling them. This conclusion is backed up by statistics I gave you in your last little archery whine thread, but you made a point of ignoring them.
Tork789 said:
Hardly surprising, melee combat games like warband are not common and the ranger classes are more like an FPS than infantry or cavalry are, the skill transfer is a lot simpler. That doesn't mean that the other classes are inherently worse. Its often cav actually that is the easiest to get kills with for new players, since you can just backstab people on TDM or whatever.
Tork789 said:
Nope, at the top level I would say horsemen win 9 times out of 10, it does depend on if the archer has cover though, with a good tree to hide behind or a hill to use it can be more difficult.
Archers need to split up to be effective, the crossfire is what makes them powerful, not the number of archers. This means that they are often alone. A smart team will always dispatch two horsemen to deal with a lone enemy player, those horsemen will kill the ranger or lone infantry very quickly if they don't have a polearm. Against an archer who stands there trying to shoot you, the first horseman can bump and take maybe minor damage to his horse, the second can couch or do damage another way.
If you stick an infantry in to defend that archer then you may well have just lost, since splitting up the few infantry you have on an open map is suicide if the other team charges you and you end up getting destroyed in parts.
Even 1 on 1 though, the horseman wins more often by a long way if the skill levels are equal.
Since captainlust earlier stated that this patch was intended to balance elements of competitive play, I just don't see what valid input Niflheim members can possibly have. This isn't an attempt to disparage your clan, I can perfectly accept that you handle the game in the way you wish to and is fun for you, and that's fine; the fact remains however, that your clan has never really played competitive matches in Warband, and the few times you have you have either imposed your own arbitrary limitations on the game or failed.
This essentially means you're unlikely to have any valid input about what the patch should change, again taking captainlust's statement that this patch is intended for competitive play.
This essentially means you're unlikely to have any valid input about what the patch should change, again taking captainlust's statement that this patch is intended for competitive play.
- Status
