Beta Patch 1.157 - Patch pre-release! Steam release on Wednesday.

Users who are viewing this thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lord_Anden said:
Rallix said:
Lord_Anden said:
Rallix said:
No, it means that it's not a 'proper' cake.
What is proper is what the majority say it is.
But its indeed still a cake and it works just as fine as any other cake? Probably taste just as good? No?
Maybe. But the changes which are being suggested are for the other bakers. Not someone who goes and does their own odd thing.
These changes to the ingredients are being made with the needs of the majority in mind, and not the minority.

I'm not saying that you can't do your own thing. I'm saying you can't expect the majority to accept it.
I see, but why wouldnt they accept it? Because we are bothering people about it or because we dont do the same?

Cake: Why do the other bakers not like this other baker and his cake? Because he is selling it and talking about it or because the bakers see he is doing something else.
The majority bakers do not like it because this odd baker is trying to influence the changes to ingredients which are meant for the majority bakers.
Last post I make on this.
 
Alene said:
Guys, please, just stop. I don't see anyone changing their perspective on the matter, so you are on stalemate, and continuing this conversation is pointless.

Niflheimians play Warband competitively with their rules, but that does not mean they cannot comment on the coming patch. If their comments have any affect to the coming patch is up to Lust.

+1 to that actually.

EDIT: @Rallix, Fair enough, makes sense, but remember that change can be good aswell. Last post on the subject.
 
Alene said:
Guys, please, just stop. I don't see anyone changing their perspective on the matter, so you are on stalemate, and continuing this conversation is pointless.

Niflheimians play Warband competitively with their rules, but that does not mean they cannot comment on the coming patch. If their comments have any affect to the coming patch is up to Lust.

Warning - while you were typing 6 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.   :roll:

FINALLY someone who speaks fking sense.
 
Alene said:
Guys, please, just stop. I don't see anyone changing their perspective on the matter, so you are on stalemate, and continuing this conversation is pointless.

Niflheimians play Warband competitively with their rules, but that does not mean they cannot comment on the coming patch. If their comments have any affect to the coming patch is up to Lust.

Warning - while you were typing 6 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.   :roll:
What heresy is this?! Internet discussions are meaningful!
 
Alex_C said:
Firstly headshots also come from infantry and cavalry by means of throwing weapons, secondly as the statistics show, even if all headshots were to be taken as from rangers, they would only account for ~30% of kills.
Yeah, but I when I was speaking about reducing accuracy, I ment ranged, not archers and crossbows only, man.
And the fact that ranged kills are taking 30% of kills in a competitive tournament such as ENL doesn't mean they don't dominate. 30% is still pretty damn high, especially if what was said before is truth:
Osviux said:
If there's a lot of archers well then you are right, but in competitive play there is often 1-2
Which I assure you is truth for many clans, not for all but still. So assuming that archers were 16% of all players or even less, they took 30% of all kills, which makes the number even more impressing.
Though 10% headshots is too damn high by itself, don't you think? Slightly reducing accuracy would be perfect imo.
 
I like to do things differently than the majority (in real life) as well and I don't see anything wrong with it, but hearing from Niflheim  (archer haters) that archers should be weakened sounds way too biased.
 
Tork789 said:
Alex_C said:
Firstly headshots also come from infantry and cavalry by means of throwing weapons, secondly as the statistics show, even if all headshots were to be taken as from rangers, they would only account for ~30% of kills.
Yeah, but I when I was speaking about reducing accuracy, I ment ranged, not archers and crossbows only, man.
And the fact that ranged kills are taking 30% of kills in a competitive tournament such as ENL doesn't mean they don't dominate. 30% is still pretty damn high, especially if what was said before is truth:
Osviux said:
If there's a lot of archers well then you are right, but in competitive play there is often 1-2
Which I assure you is truth for many clans, not for all but still. So assuming that archers were 16% of all players or even less, they took 30% of all kills, which makes the number even more impressing.
Though 10% headshots is too damn high by itself, don't you think? Slightly reducing accuracy would be perfect imo.

So you want to reduce throwing weapon accuracy as well? Even for arguments sake assuming your point about the ranged classes being overpowered, I don't see the motivation for that.

What proportion of archers taken entirely depends on map and faction choice. Since the standard format is for one Open and one Closed map to be available per match, I'd put the aggregate number of archers per team in a match to around 2.5/8 (1-2 in a closed map, 3-4 in an open map), which is 31.25% of players, achieving ~30% of kills (assuming all headshots are from crossbows/archers). This seems reasonable.

Headshot proportions will always be slightly higher, since they're more or less a finishing move. You could have plenty of body-shots which won't be counted in the kill count since they don't kill the opponent, for instance with a player being shot twice and then finished off with a headshot, or a player taking three or so arrows which aren't headshots to finally die.
 
Osviux said:
I like to do things differently than the majority (in real life) as well and I don't see anything wrong with it, but hearing from Niflheim  (archer haters) that archers should be weakened sounds way too biased.
Balanced is not necessarily weakened. For one, I say make arrows and bolts hurt badly if you actually get hit, but decrease shooting rate and accuracy.

Shemaforash said:
******** ****ty players, **** off with your stupid ideas. Hunter you're **** at the game and you were **** at cRPG. Stop calling your little boypack Anden just because you happen to know more people who hate archers.
Whats up with you? o_O
No need to be angry :razz:
 
Lord_Anden said:
Osviux said:
I like to do things differently than the majority (in real life) as well and I don't see anything wrong with it, but hearing from Niflheim  (archer haters) that archers should be weakened sounds way too biased.
Balanced is not necessarily weakened. For one, I say make arrows and bolts hurt badly if you actually get hit, but decrease shooting rate and accuracy.

What effects do you envisage that having on high-end competitive play? Why are these effects positive?
 
Alex_C said:
What proportion of archers taken entirely depends on map and faction choice. Since the standard format is for one Open and one Closed map to be available per match, I'd put the aggregate number of archers per team in a match to around 2.5/8 (1-2 in a closed map, 3-4 in an open map), which is 31.25% of players, achieving ~30% of kills (assuming all headshots are from crossbows/archers). This seems reasonable.
Well that's why we need another statistics to get pass this dispute and make the conclusion clearer.

Alex_C said:
Headshot proportions will always be slightly higher, since they're more or less a finishing move. You could have plenty of body-shots which won't be counted in the kill count since they don't kill the opponent, for instance with a player being shot twice and then finished off with a headshot, or a player taking three or so arrows which aren't headshots to finally die.
Ehrm, what do you mean by "finishing move"? For me it's something like in WotR when someone is lying on the ground and it's easy to come to him, take your time to aim and make a headshot. When I was headshotted it was mostly in a melee fight or from a distance when I wasn't defending myself with a shield or didn't make it in time to cover myself or simply the shooter was on a higher position which allowed him to shoot over shield. And 1 or 2 times it was the shield penetration. But I don't remember any "finishing moves", describe it more detailed please.
 
Tork789 said:
Alex_C said:
Headshot proportions will always be slightly higher, since they're more or less a finishing move. You could have plenty of body-shots which won't be counted in the kill count since they don't kill the opponent, for instance with a player being shot twice and then finished off with a headshot, or a player taking three or so arrows which aren't headshots to finally die.
Ehrm, what do you mean by "finishing move"? For me it's something like in WotR when someone is lying on the ground and it's easy to come to him, take your time to aim and make a headshot. When I was headshotted it was mostly in a melee fight or from a distance when I wasn't defending myself with a shield or didn't make it in time to cover myself or simply the shooter was on a higher position which allowed him to shoot over shield. And 1 or 2 times it was the shield penetration. But I don't remember any "finishing moves", describe it more detailed please.

Well, by a headshot's very nature it will show up more in a kill log, since a headshot always (excluding certain fringe circumstances) kills. One headshot is all it takes for a kill to be registered as a headshot, whereas behind every other kill there could be numerous individual hits from other weapon types which will not be in a kill count. The same applies more-or-less the couched lances.
 
Alex_C said:
Well, by a headshot's very nature it will show up more in a kill log, since a headshot always (excluding certain fringe circumstances) kills. One headshot is all it takes for a kill to be registered as a headshot, whereas behind every other kill there could be numerous individual hits from other weapon types which will not be in a kill count. The same applies more-or-less the couched lances.
The same applies, for, well, anything. Like if a guy gets shot in a leg and then killed by a sword in the face. That's, by the way, another reason why we can't make a clear conclusion from just one statistic.
 
Tork789 said:
The same applies, for, well, anything. Like if a guy gets shot in a leg and then killed by a sword in the face. That's, by the way, another reason why we can't make a clear conclusion from just one statistic.

Not really, since the difference is that every other attack can 'hide' behind every other kill statistic, as you said, an arrow and then a kill with a sword. Headshots however by their very nature cannot 'hide' in this way, and so the count of headshot kills is more-or-less equal to the number of headshot hits, whereas the count of one-handed sword kills is lower by a great degree than the count of one-handed sword hits.
 
Alex_C said:
Lord_Anden said:
Osviux said:
I like to do things differently than the majority (in real life) as well and I don't see anything wrong with it, but hearing from Niflheim  (archer haters) that archers should be weakened sounds way too biased.
Balanced is not necessarily weakened. For one, I say make arrows and bolts hurt badly if you actually get hit, but decrease shooting rate and accuracy.

What effects do you envisage that having on high-end competitive play? Why are these effects positive?

The High Damage arrows, makes sure it hurts if you actually dont watch out as infantry or cavalry, if you get yourself shot, you need to start thinking.
Well, high damage arrows wouldnt really be good with the accuracy of shooting rate that we got at this time. Of course now you could say, well, why not just leave it then?
Because, it would make archery harder and more rewarding if you know what you are doing.
I find those effects very positive.

@Armie_knock
Well, not exactly like that, but along those lines yes. But most of Niflheim got some extreme opinions when it comes to archers.
 
Warning: The reply your are about to read is actually on topic, and therefore may be shocking to many of you who feel that this thread is your own personal forum battleground.

So I made a new character in single player with only 1 athletics, and I was shocked at just how much this athletics nerf affects even basic movement. You've effectively ruined an archers ability to use positioning in melee, the tiny movement changes you would use to dodge in and out of strike range aren't possible any more because it takes so much longer to make them. I dread to think how fast the enemy infantry could get behind me.

Two points to consider which I don't think have been raised yet.

Dodging cavalry:
The best defence I have against incoming cavalry attacks is moving out of the way, in fact it's the only way to avoid death by couched lance if you haven't got a shot aimed ready to fire (assuming you have no shield - not too much of a stretch considering archers can't buy them). You are increasing cavalry effectiveness against archers with this patch, quite significantly in my opinion. Even bump stabs/slashes will be far easier for cavalry to pull off now.

Dodging Projectiles:
Nerfing athletics increases the time it takes to change direction. Getting caught out of cover (assuming no shield) is already pretty darned risky, you're making it far easier for the enemy to hit you with any throwing weapons/arrows.

Conclusions:
I think you're going about nerfing archers in completely the wrong way. You should rebalance the armour costs to make the higher level armours for archers more difficult to get (e.g. so you can't spawn with it first round) and make the scimitar cost money, not remove it completely.

Perhaps infantry should consider taking lighter armour options in order to catch archers.... or use throwing weapons. In fact 1 on 1 infantry have it pretty darn good against archers. The only reason archers seem OP is because you're usually fighting against more than 1, individually they're fairly weak.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom