Give infantry classes higher shield skill
- 主题发起人 yedrellow
- 开始时间
正在查看此主题的用户
eth1234567890
Knight
no, shield skill need to be at 0.
Peton
Master Knight
yedrellow 说:
Or perhaps you should grab a better shield thats larger? or maybe even to dodge or just not engage archers in a open area where they can fire at you repeatedly.
The shield skill does not need to be increased in my opinion, every class has its advantages and disadvantages to make them balanced.
Gladiator Maximus
Banned
Totally agree with you both, Peton and Eth. If you feel they shoot you in the legs everytime, get a heavy board shield.
If you're playing RCC, you can get one in the weaponry in New Zendar.
If you're playing RCC, you can get one in the weaponry in New Zendar.
Phoenix234
Sergeant Knight at Arms
yedrellow 说:
you know that infantry have better athletics than archers do right? archers can't outrun infantry.
galonthier900
Regular
As an experienced melee'r and also archer (native) i agree with yedrellow, if your sieging a castle an archer can destroy your shield much, much to fast. As to whoever said, dont fight in the open.. lets take the default map for example. there are NO non-open areas except inside buildings and to get to them you either need to stand next to it or hope to god you arnt shot down trying to run to it, chances are the archers wont even go inside even then so your melee skills arnt put to use in a "closed area", personally i play an archer whenever i join a faction (or man at arms depends on what we're doing) because anyone who is a good manual blocker can take down a melee fighter just as easily, albeit abit slower because of powerstrike, i propose 2-4 more shield block on infantry/sergeant (they have a terribly low riding level so charging an archer is out of the question and running away without a horse is suicide 80% of the time) and perhaps for other melee classes like lord, man at arms, crossbowman (crossbowman should be excluded because he has his own form of range) increased by 1-2. as for athletics i feel sluggish compared to native when i use light armor. plus alot of melee weapons do blunt damage instead of cut (which for some reason never seems to impact armor much unless you have a 2h blunt weapon but even if you have an iron pole which is 26 swing blunt i had to hit a highly armored target, FOURTEEN TIMES, to kill him and that doesnt include thuds. Adressing "lol get a better shield" comments. not every faction can make well covering shields like a heavy board shield, heavy kite shield covers your body but disintegrates so fast its useless anyway, the nord city have the worst bows, the worst cav (and weapons for cav) and dont even have superior melee weapons, the shields arnt strong enough to withstand archer assaults that a non-cav needs and the melee weapons (that would normally be strong like a long nordic sword) instead, do blunt damage. Archers need to be more situationally strong, instead of strong everywhere for lack of thrown from melee and cav
I've never had a problem with my shield breaking too fast or getting shot over it. And I can almost guarantee that I know what the real problem is, seeing as I am a decent melee fighter and used to run a persistent faction of mercenary archers back in the day.
You have to point your shield at the archer, not at the ground/away from the archer. When people stare down at the ground to see over their character, they get shot in the face. End of story.
You have to point your shield at the archer, not at the ground/away from the archer. When people stare down at the ground to see over their character, they get shot in the face. End of story.
Splintert 说:
Look, if you actually played native you'd already know that the natural advantage already extends to the archers. Crossfiring is already quite easy, however, given the combination of150 weapon proficiency for the archer class, high powerdraw and low athletics, the advantage is automatically going to lie with the archers. When taleworlds was balancing multiplayer warband, they realised that shield skill was important, and gave the infantry classes an appropriate amount of it.
Next time you play this game, try to actually see what two competent native archers can do to an entire attack of any number of shielded players.
Yes we know about shield coverage; otherwise we wouldn't be talking about shield skill, would we?
The lower resistance due to lower shield skill also means that crossbow bolts penetrate through shields a ridiculous percentage of the time.
Finally, it is irrelevant that infantry have slightly higher athletics than archers, the point is that athletics is very very low in this mod. So if an archer is 20 metres away, then it's going to take an extremely long time to cover that distance.
There is literally no reason not to have a faction of pure warbow wielding archers.
The original poster does raise a relevant point. Almost 2 years ago when experimenting with various module system possibilities for PW, I found that a shield having a skill requirement greater than 0 seemed to make it impossible to pick up off the ground, so ensured all added shields and troop skill levels were 0 (all native MP shields have 0 requirement); relatively recently, I decided to retest it for some reason and found that the requirement worked correctly with troop skill when picking up - I'm not sure if the old versions had a bug, or if the test wasn't done properly. I probably didn't think that the problem was not directly relevant to whether troops had higher shield skill or not, but might not have given shield skill to avoid the "invisible forcefield" issue commonly raised in native discussions, which might only become obvious at higher levels like 5.
So while the high tier combat troop stats in PW are about the average of the corresponding native troop in other aspects, the shield skill is different, and possibly should be increased to a low average. Only the Rhodok sergeant and Swadian crossbowman have 5, other footmen have 4, 3, or 2, and other types have less; a moderate starting point for PW is probably something like 3 for lords and sergeants, 2 for footmen, and 1 for troops like archer, crossbowman, engineer, mercenary - I am a firm believer in generally adjusting things gradually, undershooting rather than overshoot and provoke an excessive reaction.
The PW footman athletics levels are not "very very low" comparatively: 6 for native footmen to 5 is not a dramatic change, especially when a lot of the other PW classes have much less. That PW scenes are much larger and players have to approach from long distances rather than spawn nearby probably clouds judgement on the issue. It might be more difficult to play as a solo barbarian taking on entire armies, but the game mode is a bit more focused on team work than some other modes.
Also, there is a stickied thread for suggestions and development discussion.
So while the high tier combat troop stats in PW are about the average of the corresponding native troop in other aspects, the shield skill is different, and possibly should be increased to a low average. Only the Rhodok sergeant and Swadian crossbowman have 5, other footmen have 4, 3, or 2, and other types have less; a moderate starting point for PW is probably something like 3 for lords and sergeants, 2 for footmen, and 1 for troops like archer, crossbowman, engineer, mercenary - I am a firm believer in generally adjusting things gradually, undershooting rather than overshoot and provoke an excessive reaction.
The PW footman athletics levels are not "very very low" comparatively: 6 for native footmen to 5 is not a dramatic change, especially when a lot of the other PW classes have much less. That PW scenes are much larger and players have to approach from long distances rather than spawn nearby probably clouds judgement on the issue. It might be more difficult to play as a solo barbarian taking on entire armies, but the game mode is a bit more focused on team work than some other modes.
Also, there is a stickied thread for suggestions and development discussion.
yedrellow 说:
The advantage should lie with the archer so long as he is not in melee range. It would be ridiculous if someone who cannot attack back would have an advantage in ranged combat. Archery is deadly, of course. It's hard to stop 2 archers who know how to fight. That's the point. Besides, in PW it's better to send 2 sword-cavalry after 1 archer than walk towards them on foot depending on the situation. The archer at most could dismount one, which leaves him on the ground and the other to move in for the kill.
Splintert 说:
The issue is that any competent native player can melee relatively well even with the reduced powerstrike, so there's very little to stop entire factions from going archer or xbow, especially if they have access to warbows. Sure, a sergeant or other 15str melee technically has the advantage melee 1v1, but battles aren't 1v1, and archers/xbows aren't hopeless at melee. Sword cav might be able to deal with a single archer, if they aren't using a spear, but when there's more than one archer, even armoured horsemen will die.
Scrimming in native is already determined by ranged, there is no reason to exasperate the situation by making infantry even less powerful.
eth1234567890
Knight
if a kingdom when all bow men they will lose. they mite kill some guys but if they get in a melee there toast. if archers can not kill a man with a shield why have them.yedrellow 说:
is not like there is one horseman in a charge. there is like 5 or 10 some time 15. 20 bow men can not fight that.
archers are going to be good at killing (that what they do),
the point is that bow men are fine if you are getting killed be them do not fight them in the open.
Disregarding individual player skill,
If you place one archer versus one swordsman in open ground the swordsman will win.
If you place one archer versus one swordsman where the archer defends a fortress, the archer will win.
If you place one archer versus one swordsman where the swordsman defends a fortress, the swordsman will win.
If you place 2 archers versus 1 swordsman on open ground, the archers win.
If you place 2 swordsmen versus 1 archer who is defending a fortress, the swordsmen will win (unless they are stupid)
Seems pretty balanced to me.
If you place one archer versus one swordsman in open ground the swordsman will win.
If you place one archer versus one swordsman where the archer defends a fortress, the archer will win.
If you place one archer versus one swordsman where the swordsman defends a fortress, the swordsman will win.
If you place 2 archers versus 1 swordsman on open ground, the archers win.
If you place 2 swordsmen versus 1 archer who is defending a fortress, the swordsmen will win (unless they are stupid)
Seems pretty balanced to me.
galonthier900
Regular
Splintert 说:
In a world where everyone has exactly the same skill level then yes this is valid, however that is not how Warband is played, i know many many people who could easily take 2-3 average-high skill level soldiers as an archer. Warband is extremely dependant on player skill so above representations are, in my opinion invalid. For myself shields are an encumbrance when im playing a soldier, id rather manual block because i use kicks alot aswell (kicking with a shield is very, very bad idea) but in PWmod i feel forced, that's ok of course because that's part of the gameplay but the fact its enforced is when your shield breaks you become alot more vulnerable than you are in native. The logical solution then, is increasing the blocking skill OR making shields stronger (which isn't a good idea because then certain classes like xbowman have range AND a really good shield.
galonthier900
Regular
Splintert 说:
Yet an experieced archer can kill an experienced infantryman, did you not here me say medium-high skill level? i didnt say i knew people who could take down 3 crappy people. Even a mediocre archer that takes on a mediocre infantryman can almost or completely destroy the infantrymans shield before he gets to him which gets rid of a huge bonus of not having to manual block (Which is probably the reason newer players go for shields anyway.
Splintert 说:
I have to disagree with this, because a the factor of skill comes into play. For example a smart archer attacking a fort knows he can bombard the defender/s and move around the fort revealing their cover. Also an archer v Swordsman on open ground an archer can easily win by running and shooting, you say infantry can run faster but with a shield weighing them down not so much, and if you ditch your shield you sir are swiss cheese. But do I think infantry should be buffed? no, it's simple people just play smart.
edit: don't mind me splint I didn't read into your post about skill
galonthier900 说:
No no, that's not possible. Shields are considerably stronger than that. A war bow, could maybe get off 4 shots in the time it takes an infantryman to run up on an archer, and that's if he's not trying to dodge at all.
If both players are of the same skill this post applies, otherwise the more experienced player always wins (unless the skill difference is not large). I know for fact that it takes more arrows to break a shield.
What exactly are you even arguing? Shields aren't nearly as weak as you make them out to be. Archers aren't nearly as overpowered as you make them out to be. Just because you're tired of being killed at a range doesn't mean it's unfair for infantrymen.
Splintert 说:
The archer wins in all cases except 2 swordsmen v 1 archer. Even between two experienced players, the archer will still win the majority of the time, as he is only slightly disadvantaged in melee, but has the advantage of 0 shield skill. An inexperienced archer still has a good chance of getting a shot on.
When there is more than one archer, then their ability to crossfire means that any number of melee increasingly becomes obsolete.
I have never seen a full warbow wielding archer faction not dominate.
