In Response to "Current Situation"

[POM_Zero]

Good for them? I can attribute every single infantry-related skill to another game as well. It's a silly argument to make because all we're really doing is moving & clicking our mouse in specific patterns. By the way, drop & lead are not specific to Warband, nor was Warband a pioneer in that regard.

I know, but the comparative amounts of skills needed are lower for archers than infantry. (Also, I know drop and lead are not specific to Warband, that's why I mentioned Worms and Tanks. Although, most modern FPSs actually shoot from the cross-hair or the muzzle, and don't actually simulate drop (except for certain sniper rifles and launchers). Like I said though, not my argument as a whole.

I disagree, when is the last time that an archer got to keep his bow out the whole round, an archer needs how to be an infantry too.  Which makes them the hardest class to learn.  An archer is bad if he dies when someone gets to him, nuff said.

This. When I first started, I wanted to play archer, but once I realized how bad I was at blocking, I switched to shield infantry, which is an easier class IMO, at least until your shield breaks.

This. When I started I wanted to also be archer, but my blocking was terribad. I went to cav for a major period of my early days, or the good old days when PRT's cav capt. was El_Chupacabra and Delro. Then I went to inf. once my blocking was average and I was learning the ways of positioning and tactics and ****, I started playing archer.

 

[CalCD]

Its rather hard to qualify arguments against archers when shields still have slight force-field projecting capabilities and when even the free shields will handily defend you against a dozen arrows, which should be enough time to run up to any archer and whack them in the face. Its also easier to sit at the back of a battle and shoot arrows at people as a new player, but then again they'll probably fold like a paper rag when you run up to them with a big sword.
I think this games main problem is that really good players tend to dominate whatever class they play, but even a really good archer wont live long against multiple infantrymen without help. This is a team game in most gamemodes, and complaining about archers shooting at you when you're in a big melee fight is like complaining that you died because someone hit you from behind with a lance whilst you were occupied with someone else. The only thing that really annoys me about archers is that they force you to play defensively sometimes, which isnt as fun as blind two handed charging, but thats part of the game and you cant expect to play one way all the time and still win.

At least most archers tend to lead their targets enough that you can sidestep the arrows in midflight, which is surprisingly fun.

 

[MadocComadrin]

Cal, I've have arrows break higher tier shields on a regular basis, and the forcefields definitely aren't as bad as they used to be (slight angles or a nice shot at an exposed area will most likely hit).

 

[Jess_the_Hobozerk]

Force fields have to do with the troop stats in the scripts, infantry obviously have higher shield skill than an archer so obviously an archer who picked up a shield isn't going to have a force field + it will break faster.  I don't agree with how the shield skill gives a sort of auto block for foot shots or even when it's clearly going for their head but it's a quality of infantry and I don't complain. 

 

[MadocComadrin]

It's not that protective: careless aiming of your shield will still net you a shot in the face/foot.

 

[Jess_the_Hobozerk]

It's not that protective: careless aiming of your shield will still net you a shot in the face/foot.

That's with vaegirs, swads, and sarranid shields.  Nearly impossible to out angle a huscarl and board shield.

 

[Goker]

Also, Higher level crossbows can go through some shields. Except heater shields I guess and other higher tier shields.

 

[MadocComadrin]

It's not that protective: careless aiming of your shield will still net you a shot in the face/foot.

That's with vaegirs, swads, and sarranid shields.  Nearly impossible to out angle a huscarl and board shield.

Isn't that the point though?

 

[Jess_the_Hobozerk]

It's not that protective: careless aiming of your shield will still net you a shot in the face/foot.

That's with vaegirs, swads, and sarranid shields.  Nearly impossible to out angle a huscarl and board shield.

Isn't that the point though?

Actually did some testing today, you have to hit the actual toe to foot shot any of the shields I just listed.  While an entire leg is exposed.

 

[Maximo_khan]

I've been playing this game and still play fairly often from beta 0.5 as infantry, with 2h shield and throw weapon if have spare money after armour.

In beta times there was a time when shield didn't have force field, and any archer you were pointing would try and shoot you in the feet. The closer you would get, the more sniper accurate the bow becames and you would be hit in the feet. the solution was to jump when an archer was firing because when you jumped with shield held back then you would still keep the block and your leg would come up behind it. more realistic probably, but battle just looked silly. this may answer to who wonders why shield cover feet without moving it.

this game has gone through many stages during patch and in my personal opinion was perfect some pathces before release, melee was faster, was much harder to manual block.

I always though archers needed a buff because when you had the best armour a crossbow bolt would take half your health down, an arrow was barely noticeable.

It looks to me that arrow damage ( or bow ) has been raised, but i think archer can shoot too fast, should take bit longer between arrows, should take longer to stabilize aim.

at the same time looks like shield have been nerfed, you keep a shield up but i see arrow entering my block from very acute angles in front of me , something was impossible to happen once.

So, to rebalance the game as a whole for who believe it needs it:

archers shot should take bit longer between arrows, should take longer to stabilize aim.

raise shield cover,

horse should have more hp especially the expensive war horses

balance the faction, it sucks than there is so much difference in stats between troop of diffent faction

 

[MadocComadrin]

Actually did some testing today, you have to hit the actual toe to foot shot any of the shields I just listed.  While an entire leg is exposed.

And isn't that the point of the forcefield--to simulate shield movement to cover the exposed area? Those shields are big, and add in the shield skill infantry get, it that should work like that. It's the point of those shields plus the shield skill. Do a test with an archer who picked up the shield and you'll get a more direct result.

 

[Jess_the_Hobozerk]

Actually did some testing today, you have to hit the actual toe to foot shot any of the shields I just listed.  While an entire leg is exposed.

And isn't that the point of the forcefield--to simulate shield movement to cover the exposed area? Those shields are big, and add in the shield skill infantry get, it that should work like that. It's the point of those shields plus the shield skill. Do a test with an archer who picked up the shield and you'll get a more direct result.

No, hehe, the shield skill was added so that infantry shields lasted longer in single player and it was near impossible to get hit by an arrow.  They kept it in multiplayer because it made shields last longer in battle and so that an archer couldn't just pick up a shield and be as good with it.  If we're talking realistically, you would have to have reaction timing of a god to be able to locate the arrow's trajectory and move your shield accordingly to defend yourself within the short amount of time it takes an arrow to get to you.  Though I think they should make it that you have more mobility with what you want your shield to cover.

 

[MadocComadrin]

Shield skill has always increased the force-field, iirc. Likewise, if a stuntman can grab arrows out of the air from a minimum distance, I don't see why a trained footmen can't adjust his shield to match an incoming arrow from generally father away.

 

[Jess_the_Hobozerk]

A stuntman can't, only when the bow is drawn to about 1/3rd it's full drawback can they sometimes catch an arrow.  I know about the force fields in accordance to the shield skill, I'm a modder.

 

[Orion]

Shield coverage is influenced by shield skill. "Coverage" is the statistic that determines how much area the shield will actually catch projectiles from.

They kept it in multiplayer because it made shields last longer in battle and so that an archer couldn't just pick up a shield and be as good with it.

In a sense, this is still correct. The Shield skill affects the shield stats Coverage, Speed, and Resistance. I don't know if it affects shield health, I'd have to check. Archers have less shield skill, therefore their use of shields is less efficient (lower coverage), slower (less speed), and more damaging to the shield (less resistance/health).

 

[MadocComadrin]

A stuntman can't, only when the bow is drawn to about 1/3rd it's full drawback can they sometimes catch an arrow.  I know about the force fields in accordance to the shield skill, I'm a modder.

For the former, I've seen it myself; and for the latter, as am I--ever since the original.

 

[Jess_the_Hobozerk]

A stuntman can't, only when the bow is drawn to about 1/3rd it's full drawback can they sometimes catch an arrow.  I know about the force fields in accordance to the shield skill, I'm a modder.

For the former, I've seen it myself; and for the latter, as am I--ever since the original.

Ditto.  You've seen a 60+ lb pound drawback bow fire an arrow and gets caught in close quarters?  I'd like to see this.

 

[Orion]

Ditto.  You've seen a 60+ lb pound drawback bow fire an arrow and gets caught in close quarters?  I'd like to see this.

At least get your terminology right. "60 lb bow" is sufficient. "Drawback" isn't an archery term. It's just called draw.

 

[Jess_the_Hobozerk]

Ditto.  You've seen a 60+ lb pound drawback bow fire an arrow and gets caught in close quarters?  I'd like to see this.

At least get your terminology right. "60 lb bow" is sufficient. "Drawback" isn't an archery term. It's just called draw.

I live in an area where there are people that do nothing but hunt, excuse me if I speak from experience, and not what I read off of wikipedia... troll >.>

 

[Orion]

How about listening to what an actual bow hunter is telling you right now?

I suppose I could go take some pictures of my Bear recurve, but I CBA to find my camera.