[Suggestion] Class cap

[Kapt Torbjorn]

Basically, a cap that allows only a certain number of 1 type of class in a match.  A team full of archers is not fun to play against, no matter what you do.  Neither is playing against an all horseman team either (excluding the Khergits).

 

[Faranox]

I'm against such hard-line restrictions.

 

[Ragratt]

no.

 

[Caveman]

I'm against this. One of the features of the game is having to change you teams tactics and class distribution to counter the enemy, and this would remove that feature. Also, a sudden switch of class for the whole team to cav or ranged is a good way to upset a team that gets too comfortable on a winning streak, or even turn things around.

 

[UsF]

Possible server side option with a maximum number for the classes would be nice.
On the beta testing servers, I doubt that it would be useful.

 

[Swadius 2.0]

Such needless restrictions are too artificial.

 

[Kapt Torbjorn]

The problem is that it gets next to impossible (and extremely frustrating) when you can't do anything other then hide from the constant incoming arrows, and then get picked off 1 by one.  I can see it driving a lot of new players away if they're unable to even get close enough to attack the enemy team before looking like some maniac's voodoo doll.

 

[Swadius 2.0]

I can see it drawing a lot of players if they end up on the side shooting all the arrows .

 

[Faranox]

If you aren't having fun you can always switch servers.

 

[Archonsod]

If the entire team is a single class then there are some huge weaknesses in their setup. They are quite easy to exploit once you understand how. In general, you only get away with going all - x once; largely from the shock value. Try it in a subsequent round and you tend to be massacred, at least when you're up against a competent team.

 

[Johnny Morphine]

No matter what the case, I'm against class restrictions. It really is too artificial. The only thing preventing any single-class-dominant team from getting crushed by any randomly composed team is whether or not the second team has the slightest degree of intelligence. Coming up against any team so dominated by any class does nothing but simplify the strategy of the opposition.

My brother keeps telling me there should be a cap on classes, but I'm doing my best to set him straight.

(now watch him log on, find this thread, and tell me exactly why I'm full of crap)

 

[Commodore_Frank]

No matter what the case, I'm against class restrictions. It really is too artificial. The only thing preventing any single-class-dominant team from getting crushed by any randomly composed team is whether or not the second team has the slightest degree of intelligence. Coming up against any team so dominated by any class does nothing but simplify the strategy of the opposition.

My brother keeps telling me there should be a cap on classes, but I'm doing my best to set him straight.

(now watch him log on, find this thread, and tell me exactly why I'm full of crap)

You're not full of crap, don't worry. I only say I want a class cap when I'm on one of those teams that has no idea how to deal with certain strategies. It's generally just me venting, haha. In a game where any strategy has holes, I'm totally against caps. Now if we could somehow implement an intelligence minimum...

 

[Kapt Torbjorn]

It's impossible to develop a strategy other then "go to this place" or "attack when I say attack" without an in-game voice chat client that the whole team has access to.  Implementing either one would be good; prferably if its the voice chat.  As it stands, it's much too difficult to actually develop a strategy that counters archer spam other then "all go cav", or just to rush them - both of which usually end in disaster 1/2 the time anyways.

 

[crazycracka]

I don't agree with class restrictions either. For your example of all archers, hiding is probably not the best idea. You want to close with them as quickly as possible. We were playing nords V vaegirs on field by the river early, and the vaegirs basically had an all archer team. They were beating us pretty good until one round we all charged them as one angry mob and wiped out all their archers/Inf. We eventually got rode down by the few cavalry they had, but that was more of a failure to regroup on our part than anything else.

 

[Johnny Morphine]

All it takes is two good footmen to sneak behind them and wipe out half the team at close range.
Doesn't take a lot of effort, even with typing.

 

[Commodore_Frank]

All it takes is two good footmen to sneak behind them and wipe out half the team at close range.
Doesn't take a lot of effort, even with typing.

Yup, we love doing that, eh? Splitting their force with a small diversion can do wonders for a team.

 

[Berserker Pride]

If the entire team is a single class then there are some huge weaknesses in their setup. They are quite easy to exploit once you understand how. In general, you only get away with going all - x once; largely from the shock value. Try it in a subsequent round and you tend to be massacred, at least when you're up against a competent team.

I still feel xbows should have their powerstrike reduced.  It's identical to their sergeants and they get the big two-handed hammers as well.  Really comes out in siege.  It makes way more sense to have 100% crossbowmen than any sergeants at all.  Swadians will tend to use more infantry than rhodoks but the problem of the crossbows being as good in a manual server as infantry is still there.  Any capable player with a shield can kill someone with a two-hander.

 

[Archonsod]

I've never understood why anyone wouldn't take an archer in siege ...

 

[Berserker Pride]

Thats my point exactly.  There is no upside to taking infantry in siege.  Infantry should be more important for defense as well.  When crossbowmen do as well as infantry in close combat what is the point of infantry.  And don't get me wrong crossbowmen are a fun class.  But if you find a nice two-handed sword as a crossbowman you do just as well as you would with infantry.  And rhodoks can buy a maul right off the bat if they like.  Infantry should be important for siege defense too.

 

[crazycracka]

Thats my point exactly.  There is no upside to taking infantry in siege.  Infantry should be more important for defense as well.  When crossbowmen do as well as infantry in close combat what is the point of infantry.  And don't get me wrong crossbowmen are a fun class.  But if you find a nice two-handed sword as a crossbowman you do just as well as you would with infantry.  And rhodoks can buy a maul right off the bat if they like.  Infantry should be important for siege defense too.

I think they should lower armor costs for Inf. I would like to see some people actually running around with mail.