[Suggestion] Close up ranged weapons

[mouthnhoof]

Why should he draw a sword when he is more likely to kill you through the shield with the xbow?

Because the sword doesn't require standing still for a minute to reload?

And because of that you only get one shot as a crossbowman at close range.

If you miss...

Both of you missed the point - it was about the shield penetration. There is no reason for the crossbowman not to shoot his xbow from point blank - If he drew a sword he would have to defeat the shield. Attaching the xbow to the shield and letting loose has a good chance to go through the shield, or he can patiently wait for the opponent to lower his shield to strike. If it was just the latter, I could live with it. The shield penetration is what I resent. People moan about being hit by an thrown axe when closing into melee, but the one-shot for the xbow from short range is even faster and unlike the axe/javelin will go through the shield.

 

[Revan Shan]

Don't you hate it when you have finally closed with that pesky ranged guy and he doesn't stop using his ranged weapon? This is really bad for the nords, or anyone without a shield. I think ranged weapons should do less damage at close range, for balance reasons.

NO!

You nord bastard! Crossbows rule! (and throwing axes)

I hate balance stuff like that, reallisim goes first.

 

[Archonsod]

Then how about only cancelling the shot if an opponent is physically in contact with the archer?

What, you mean like it does when you hit them?

And no archer worth their salt would hold an arrow knocked waiting for you to drop your shield. They'd just shoot over or under it instead.

Rhodoks, for instance, have identical skill point distribution between crossbowmen and sergeants, and just a few less points in melee proficiency (with one handers it's only a TEN point difference).

Yes. Sergeants however get decent armour and better weapon and shield choices. Crossbowmen get slightly moist paper for armour and a stick with a nail in it for a melee weapon. You then have a tough choice between having a shield or taking more ammo, which is usually won by the ability to keep firing since it's not like you're going to be doing much melee fighting.
In fact, the only archer who can come close to infantry in terms of equipment is the Khergit Horse archer, and that's down to the Lancer's poor equipment more than anything else (paper armour too, and either a slightly better toothpick or a slightly better sword).

 

[alh_p]

Don't you hate it when you have finally closed with that pesky ranged guy and he doesn't stop using his ranged weapon? This is really bad for the nords, or anyone without a shield. I think ranged weapons should do less damage at close range, for balance reasons.

Er, no: that is exactly what shields are for...

 

[Sgt Pepper]

There is no reason for the crossbowman not to shoot his xbow from point blank

Actually, as a crossbowman, if someone is at point blank range, you should have switched to melee already as chances are the other person is going to have taken a swing at you and you won't be firing that crossbow.

If you can get a shot off as they approach it can, and often is, evaded and there's no chance of a reload.

People moan about being hit by an thrown axe when closing into melee, but the one-shot for the xbow from short range is even faster and unlike the axe/javelin will go through the shield.

Difference is the crossbow cannot be spammed at close range, unlike the throwing axes or javelins. If you get the shot with the crossbow, yes, you remove your opponents shield and slightly tip the balance in your favour but the fight's still far from over, especially if your opponent brought another shield or a weapon with a longer reach.

 

[Copperwire]

Personally, if a post starts with "Don't you hate it when..." and then goes on to talk about how a play style someone does not enjoy frustrates them, I generally press the back button and move on.

We all have preferences.  Ultimately, my preference is that different styles work, so that different people play the game in different ways, variety occurs, people keep playing, and I get to play with them.

I am yet to see any discussion of why archers deserve this or that nerf or not besides personal preference.  I think I could make one for x-bows, as under current balance the x-bow factions are clearly favorable in a way that can be demonstrated outside of personal opinion.

If your suggestion leans towards creating a game without playable archers, infantry, or cav...  yeah.  Thanks for your feedback.

- Copperwire

 

[Apthorpe]

Nocking arrows should just take longer. There have been a few comments around here about how silly-fast archers nock their bows. It takes, what, maybe a second, when it should take at least three or four. This'd fix the problem with bowmen shooting you in the face point-blank. Also, make bowmen move slowly while nocking an arrow and holding the string back. This'd prevent them from running up to you with an arrow drawn and then just releasing it when you let your shield down.

I think it would also work well if ranged weapons, like axes and javelins, took a bit longer to throw. It should be faster to swing your weapon in succession than throw javelins or throwing axes. I don't know about realism, but it'd make more sense from a gameplay standpoint. It's just awkward to be within striking range of an enemy, but having to keep your shield up because they're firing throwing spears like a damned machine gun.

This covers it.

 

[Septus]

Don't you hate it when you have finally closed with that pesky ranged guy and he doesn't stop using his ranged weapon? This is really bad for the nords, or anyone without a shield. I think ranged weapons should do less damage at close range, for balance reasons.

NO!

You nord bastard! Crossbows rule! (and throwing axes)

I hate balance stuff like that, reallisim goes first.

Actually i dislike nords and generally i use 2 shields and ride a horse.

Personally, if a post starts with "Don't you hate it when..." and then goes on to talk about how a play style someone does not enjoy frustrates them, I generally press the back button and move on.

We all have preferences.  Ultimately, my preference is that different styles work, so that different people play the game in different ways, variety occurs, people keep playing, and I get to play with them.

I am yet to see any discussion of why archers deserve this or that nerf or not besides personal preference.  I think I could make one for x-bows, as under current balance the x-bow factions are clearly favorable in a way that can be demonstrated outside of personal opinion.

If your suggestion leans towards creating a game without playable archers, infantry, or cav...  yeah.  Thanks for your feedback.

- Copperwire

the topic of this thread was not meant to help me, I rarely play infantry. also i think i said that my main problem is not with archers or crossbowmen but with throwers, who are usually infantry class. which is because thrown weapons are more effective, even at close range, than melee weapons.

The problem is not that archers are good, it is that ranged weapons are good in an area that they shouldn't be: in melee range. Ranged weapons should be great, at their intended use, ranged attack, not from a few feet away.

The topic is not personal preference or play styles, it is the fact that ranged weapons trump melee weapons in close range.

I think there are two remedies to this issue, 1. slow down the speed of ranged weapons and lengthen the animation of the throw before and after the thrown weapon leave the thrower's hand. 2. decrease the damage of ranged weapons up close, or not let them attack up close altogether(personally not a fan of the inability to attack up close.)

I am happy to see all this healthy discussion, i think this is a topic that needed to get out there.

 

[Commodore_Frank]

Nocking arrows should just take longer. There have been a few comments around here about how silly-fast archers nock their bows. It takes, what, maybe a second, when it should take at least three or four. This'd fix the problem with bowmen shooting you in the face point-blank. Also, make bowmen move slowly while nocking an arrow and holding the string back. This'd prevent them from running up to you with an arrow drawn and then just releasing it when you let your shield down.

I think it would also work well if ranged weapons, like axes and javelins, took a bit longer to throw. It should be faster to swing your weapon in succession than throw javelins or throwing axes. I don't know about realism, but it'd make more sense from a gameplay standpoint. It's just awkward to be within striking range of an enemy, but having to keep your shield up because they're firing throwing spears like a damned machine gun.

My sentiments exactly.

 

[General_Hospital]

Nocking arrows should just take longer. There have been a few comments around here about how silly-fast archers nock their bows. It takes, what, maybe a second, when it should take at least three or four. This'd fix the problem with bowmen shooting you in the face point-blank. Also, make bowmen move slowly while nocking an arrow and holding the string back. This'd prevent them from running up to you with an arrow drawn and then just releasing it when you let your shield down.

I think it would also work well if ranged weapons, like axes and javelins, took a bit longer to throw. It should be faster to swing your weapon in succession than throw javelins or throwing axes. I don't know about realism, but it'd make more sense from a gameplay standpoint. It's just awkward to be within striking range of an enemy, but having to keep your shield up because they're firing throwing spears like a damned machine gun.

This. And a movement penalty for archers, xbows, and ranged weapons whenever they are the active weapon.

I think a way to simulate the fear that an archer or xbow would feel as a melee fighter closes in would be to decrease their accuracy once an enemy is within a certain radius. Especially with xbows, decreasing their accuracy once a melee fighter closes in would force them to draw their melee weapon instead of keeping their xbow up until the enemy gets right up in their face.

 

[mouthnhoof]

I think a way to simulate the fear that an archer or xbow would feel as a melee fighter closes in would be to decrease their accuracy once an enemy is within a certain radius. Especially with xbows, decreasing their accuracy once a melee fighter closes in would force them to draw their melee weapon instead of keeping their xbow up until the enemy gets right up in their face.

No. Proximity based algorithms are very bad. The only practical "range" modifier is reducing damage for extremely short arrow flight, but it is un-physical and I am against this too.

 

[Attacksmurfen]

The problem is that it takes too long time to close in as the characters run too slowly, specially as the archer/crossbowman is running backwards...

We need a rush button and then this problem would dissappear.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

Though I disagree it should change.

Why am I not surprised.

At no point does the term "archer" imply I should be charging into melee with weapon swinging, assuming I even bother with a secondary weapon. Generally, if you're dumb enough to approach an archer head on without a shield then you should be expecting an arrow in the face. The mere fact you've got close enough to be a melee threat in the first place suggests either the archer screwed up, or you got lucky.

Sorry but isn't this just really bad reasoning?

He never said they should be charging into melee. He said a melee weapon should be preferable to a ranged weapon at close quarters. That is completely reasonable and true. Kiting is ridiculous and should be removed.

Or we could say that because only "screw up" archers let any opponents get close, we should make sure they look as stupid as possible before they die. That'll show 'em.

 

[Johnny Morphine]

The problem is that it takes too long time to close in as the characters run too slowly, specially as the archer/crossbowman is running backwards...

We need a rush button and then this problem would dissappear.

Here's a thread someone started a week or two ago. The short discussion deals with the concept of a sprint/stamina bar.
http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,77595.0.html

No. Proximity based algorithms are very bad. The only practical "range" modifier is reducing damage for extremely short arrow flight, but it is un-physical and I am against this too.

I'm in agreement with this.

But I just thought of something while posting on a different thread. This might prove to be somewhat of a balancing factor for this debate, while keeping the system totally realistic. The post I made there dealt with throwing weapons at point blank:
http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,78354.msg2037190.html#msg2037190

The way I'm towing that idea into this discussion is that an arrow/bolt wouldn't reach its maximum acceleration until it completely left the bowstring. While it's in contact with the string, a force vector is adding to the velocity vector of the arrow. When the arrow leaves the string, its current velocity vector is no longer increased and it continues along that trajectory in a straight line (affected only by gravity). The force of the arrow/bolt is, realistically, applied to anything it impacts by a simple formula related to its kinetic energy [(1/2)*(mass)*(velocity)^2].

What I'm getting at is that if you're butt up against an archer (within the distance of the length of the arrow), the kinetic energy of anything he fires at you will be severely reduced (especially since the velocity is squared) because the ideal acceleration of the arrow would never have been fully applied. The result: realistic damage reduction at point blank distance.



EDIT: Sorry about the sloppy formatting of the original version of this post. Somehow I screwed up severely while inserting hyperlinks and quotes.

 

[Aendor]

A "fear" effect?  That doesn't seem to make much sense.  Who would be more fearful in one-on-one, the heavily armored knight, or the armor-piercing crossbowmen?  ...Bullet through butter...

-Decrease the walk/run speed by at most 1/3 WHILE aiming and it should make things a little more balanced.  An accuracy decrease takes effect when moving, but an actual penalty on movement would further balance bow and x-bow "situations".  Did people ever shoot, re-load bows while running?

-The time difference for re-loading different quality ranged weapons seems minimal.  How about increasing the time it takes to load more powerful x-bows and bows, up to a maximum of 2 additional seconds for the siege x-bow, and maybe 1-2 seconds for the war-bow.  Longbow already has a brutal re-load time.  Historically, weren't longbows used to fire a quick succession of arrows?  And their accuracy was abysmal?  Correct me if I'm wrong.

-A longer animation for "prepping" the throw of a javelin, axe, etc. would solve the insta-throw problem.

Keep in mind these are just rough suggestions, mutilate them at your desire.

 

[Tibertus]

Two words: snapped bow.

If an archer still has their bow out when they're swung at, that bow should break.

 

[DuckSauce]

Two words: snapped bow.

If an archer still has their bow out when they're swung at, that bow should break.

That'd be interesting, would definitely FORCE them to do something else or face the consequences.

 

[Aendor]

That's reasonable.  Cue the shield breaking sound, for a stand in, and have the bow fall out of hand.  It's a great idea, sounds simple to implement.  It would make the bow useless at pointblank.

 

[Johnny Morphine]

I like the idea, though it shouldn't be guaranteed. You'd have to make sure the bow was actually struck by the melee attack because attacks from behind would come nowhere near someone's bow.

 

[Archonsod]

Sorry but isn't this just really bad reasoning?

I cannot block with a ranged weapon, which already makes a melee weapon preferable in close quarters. Of course, if the muppet trying to keep me in close quarters is moving slower than a one legged cripple because he's wearing shields like sandwich boards there's nothing stopping me running away. And yeah, if he insists on crawling after me I'm gonna shoot him.