My thoughts on the archery nerf and ranged weapons in general (in General)
July 7 2005 10:58 AM EDT
Ok my initial response to the archer nerf was rather negative, to be exact it was :(
But after thinking a bit more and realizing what the change actually means I actually like it. Yes it hurts me in every way, but it does go a long way towards evening out ranged. Yes ELB is still the most powerful ranged weapon (it is a very rare weapon and thus should be powerful) but the specialty xbows are a much more viable option now, slings however still suck and always will (though G Maximus had a very good idea of adding a x4 sling to at least make slings an option)
Now all of this has already been stated before and i don't like to post unless i can contribute (whether positively or not i will leave up to you) something new.
Some time ago in cb1 changes were made to try and even out the power of the ELB and these changes carried over to cb2 (as they should have) but with this new change I think that opening up the option that was closed by the cb1 changes would now be of a benefit to the community. The option that i speak of is using ranged weapons in melee.
I will probably get a lot of flames about this but I want you to consider some things before you start your flames up.
1) BG only add damage to weapons during ranged combat (so ELB damage in melee would be unaltered except for ST)
2) being able to have a specialty xbow all through melee would be very beneficial to the users of those weapons
Now I understand that there needs to be some sort of penalty for using ranged weapons outside of there most effective area (ie ranged rounds) but I do not think that a 60% dx penalty is appropriate.
Using a bow in close quarters (especially while being attacked by someone with a melee weapon) would reduce the accuracy of a bow but I see no reason that it would reduce the dodging ability of the user (any more than having a huge slow hammer would while being attacked by someone with a quick 1H sword or even any more than it would during ranged rounds.)
What I propose is this: remove the DX penalty for using a ranged weapon in melee but in its place add a penalty to the + of the weapon. In other words a +100 bow when used in melee would act as if it was a +40 bow instead but leaving the wielder still able to dodge as normal.
Now I will turn to my final proposed change. I never understood why someone trained to use a bow more quickly (ie archery) would lose that ability in close quarter combat. You still can notch the arrows with the same speed regardless if the target is 100ft from you or 5 ft from you. With the removal of the extra damage I see no reason why archery should not be able to be used in melee (ie firing every round, with the PTH penalty, of course)
Well flame on if you see fit but more importantly if you see some flaw in my logic please point it out to me...it may be something that I have not explained well enough or it may be something that I have simply overlooked either way I think that it is something that should be taken care of.
Constructive criticism is always better than simple "I don't like this" statements.
July 7 2005 11:06 AM EDT
I like the idea. I thought the dx penalty for using a ranged weapon in melee was a little excessive. However I have one quibble - if you are able to use a ranged weapon more effectively in melee then that still puts ranged-centric fighters ahead of the game. What about the poor melee only fighters - your UC tanks for instance? Make ranged weapons more effective - regardless of what the change is - and you immediately demote melee fighting.
only my humble opinion.
More power to melee fighters!!!!
Yes, an Archer is proficient with the bow and arrow. But in melee combat it's realistic to think that you'd begin to panic when someone is chasing you down with huge sword, while you're running for dear life and trying to turn around and put an arrow between his eyes.
That said, this is CB, don't talk about realism :)
But I agree the latest changes are indeed good. And that the current DX penalties for an Archer during melee aren't too good. Isn't the penalty of only shooting every odd round penalty enough?
July 7 2005 11:50 AM EDT
You're thinking LoTR, where Legolas uses the bow at close quarters unless he has to whip out his blade? So you want to take down an oliphaunt in one shot, do you? If I recall correctly, the dex nerf was instead of nerfing the ELB in ranged. Archery has reduced damage in range, so that's now a double-nerf. What if we made the bow more effective in ranged by requiring more XP? So you fire every odd round in melee but archery training gives you a likelihood of firing in the alternate ranged rounds. And to make it harder, since you're running away from the sword, double the archery requirement (so a 1.0 in archery during melee requires 50% of strength trained). Costs more to make your guy skilled enough to use the bow in ranged.
July 7 2005 12:36 PM EDT
reminder: both bows and xbows only fire in the odd rounds of melee...
July 7 2005 1:12 PM EDT
"I never understood why someone trained to use a bow more quickly (ie archery) would lose that ability in close quarter combat. You still can notch the arrows with the same speed regardless if the target is 100ft from you or 5 ft from you."
if you are standing still, thats one thing. if you are taking evasive action and running and so forth, it is quite another.
"Using a bow in close quarters (especially while being attacked by someone with a melee weapon) would reduce the accuracy of a bow but I see no reason that it would reduce the dodging ability of the user (any more than having a huge slow hammer would while being attacked by someone with a quick 1H sword or even any more than it would during ranged rounds.)"
sort of the same answer - but this involves what being in melee combat implies: never take a knife to a gunfight. if someone is swinging a huge sword at you, you parry. now it you are holding a bow and you do that, its going to break. so instead you run - and guess what, its very hard to fire backwards without turning around.
so basically, like Xiaz said, this is CB. your problem is that you are trying to be realistic. In RL, fireball wins everytime.
July 7 2005 1:24 PM EDT
Johnny: my suggestion about the dx penalty will not make ranged weapons more effective in melee, actually the effect of the weapon itself would not change at all since the penalty would be the same only applied to a different area (ie effect the weapon not the weilder)...your statement about melee centered fighters is understandable but the top melee weapons will now do about the same damage in melee as an ELB would and would not have the penalty (whether it stays DX or changes to PTH)
Xiaz: a person panic level would be the same no matter what weapon they are using (especially when the weapons are never used for defense as is the case in CB) so the idea that panic is the reasoning behind the DX penalty is not really accurate.
G Maximus: interesting idea require more xp to offset the extra use of it in melee...gets my nod of approval
Shade: I am not sure why you felt the need to point out that both bows and xbows were limited to odd numbered rounds in melee but you are correct, only i think that the archery training should be able to overcome that limitation in melee as well as in ranged
July 7 2005 1:44 PM EDT
maulaxe: you take evasive action in both melee and ranged (i now i dodge a lot in ranged) and as far as the second part of it you talk about parrying but since when has having a weapon in your tanks hand lessen damage or make it easier to avoid?
And as to all the implications that I am trying to be too realistic with all this: there is generally a realistic reason behind Jon's changes my RL observations are just to figure out reasoning nothing more...when it comes down to it with the new changes I think that reintroducing ranged weapons into melee is a good idea that will not upset the balance if done properly and and this is my way of giving ideas for how to do it properly.
July 7 2005 2:12 PM EDT
Don't forget that if you make having only a ranged weapon a viable option, then ELB only becomes more powerful then ELB + melee weapon. Granted you have to spend more money on arrows, and using seekers for a full archer sounds like an expensive idea, but you can sink the rest of your money into one weapon. This in unlike the current situation where your funds are split between melee and ranged weapons. Just pointing this fact out, I'm neither a flamer or a supporter at this point.
July 7 2005 2:34 PM EDT
Good point, GPV - forgot about the money sink issue. In which case I agree with the heavy penalties for ranged weapons in melee.
July 7 2005 2:48 PM EDT
realistic...this word pops up in a lot of threads...
so here is my 2 cents....
realistically...any crossbow will NEVER fire as often as a regular bow(comp,elb or other). The loading and cocking aspect are very time consuming, and don't even drop the old Van Healsing auto loading xbow...never truly happened...not a bad idea though.
as for any bows in melee...realistically...every other round if that...the weapon really becomes a defensive piece more than anything.
I would (leap of faith) expect that Jon is trying to keep things somewhat "realistic" in regards to weapons. Even if the weapons are of a fictional nature.
Flame away :P
I think the dex penalty exists because not only are bows (any type) not made to attack in melee combat (Archers usally carried a dagger/short sword for when things got to melee - and they couldn't get away - or they had to kill the wounded, cut out arrows, etc..), they don't in any way help you mitigate melee combat.
Now Staves on the other hand, very easy to use, and very deadly in even a beginners hand. And very common.
July 7 2005 7:30 PM EDT
You still can notch the arrows with the same speed regardless if the target is 100ft from you or 5 ft from you.
Wrong, very very wrong.
In fact, I'd be willing to test this. Warchild, I will give you a bow (There's a nice Guns Archery and Tackle shop around here.) and you can keep the bow (it's like $160, not a bad deal). In return, we test your theary.
You take your bow and try to shoot me, as I swing an 8 foot long glaive aimed at your head. Trust me, my $160 says your gonna worry about your head far more than that bow.
This thread is closed to new posts.
However, you are welcome to reference it
from a new thread; link this with the html
<a href="/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001PjR">My thoughts on the archery nerf and ranged weapons in general</a>