Why do we have Archery again? (in General)
It seems kind of archaic in a game where it works for 5/6 out of 50 rounds, recent changes have been guiding it more to melee, and bows (along with crossbows and less-so slings) have an over 50% penalty to their damage capabilities in Melee.
Currently the only reason I can think of is because of really large ELBs, but shouldn't those be countered by equally large equipment (DBs or wall armor, for example) instead of a blanket de-buff on all bows, ideally?
I want to hear other peoples' opinions about it.
plus you can't even forge ELBs now
December 20 2008 5:00 AM EST
I think archery is just going through a low point right now. It used to be quite powerful, and probably will be again.
December 20 2008 5:04 AM EST
i don't think archery will ever be powerful there is really no point in making it powerful, its balanced now there is no reason why an archery skill should own and be Spectacular against most strategies on CB2 especially like the poster said most of fighting is concentrated to melee, ranged rounds sort of give you a chance either to do some damage or some other effect ahead of time. remember ELbs are most damage dealing in the game so that extra rounds actually does help out quite a bit for extra damage.
December 20 2008 5:04 AM EST
It seems to be working simply to stop just any old tank strapping on a big bow and being able to use it, like they were able to in the old days.
Even an ELB with nearly 100 PTH on my tank will only hit for single hits per round, and sometimes not hit at all.
December 20 2008 5:12 AM EST
But archery still has it's place. It's still pretty good. And there's more than one archery based team climbing up the ranks pretty quickly right now.
December 20 2008 5:20 AM EST
I don't know. I think partly it exists for logic purposes. Anyone can pick up a crossbow, point and shoot it. But bows are something that requires huge amounts of time and skill to master and use. Hence, archery, a stat which reduces the size of which you can get your Strength or Dexterity or Hit Points.
On another note, I know that the experience needed to increase your archery was used as a balance to its extreme powers. At one point, at the height of the "archery is OP' phase, it's percent in relation to ST was increased (was 1/5th, moved to 1/4th, or some such). However, it no longer has that earth shattering power. But still all the penalties.
A) Just get rid of archery. But that's no fun.
B) Reduce the amount of exp needed for archery to be cast at 1.0. But, again, that's no fun.
C) Increase bow damage in ranged only. Archery above .50 would increase ranged damage by 1% per .01. So at .7 you get a 20% increase to damage. At 1.0 you get a 50% increase to damage.
(A note here. This would still force archers to deal the majority of their damage in ranged as in melee they'd still be pathetic. The goal here isn't to turn archers into their former ridiculous self. But it IS to make sure that archers can do what they're supposed to. Kill stuff in ranged. If you want to survive, you should have to have some sort of defense besides whining that it deals too much damage.)
D) On the opposite end, allow archery to remove the the "skip firing between every melee round". A 1% chance per .01 of archery (with 1.0 always granting an attack in melee). The logic here being that a trained archer has the fortitude to load and fire an arrow even while under pressure.
E) Get over it and accept what we have.
I don't like E much. But I like C and D. Will settle for A and B. XD
December 20 2008 5:20 AM EST
The biggest misconception is that physical damage is weak. If you're running a tank with a mageseeker it might be weak. But the ELB is still hitting pretty hard.
And if you pump the X, it's a lot cheaper than filling up on PTH.
December 20 2008 5:52 AM EST
"It seems kind of archaic in a game where it works for 5/6 out of 50 rounds, recent changes have been guiding it more to melee, and bows (along with crossbows and less-so slings) have an over 50% penalty to their damage capabilities in Melee."
First up, it has less rounds, sure. But it goes first. That's important.
Secondly, the game cycles through what is seen as 'the most powerful aspect' by the community. There was a time when Mages were powerful. Then that stopped. Ranged combat has been in vogue for a long time. Now melee has had some buffs and Ranged is useless. Apparently.
Third, Ranged combat still has a use. But now you have to think a little bit more and try and combine this with other strategies.
So you can't destroy someone in your 6 ranged rounds with your elbow before they have a chance to move? Adjust. That's the name of the game! :)
Sorry if I'm missing something or I'm not making much sense. Been awake for a long time now...
I think the real problem is that, people can't afford to invest in more than one weapon. We've been told this from the beginning, and since bows can't do the job anymore, they've pretty much lost their place in the game.
December 20 2008 6:53 AM EST
Oh. I suppose I can understand that. I haven't seriously used weapons since CB1, so I don't really know how bad it is for tanks...
December 20 2008 11:40 AM EST
People can afford to invest in more than one weapon.
People cannot afford to have a superpowerful massive NW in both weapons if they do.
People associate this lack of "superwow" with inadequacy.
December 20 2008 12:05 PM EST
With all the reductions to ranged damage I would still like to see a few more rounds added. Come on 6 out of 50?
as many of us have stated in the past, why would jon reduce ranged damage to extend battles into melee and then add ranged rounds? i would imagine he is watching those percentages of battles ending in ranged and will adjust to the magic number he has in mind.
December 20 2008 12:23 PM EST
Tanks without super powered weapons... Well.... They're terrible.
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=002cUQ">Why do we have Archery again?</a>