Page 2 of 3

Re: Range vs. Melee

Posted: 21 Dec 2008, 21:54
by yasha
feline monstrosity wrote:Please, let's not bring realism into this. If games were all super-realistic they would also be super-boring. Realism is inversely proportional to fun.
So, why we can't fly, dig, hold 3 swords in 2 hands, have double armor, walk on head and eat rocks.
I don't say game should be fully real, but some things should be just a bit realistic.

Re: Range vs. Melee

Posted: 21 Dec 2008, 23:08
by feline monstrosity
yasha wrote:
feline monstrosity wrote:Please, let's not bring realism into this. If games were all super-realistic they would also be super-boring. Realism is inversely proportional to fun.
So, why we can't fly, dig, hold 3 swords in 2 hands, have double armor, walk on head and eat rocks.
I don't say game should be fully real, but some things should be just a bit realistic.
That would be AWESOME!!! :shock: :lol:

EDIT: No, but seriously; we need to balance the game based on strategical balancing not realism. In Command & Conquer 3 for example the nukes are enough to blow up about 10 buildings - hardly as big as a real nuke, but perfectly balanced based on the cost of building one and the difficulty of destroying one built by your enemy.

Re: Range vs. Melee

Posted: 22 Dec 2008, 02:19
by z0ro
yasha wrote:
feline monstrosity wrote:Please, let's not bring realism into this. If games were all super-realistic they would also be super-boring. Realism is inversely proportional to fun.
So, why we can't fly, dig, hold 3 swords in 2 hands, have double armor, walk on head and eat rocks.
I don't say game should be fully real, but some things should be just a bit realistic.
2 swords in 2 hands, 1 in the mouth. Roronoa Zoro's style! :P

Re: Range vs. Melee

Posted: 22 Dec 2008, 14:25
by Crush
yasha wrote:So, why we can't fly, dig, hold 3 swords in 2 hands, have double armor, walk on head and eat rocks.
Game balance and technical restrictions. And yes, these are the only reasons.

Re: Range vs. Melee

Posted: 22 Dec 2008, 14:53
by Rotonen
The game balance could be worked out, but the technical restrictions are a bit more challenging of an issue.

Re: Range vs. Melee

Posted: 23 Dec 2008, 18:12
by ve3txz
yasha wrote:
kr0n05931 wrote:I would also like to add the warriors are the same speed as archers at walking, and are faster at attacking. Does anyone else see a logical error here? Warriors should walk slower due to heavier armor and should attack slower as well while archers should do the opposite.
Yeah, warrior needs to move sword from left to right to attack - its very hard and slow. And archer only needs to take arrow from inventory, put it on bow, aim, and shoot arrow. I totally agree that archer is faster shooting..... very realistic....

But about movement speed I agree. Archer's should have bigger attack, but not defence. I am archer too, i only look from realistic side.
being a archer (traditional, longbow) I can shoot 8 arrows a min at a 40 yard target full draw, how many times could you hit me with a 20 lb sword in a min at full swing???

Re: Range vs. Melee

Posted: 23 Dec 2008, 19:12
by feline monstrosity
Hellooo! Did you guys hear me? I said disregard realism!

Re: Range vs. Melee

Posted: 23 Dec 2008, 23:54
by yasha
ve3txz wrote:
yasha wrote:
kr0n05931 wrote:I would also like to add the warriors are the same speed as archers at walking, and are faster at attacking. Does anyone else see a logical error here? Warriors should walk slower due to heavier armor and should attack slower as well while archers should do the opposite.
Yeah, warrior needs to move sword from left to right to attack - its very hard and slow. And archer only needs to take arrow from inventory, put it on bow, aim, and shoot arrow. I totally agree that archer is faster shooting..... very realistic....

But about movement speed I agree. Archer's should have bigger attack, but not defence. I am archer too, i only look from realistic side.
being a archer (traditional, longbow) I can shoot 8 arrows a min at a 40 yard target full draw, how many times could you hit me with a 20 lb sword in a min at full swing???
There's no sword longer than 50cm in this game. With dagger i can surely hit over 20 hits in min. But since game shouldn't be real, best balance would be to split classes of weapons to fast (short sword and short bow) and slow (long bow and long sword). And that's not impossible.

BTW: if game isn't real why archers cant have shield? There are free spaces for equipment anyway.

Re: Range vs. Melee

Posted: 24 Dec 2008, 00:19
by Jaxad0127
yasha wrote:BTW: if game isn't real why archers cant have shield? There are free spaces for equipment anyway.
You need to dedicate one hand for the shield and bows take two hands to work.

Re: Range vs. Melee

Posted: 24 Dec 2008, 00:41
by Crush
yasha wrote:BTW: if game isn't real why archers cant have shield? There are free spaces for equipment anyway.
Game balance.

Melee weapon users don't have range to avoid damage. So fighters have an additional defence item to make up for it.

Re: Range vs. Melee

Posted: 24 Dec 2008, 08:47
by Arilious
Maybe the sex change person can add a third arm as well?

Re: Range vs. Melee

Posted: 24 Dec 2008, 10:58
by yasha
Crush wrote:Melee weapon users don't have range to avoid damage. So fighters have an additional defence item to make up for it.
This is where you made a big mistake. Look at this video and say if melee fighter can't hit without being hit. I can do this to nearly any monster (i can't to skulls and jackos). And before few post you say we shouldn't be real and now you go on what is real. You should decide one or another, not one which is better for you at the moment.

And just to know, i'm not usually playing like this since i have lot of vit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKrFOzm7Wzs

Re: Range vs. Melee

Posted: 24 Dec 2008, 13:11
by ville-v
Crush wrote:
yasha wrote:BTW: if game isn't real why archers cant have shield? There are free spaces for equipment anyway.
Game balance.

Melee weapon users don't have range to avoid damage. So fighters have an additional defence item to make up for it.
Why can't melee users have heavy armours? The heavier your armour, the lower is your accuracy with bow.

Or alternative: Heavy armours, shields and swords weigh a lot. So much that you have to increase strength for carry capacity. And the more (%) you carry, the slower is your running speed.

Re: Range vs. Melee

Posted: 24 Dec 2008, 18:12
by Elrrohir
This is the first time i agree with kr0n0 about something... besides all the fancy calculations and mathematical stuff, is a fat that a character in level 40, fully armed (highest armor + shield + helmet) has better chances than a lvl 60 with the best available bow and arrows.

oh, btw, the unreal stuff should reside in the fact that we are fighting against monsters and brewing potions. the rest of it has to get as real as possible, thats a must in any role playing game. And still no one has brought to discussion the MP :lol:

Re: Range vs. Melee

Posted: 25 Dec 2008, 01:23
by 5t3v3
I would like to point out, a big problem for most archers is that they completely max out dexterity. That is not necesairy, sure the dex gives great benefits, but it takes no less then 620 stat points to reach 99 A lot of points that could be used for other stats. I strongly suggest that all guys complaining about archers simply don't know how to balance your character. Post your stats and I'll tell you why you are so weak.

Another thing, the setzer weapon gives great speed, when a new bow (like desert bow) is introduced, then the archers might have a small benefit again. You can't honestly expect for the devs to rebalance and change the stat-dynamics every time a new item is released?