Lerp8674 wrote:Because it doesnt give anyone an advantage that is great enough to break the game, and you are trying to limit tactics in favor of others
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hit-and-run_tacticsI've said it before and i'll say it again, nerfing skirmishing tactics does nothing but favor large guilds, who will now have the ability to completely win field battles due to the fact they can park infantry on a hill and GG.
Well it's the same issue as with the facehugging. It's "deep" tactic after all, but the bottom line is that's use of the current unfinished mechanics. You are very wrong to assume that entering/exiting warstance was their vision how to enable hit and run tactics, it's something the community came up with when the devs didn't really care about PvP as it was going to get rework for the MMO anyway. Now after getting the game stable (the MMO crashes) the next step is to develop the war mechanics (instanced battles, sieges, ladders, alighment, politics etc) and rework the combat mechanics themself to make the battles enjoyable on MMO scale, not the YO skirmish levels. So it's kind of under their highlights from now on as we finally came to that part of the MMO development.
As for the hit and run tactics themself - the combat stance is to fight and they use the speed and stamina drain as ballance. Bypyssing them with peace stance was not their intention. Want to be fast and sprint long (for hit and run tactics) - invest your points in both agility and willpower, not Str or Const. They will most likely have to buff the stamina regen when you have many points in willpower and speed advantage for many points in agility, but that would be way better and more balanced then the current entering/exiting warstance for speed and stamina regen. So there will still be hit and run tactics, but inside the warstance conditions that everyone is supposed to use. If someone leaves warstance to run - let him, he is disengaging from the battle (and won't be able to draw a weapon again for like a minute to bother you), let the cav chase him down, switch your attention to someone still fighting instead of chasing him (outside of combat stance) till you eventually catch him
Toren wrote:The whole tap firing with the bow thing has bothered me for awhile. Nice to see it finally getting changed. Lerp has a point about buffing the counters to archers over nerfing bows to a certain extent though. When an arbalest hits a shield for 40 durability damage, is it the crossbows too strong or the shield too weak? That being said I do really hate the fact that in the game right now a lower skilled player with a bow can beat a higher skilled player in 90% of situations just due to how mobility functions in game (but thats what they are already talking about with the horse change and combat stance, so nvrmind I guess).
That has bothered many - after all archer is supposed to be in disadvantage when the fight reaches close ranges. It's not impossible to kill such, but if you need better players, tactics and teamwork to kill archer in melee range it's not really working as intended. That's countered with their planned changes to minimal draw (so that you dont enter warstance, spit an arrow in the face of the infantry behind you, exit warstance and keeprunning). In close range they will have to draw a sword/axe/mace whatever and fight with their sidearm. Plus there should be buff to willpower, so that player with agility and willpower build can outrun archer (str+agi build) only because of his stamina rates when no one leaves warstance to bypuss such stuff. The archer can either run (leave combat stance and disengage from the battle for some time), have melee players proteciting him from such chasers or simply try to fight with his sidearm instead of running.
As for the shields - they didn't respond but many groups submitted as feedback that arrow/bold damage to shields should be lowered, so that shieldwall won't be breaking fast and act as counter to archers in the open, allowing to slowly push in the open covering behind the players with large shields. I hope they will listen to that.
Some_Jerk wrote:I like the idea of there being a timer between stances, BUT we still have (What I think is) a problem with combat stance draining stamina way too quickly while running and being slower than normal stance. It's very hard to catch someone fleeing from you if you're using a melee weapon, and, while it shouldn't be dead simple, in many cases it just isn't possible. Perhaps it would be better if there was no run speed loss in combat stance?
Well many suggested to make the only difference between peace/warstance (like in many many other games) simply the ability to draw out a weapon and the reduced damage inside warstance. Then there would be no problem. But they disagree as the warstance speed and stamina drain is essential for their combat system, so as that's set in stone we have to figure out a way to force everyone fight inside the warstance limitations and not avoid them with the current entering/exiting combatstance. If someone runs, he can't rejoin the fight for some time (like a minute or so), so let archers and cavalry chase him. We speak about combat mechanics suited for 100+ vs 100+ battles after all, not a warrior meeting 2 peasant in the forest and wanting to kill at least 1 of them at all cost.
Bestial wrote:i hope in a siege i will be defending my castle and not some randomly generated hill with a monument on top!?!
You don't defend your castle in the mentioned instanced battle. It's simulation of open field battle where both armies leave their castles and march toward each other and meet somewhere between their lands on no mans land. So there isn't really a defender and attacker. The result of the engagement simulates 1 army getting defeated and retreating to their castle while the other pursues them and sieges that castle. Of course in the game you will have to win multiple instanced battles before proceeding to the siege which won't be instanced and you will defend your own castle.
Lord_Sitruc wrote:I really like most of these changes, but one thing I would like to say is, can we get two points on the sides of the instanced battles instead of one in the middle.
I feel like this would lead to more tactics and historical formations being used since both sides would have an attack and a defend point. I feel like one point in the middle will lead to ugly blob on blob with no really tactics other then to get onto the hill and then stay there as long as possible.
Look at the answer above, instanced battle is not really attack/defense scenario. It's engagement on no mans land, king of the hill suites best for this one. Besides the instanced battle isn't supposed to be something you play for hours which will be the case if there is no objective or 2 points in the planned 200 vs 200 scale. Besides it's not like you don't need tactics to take a position with minimal losses and then hold it for specific amount of time.