Crossbow Bolts should have way more drop



  • @gndo:

    I think modern crossbows are capable of firing further distances than bows, however in medieval times I believe it was the other way round.

    yep ^ this



  • @Tyoson:

    Just use a shield! Sorry I had to.

    Big australian 100 fov knight giving pro tips.


  • Mod

    @rumpelstiltskin:

    Big australian 100 fov knight giving pro tips.

    105 FOV, and if you don’t see the sarcasm in my post you clearly don’t know much about me haha.



  • I had some fun a couple of days ago after telling people how OP archers were. This one dude was like use a shield, I told him that they’re useless against good archers and I became the laughing stock. Then I picked archer and kept legshooting him to death with the beautiful LCB. After the 7th time I killed him he called me “archernoob” and ragequit. But he had a shield, archers shouldn’t be a problem then should they?



  • the counter to archers is archers



  • @zombojoe:

    the counter to archers is archers

    Now that’s what I call balanced.


  • Mod

    @Xylvion:

    I had some fun a couple of days ago after telling people how OP archers were. This one dude was like use a shield, I told him that they’re useless against good archers and I became the laughing stock. Then I picked archer and kept legshooting him to death with the beautiful LCB. After the 7th time I killed him he called me “archernoob” and ragequit. But he had a shield, archers shouldn’t be a problem then should they?

    I target shield knights when I’m slinging just to prove how shit shields really are against archers.



  • @Tyoson:

    I target shield knights when I’m slinging just to prove how shit shields really are against archers.

    Intim doesn’t die to archers.

    His shield is an arrow magnet.



  • @Kreittis:

    TBS, please make archery realistic so that knight armor might actually be useful.

    You DO know that crossbows were specificially invented and used to penetrate knight armour, right? :D



  • Yea armor was pretty useless against crossbows



  • Well armour, at least the more expensive armour was shaped and angled to deflect blows and projectiles, so arrows and even bolts hat to hit them straight on, otherwise they would be unlikely to penetrate. Realism isn’t a good argument for gameplay though.



  • Can we stop discussing realism?



  • @rumpelstiltskin:

    Can we stop discussing realism?

    Well don’t make silly qq suggestions like halving the damage and removing the flinch.



  • I can understand, you being an archer, that you wouldn’t want a damage nerf, but why not removing flinch. No other weapon can flinch in all states. It’s no fun.



  • @TheUndying:

    You DO know that crossbows were specificially invented and used to penetrate knight armour, right? :D

    False, crossbows were invented as a easier alternative to bows. 1 week training -> you have competent crossbowman. 1 week training -> you have terrible bowman or useless longbowman.

    And that penetration only applies to siege crossbows and even then, you have to be closen that you would think if you actually want to inflict any lasting harm to the tin can man. Plate is not the only thing they have to go through, you know.

    @gndo:

    I can understand, you being an archer, that you wouldn’t want a damage need, but why not removing flinch. No other weapon can flinch in all states. It’s no fun.

    Just make projectiles obey the same conditions as melee attacks and it will be a lot less ridiculous.



  • @lemonater47:

    Well don’t make silly qq suggestions like halving the damage and removing the flinch.

    Those are actually good suggestions



  • Yeah, getting your parry flinched is ridiculous.



  • @TheUndying:

    You DO know that crossbows were specificially invented and used to penetrate knight armour, right? :D

    Krettis covered this, but no not really. Certainly it penetrated certain types of armor, like mail and padded armor (what the vanguard wears, basically) more easily than many other projectiles. But the sort of armor worn by the knights, and especially the DLC knight skins, would have not been easily penetrable by anything short of firearms. Even firearms couldn’t penetrate certain armors, once those armors were designed to prevent musket penetration (though typically only on the torso, since it had to be rather thick and heavy, and was also the most likely area to be hit by a musket ball).

    On the subject of game balance: this has been rehashed a million times, but archers are too effective. Damage, accuracy, rate of fire, range, flinching nonsense. All, or at least some of those, have to be addressed. Range won’t be, because that’s kinda the point of archers. But as it stands, archers can be one of if not the most important class in the game. In a game primarily designed and balanced around melee combat, where three quarters of the classes have only cursory ranged ability, that is a major design problem. It’s also, and this is the most important part, incredibly unfun for everyone who isn’t an archer.



  • Nerf damage to torsos and legs. Remove parry flinch. Increase damage to head to encourage headshots.



  • @gndo:

    I can understand, you being an archer, that you wouldn’t want a damage nerf, but why not removing flinch. No other weapon can flinch in all states. It’s no fun.

    They can I get flinched in parry all the time by melee. And flinch in release still happens.


Log in to reply