Add Blocking with bows

[Tzone]

Its still a stick, long bows are basically just flexible staves.

Allow players to block with bows but at the disadvantage of about 5 dura lost per block.
This could balance out everyone going for spongewood bows and now they might want to make high dura but lower damage bows.
A couple blocks on a sponge wood bow and now its under half dura and a lot weaker.

 

[Draug]

I suggest run faster.

 

[Rorry]

It's still a stick, I will slice it in two with my sword . So maybe just 1 block for a bow. I think archery is fairly balanced since they added the wobble, except it should take a little more stam maybe. It's strength is range, that should stay It's strength.

 

[Tzone]

It's still a stick, I will slice it in two with my sword . So maybe just 1 block for a bow. I think archery is fairly balanced since they added the wobble, except it should take a little more stam maybe. It's strength is range, that should stay It's strength.

Not really, Since then you would be able to cut through spears and poles made of wood.
Bows already the underdog out of the RPS of mage, fighter, and bow. Also they use a lot of stamina unless you stand still and not move to reposition even short distances.

 

[DaChieftain]

No.

 

[Woody]

Yea I'm not sure parrying should be extended to bows. Any ranged damage already has an inherit advantage of being able to do damage at range. By giving parry/block, you basically cuck melee that manage to close gap.

I'm a fan of balance around the rock, paper, scissors model which I feel is nearly there, albeit that archery & mage is still incomplete.

 

[Turbizzler]

I'm a fan of balance around the rock, paper, scissors model which I feel is nearly there, albeit that archery & mage is still incomplete.

Rock, paper, scissors balance is meh, hard counters have their place, but too much emphasis on hard counters and you make it near impossible for solo players and smaller groups. It also opens the door to a more linear meta.

When you have a game advertising skill based combat, you want near an equal balance between hard and soft counters, to make group compositions important, but also make skill a major factor.

When your MMO is advertising how much diversity and freedom there is in the game, you want variety, not a linear cookie cutter experience, where if you don't do X thing, you're irrelevant.

Rock, paper, scissors balance suits RTS games like AOE2.

 

[Woody]

Rock, paper, scissors balance is meh, hard counters have their place, but too much emphasis on hard counters and you make it near impossible for solo players and smaller groups. It also opens the door to a more linear meta.

When you have a game advertising skill based combat, you want near an equal balance between hard and soft counters, to make group compositions important, but also make skill a major factor.

When your MMO is advertising how much diversity and freedom there is in the game, you want variety, not a linear cookie cutter experience, where if you don't do X thing, you're irrelevant.

Rock, paper, scissors balance suits RTS games like AOE2.

Not about strict hard counters. Besides, the skill elements of the game negate a lot of these effects but Ranged does need to be generally weaker (in terms of raw DPS or effective DPS) vs Melee, because of the positional advantage of playing at range. Balance when it comes to group play is irrelevant because that's impossible to balance (there is no structured PvP). Regarding RPS, we already have this to a degree, where melee when they target the archer force the archer to run/move and whereas archery can fairly consistently interrupt spell casters ability to charge a spell and not to mention punish the low armor/defense values of mages. Still, Archer/Mage is more incomplete than Melee so we'll have to wait and see.

 

[Rorry]

Not really, Since then you would be able to cut through spears and poles made of wood.
Bows already the underdog out of the RPS of mage, fighter, and bow. Also they use a lot of stamina unless you stand still and not move to reposition even short distances.

Who uses wood for handles? Realism isn't important compared to playability, but for the fun of the discussion I say there's a big difference between a stick flexible enough to bend as a bow, and one sturdy enough for an axe handle, for instance.
Also, bow beats mage, skill being equal.

 

[Deleted member 44]

I'm all for weapon swap speed to raised but not for bow blocking. Not sure what point your trying to make with spongewood/crepite bows. No one will be using those on release.

 

[ZVNII]

I agree with OP.


It would just feel more immersive if i had the option to use my bow defensively. It seems odd that when someone throws their axe in my face i have to take it. The idea behind letting the bow block is that it would not be a parry, but instead just reduce teh impact (dmg) by a fraction at the expense of a lot of durability. Maybe a 70 dura bow can only block 2 hits before being unusable. This might make high dura bows more viable as this could come in clutch opposed to having 3-5 more range.


This would not need to be something added today or tmr, but instead something that can come down the line, this would not be game changing, it would still be better to weapon swap / run away. However if you get caught with your pants down, for example you notice someone is flanking you last second. It would be cool to at least half that massive swing. You would still get stickied and probably die at that point if you you don't get peels.


Would add some realism.

 

[Kokolo]

It's still a game. It hase no obligation to be realistic. Realism can be done well, but I would prioritize game balance over realism. Being a footfighter would be so much less rewarding if after dragging my ass to the archer and being pelted by arrows in the process I had to engange in a parry match and having lost a lot of health along the way. It wouldn't just be less rewarding, it would be insulting to footfighters and mounteds being knocked of their mount.

So no. Just no.

 

[Bernfred]

give me that sweet 100 meter spear, no.

 

[ZVNII]

It's still a game. It hase no obligation to be realistic. Realism can be done well, but I would prioritize game balance over realism. Being a footfighter would be so much less rewarding if after dragging my ass to the archer and being pelted by arrows in the process I had to engange in a parry match and having lost a lot of health along the way. It wouldn't just be less rewarding, it would be insulting to footfighters and mounteds being knocked of their mount.

So no. Just no.

I mean SV like to push realism. Many things just make sense if you think about how it should work.

 

[Tzone]

Its not even asking for realism, it just doesnt make sense that I would have to put away a weapon and put fist up to block. You literally have a object capable of blocking in your hands. It may not be the best but it really makes no sense why it cant be used to prevent a incoming blow to some degree. You can block better with no weapon only using fist then when a tangible object in your hands.

People are now just using semantics equating using a physical object in your hands to beplaced between you and a blow as 100 yard spears. The equating of the two is totally disingenuous and only shows there is no argument against it.

People should really just come out and say that they are scared of archers being able to block even at a sever disadvantage to the archer.
Do I even plan to block or even thing it would be a good course of action to block, No. In no way do I think it would be meta to block with a bow, but not allowing so makes no logical sense. Its like not allowing torches to block or even strike.


Even in after all of this MO like ultima tries for a level of realism, so the its too realistic argument is out of the window. People need real arguments please.

 

[Farligbonde]

MO logic is really weird sometimes.
Let's make it possible to mine rocks and chop trees with a torch. But we cannot allow using your bow to block melee, nono.

 

[Kokolo]

I understand the sentiment but melee is usless against bows at a distance, so making bows usless up close seems like a decent tradeoff to me in gaming logic. Archery is a prime ganking build as it is. Giving it more defensive power just puts melees at more of a disandvantage and less capable of fighting back. I don't see this being an improvement to the game, but I could be wrong. Time may tell.

 

[Evelyn]

No. Absolutely not. Hard pass on more Oghmir facetanking swords while shooting their attacker with unblockable arrows.

 

[Tzone]

I understand the sentiment but melee is usless against bows at a distance, so making bows usless up close seems like a decent tradeoff to me in gaming logic. Archery is a prime ganking build as it is. Giving it more defensive power just puts melees at more of a disandvantage and less capable of fighting back. I don't see this being an improvement to the game, but I could be wrong. Time may tell.

Its basicly rock paper scissors. Bow beats mage (kinda), fighter beats archer, mage beats fighter.

If fighter cant beat archer then why does no one play archer. If one playstyle could beat 80% of the players then you would see more people play it. But they dont because archery is not as good as you claim. Where are all the archers at?

As long as you build isnt bad and you wear ok armor you should have no issue. You first of can just dodge arrows, use cover and bandage, and only take 20-24 damage most of the time if you wear ironbone. It takes lil over 3 seconds to charge a bow and then a bit more time to aim to do 24 damage if you even fit the fighter which could bandage for 30 something health.

Pretty much would take 27 seconds at 160 health if the archer did not miss and you used 2 bandies. 22 seconds if you dont bandy.

IDK how you as a fighter could lose to a archer unless you let them kill you. Anyone can chose to not let a archer kill them just by standing behind a object or just not fighting. Stand behind a tree and bandage as you stam up, literally just negated anything the archer just did. If you are low health use cover and bandage, you just reset the fight.


Also equipment hits block arrows. Its not a lot unless you are using a risar sword which cover a third of your body and head but Ive hit many swords of people blocking as they ran up to me.

 

[Bernfred]

Its basicly rock paper scissors. Bow beats mage (kinda), fighter beats archer, mage beats fighter.

If fighter cant beat archer then why does no one play archer. If one playstyle could beat 80% of the players then you would see more people play it. But they dont because archery is not as good as you claim. Where are all the archers at?

As long as you build isnt bad and you wear ok armor you should have no issue. You first of can just dodge arrows, use cover and bandage, and only take 20-24 damage most of the time if you wear ironbone. It takes lil over 3 seconds to charge a bow and then a bit more time to aim to do 24 damage if you even fit the fighter which could bandage for 30 something health.

Pretty much would take 27 seconds at 160 health if the archer did not miss and you used 2 bandies. 22 seconds if you dont bandy.

IDK how you as a fighter could lose to a archer unless you let them kill you. Anyone can chose to not let a archer kill them just by standing behind a object or just not fighting. Stand behind a tree and bandage as you stam up, literally just negated anything the archer just did. If you are low health use cover and bandage, you just reset the fight.


Also equipment hits block arrows. Its not a lot unless you are using a risar sword which cover a third of your body and head but Ive hit many swords of people blocking as they ran up to me.

1. you cant compare the 1vs1 DPS of a ranged weapon with a sword, hilarious
2. you buff the bows and reduce the sway with dex if foot archery is too bad
3. no