Saturday, 2017-11-18, 7:08 PM


Main Page
Register
Log in
 
Welcome Guest | RSS
 
 
 
 
[New messages · Members · Forum rules · Search · RSS ]
Page 3 of 5«12345»
Forum moderator: Turalyon 
Forum » EYE Clan Forum » Questions and Suggestions » A plugin for headshot on server ?
A plugin for headshot on server ?
KamiziDate: Tuesday, 2011-07-05, 9:26 AM | Message # 31
Rank V
Group: Volunteers
Messages: 110
Reputation: 10
Status: Offline
@Tura
Even on damn holidays do I have to hear bad thnings aimed at arTura!?

Anyway, headshots would be cool if they are doable.
Warriors have lock+last stand so they can easilly take of an archer specially where they're flank hits now.
I'm 100% for the headshots. Also I think that drill max dmg should deal 100 dmg. For normal arrows I'd suggest 64 dmg and for flare about 70-80 dmg. Well... in eg. AoC headshot = kill so a little increase in DM would be more fair to all archers in DM!
Also I'm not "for" it becoz I love playing archer but becoz it's hard to play class + it's weak after all.


He wanna kill me!
 
JilakoDate: Tuesday, 2011-07-05, 9:40 AM | Message # 32
Rank VII
Group: Generals
Messages: 263
Reputation: 11
Status: Offline
Quote
I left out the speed of the AK-47 as well as many other vital thing

That a bit sounds like you want to hide the weak points of your argumentation.
Quote
My point was that AWP is very deadly at long range (just as the archer), where as if they get caught by a guy with an AK-47 in close range, the AWP still has a chance, but the AK-47 sure as hell is in advantage

Furthermore, this exemple is kinda bad, you're comparing the archer, who cannot instant kill at long range, with a game where weapons can instant kill at long range, which, in my opinion, make a big difference.
Quote
The part I wanted to highlight is "I can say what if, and but" - and it's what I did.

I could remove the "if" part from the sentence and yet it'd still be right. Also , you keep saying that archer has the fastest fire rate, which is so wrong. If i remember well, a lightning mage can shoot as fast an archer, and of course, all the slashers will do higher damages and faster. And don't forget that arrow's damages are dependant of the drawn, so if an archer decides to fully draw his arrows, he won't be faster than a warrior to do his stances.
Quote
that is if your so lucky to be a warrior to face them, where as assassin has no way of controlling the archers draw of the arrow with stance, he has one option and it's, "be quick - or be dead".

I didn't encounter such problem while trainings against EnerGi or Hell, who are both excellent archers, when i was assassin. An assassin can go poison daggers, rush on him, slash or stance, run away, wait a bit, come back and repeat. Or he can even throw a bomb and it'll be faster.

Also, archers can do nice burst of damage at long range... That involves that they hit the enemy AND damage him. Isn't it why warriors have shields and why assassins have cloak? Plus as assassin, nobody asks you to charge like a tard from the front, you can go in enemy's back with cloak.

Quote
I also don't see people not using archers arrows to it's fullest extend, and this is myself included, I'm not even close to be one of the good archers out there, but I get the basics.

Now, about this, don't forget that archer has to spend mana for all his special attacks except normal/double/triple arrow, and in the case of the both last, it costs him his mobility and his stamina. Drill arrow has an insane mana cost, ok, it hurts a lot, but after 3-4 arrows, you're out of fight unless you go back to normal arrow. Also, don't forget that the effective arrows for archers are costing a lot of skill points. Drill costs 9 skills points, and that's without any upgrade on composite bow or reload speed. Even flare can have a significant mana cost. To the guys often playing archer, who has never been out of mana while a long duel vs an archer?

Yes, archer was the most balanced class in my opinion. "Was" because now of the sidehits, he is now inferior to other classes , and the add of a headshot function would compensate it. Why would melee classes have bonus damage when they hit on sides or backs, and archer not a single bonus damage when even hiting in the head. A warrior who hits you in the back can do 80 dmg, whereas an archer who would bombard your head and your spine with arrows will still do same damages.


L'enfer, c'est les autres.
 
TuralyonDate: Tuesday, 2011-07-05, 9:59 AM | Message # 33
Clan Protector
Group: Grandees
Messages: 930
Reputation: 27
Status: Offline
100% agree to Jilako's last post.

Quote (Fuzz)
Then i guess leap, and 80 damage in the back isn't a good argument either.

It is, get your facts straight, because your own arguments distinguish your other arguments.

And let me give you an idea how transparent your arguments are, with two absurd examples:
I could use the same with any other class to make my point.
- Mages are awesome at ranged combat, but when it comes to melee fights, they could be weak - that is why they have Fire Orbs (talking about Fire Orbs before the nerf, which is 127 damage on impact). Which means ... they can fight in melee quite awesome, so they are completely balanced (I see no reason to change anything there).
- Priests have a poison cloud ability! True, they need to spend what, 5 points for it? But if the player just happens to not notice the big cloud of green smoke forming out of nowhere and passes right through it, owww yeaaa he gets poisoned. True that the ticks are 1 damage per second and it lasts around 10 seconds at the most and that Poison Arrows have the same effect and costs only 3 points ... but Priest DOES have this kind of an ability, which means, this ability doesn't need any modifications! But than again, why no one uses poison cloud? Oh yeah, Archer must me overpowered because he needs 2 less points to have the same effect, he can be mobile with it, and can shoot anyone with it ... but than again, Assassin has similar effect, he just needs to get a little closer ... but you all know what that means, right? PRIESTS NEED MORE POWAH!


Your reasoning is excellent -- it's only your basic assumptions that are wrong.
 
TuralyonDate: Tuesday, 2011-07-05, 10:09 AM | Message # 34
Clan Protector
Group: Grandees
Messages: 930
Reputation: 27
Status: Offline
Ah, one more thing.
Quote (Kamizi)
@Tura
Even on damn holidays do I have to hear bad thnings aimed at arTura!?

What?


Your reasoning is excellent -- it's only your basic assumptions that are wrong.
 
HellDate: Tuesday, 2011-07-05, 11:59 AM | Message # 35
Rank VII
Group: Obers
Messages: 298
Reputation: 18
Status: Offline
@Fuzz
You said that archer is deadly long range...I have to completely disagree here. Let's take as an example ctf3. For me long range is at least the distance between 1 castle and the other (while the distance between the edges of the bridge is more of middle range and the distance between the middle of the bridge and the edge of the bridge or less is close range). What is the average percentage of your successful hits when you shoot smb on the opposite side near the castle when u r near your castle? I believe it's close to 0. Well, maybe you can claim that you often hit smb there but well...for ex when I play vs EnerGi/Jilako/Tura/any good archer I will hardly get any shot from such distance and same is when I try to reach ppl there. Arrow speed is too low to reach your target fast enough at this distance so that he couldn't evade it and even if u hit it it's 99% a random hit (most likely he just accidently walked in it somewhy and he thinks wtf I saw this arrow come-why do I walk in it?-I guess happened to every1 many times). And this is while playing any class. And if we take into account shield/cloak/bug with blocking arrows with fireballs or brambles or forbs or lorbs/healing...I doubt Archer turns out to be as deadly as u say..I mean I can't even call this class deadly at long range..even fire mage is more deadly considering he is even more good at middle range, not to tell ya about priest with full range corrupting or lightning mage...

As for middle range yea I can admit that archer can be called "deadly" however u still have shield, mage>archer in most cases (ye as we decided we compare equal skills), good priests also>archers...

Another example is when I usually pick archers: 1)many sins 2)many archers - for me they r the easiest targets (however Jil already said that Assassin doesn't have that many problems dealing with archers and as for archer vs archer-sorry, that doesn't count for obvious reasons). Other classes pretty easily handle this class that's why I don't even pick it then coz it is kinda useless and I'd better go another class like sin/mage/priest/warr.

@Tur
haha yeah priests need moar powah! xD But seriously I really find poison cloud kinda useless and this spell really needs to be changed (like Eagle Eye or probably some of daggers of sin which spend too much mana).


I'm hot, u r not!
 
LimfiDate: Tuesday, 2011-07-05, 12:44 PM | Message # 36
Rank II
Group: Junkers
Messages: 37
Reputation: 0
Status: Offline
Quote (Kamizi)
I think that drill max dmg should deal 100 dmg. For normal arrows I'd suggest 64 dmg and for flare about 70-80 dmg

What ?! if these kinds of arrows will do this dmg,archer will be a very lethal class..(if i cannot say the most lethal)
The pro archers can kill easily the most other classes with the settings of the arrows that we have now in the server..also and me (archer = my worst class) can hit someone at least 2 times..but if i will have flare arrows that deal 70-80 dmg i could kill very easy other classes...and im talking for me,if will be tura ? with so much dmg he will just RULE xD

Quote (Hell)
For me long range is at least the distance between 1 castle and the other (while the distance between the edges of the bridge is more of middle range and the distance between the middle of the bridge and the edge of the bridge or less is close range). What is the average percentage of your successful hits when you shoot smb on the opposite side near the castle when u r near your castle? I believe it's close to 0

No comment ( 100 % agree )


I AM NOOB AND I AM PROUD !

Message edited by Limfi - Tuesday, 2011-07-05, 12:48 PM
 
KamiziDate: Tuesday, 2011-07-05, 1:50 PM | Message # 37
Rank V
Group: Volunteers
Messages: 110
Reputation: 10
Status: Offline
yeah, typing on damn laptop while my bro drives like 120 when only 70 is allowed is like: aaaagh! slow down! he'll kill us!
Anyway, I meant I have to hear bad things aimed at myself!


He wanna kill me!
 
TuralyonDate: Tuesday, 2011-07-05, 2:36 PM | Message # 38
Clan Protector
Group: Grandees
Messages: 930
Reputation: 27
Status: Offline
Quote (Limfi)
What ?! if these kinds of arrows will do this dmg,archer will be a very lethal class..(if i cannot say the most lethal)
The pro archers can kill easily the most other classes with the settings of the arrows that we have now in the server..also and me (archer = my worst class) can hit someone at least 2 times..but if i will have flare arrows that deal 70-80 dmg i could kill very easy other classes...and im talking for me,if will be tura ? with so much dmg he will just RULE xD

It's not like we want to increase Archer's damage overall or anything like that. We're talking about a small hitbox you actually have to hit. And if you manage to do that with stanced drill arrow, I think that you've either got lucky or have an incredible aim. But yeah, damages need to be tested and thought through. 100 Damage on drill arrow might be a little too much, but it wouldn't hurt to try. I mean, like Jilako said, you do in fact need a level 8 to be effective with this arrow.
As for the Flare, I think that Flare arrow should have the same damage as Normal arrow does (same as the tooltip says) if we were to install headshots - or at least tweak it a little.

Quote (Kamizi)
Anyway, I meant I have to hear bad things aimed at myself!

Whatever I wrote in my former posts that had your name on it was something that you cooked yourself.
If I would give that chat in [TSH] forum to a random intellectual player in Dark Messiah (but I would hide the names whoever wrote which argument), I bet he would strike you (and yea, I'm not the only one with that opinion) as exactly what I wrote here. I said "Kamizi-argument" because your arguments in [TSH] forum not only made some people laugh, but the non-related arguments trying to disprove other arguments (or aka known as strawman), made me write that down.


Your reasoning is excellent -- it's only your basic assumptions that are wrong.
 
FuzzDate: Tuesday, 2011-07-05, 3:08 PM | Message # 39
Rank VII
Group: Corporals
Messages: 341
Reputation: 12
Status: Offline
Quote
Furthermore, this exemple is kinda bad, you're comparing the archer, who cannot instant kill at long range, with a game where weapons can instant kill at long range, which, in my opinion, make a big difference.


No, it makes perfect sense, because the AK-47 has a hard time reaching the AWP to get the wanted range (just as a warrior/assassin wishes to get into melee combat) they both have a hard time doing so.

Quote
I could remove the "if" part from the sentence and yet it'd still be right. Also , you keep saying that archer has the fastest fire rate, which is so wrong. If i remember well, a lightning mage can shoot as fast an archer, and of course, all the slashers will do higher damages and faster. And don't forget that arrow's damages are dependant of the drawn, so if an archer decides to fully draw his arrows, he won't be faster than a warrior to do his stances.


It was never about what is "right/correct", it was about situations taken out of the book, where archers are in disadvantage. I can think of many situations where the archer is in an advantage. That was the main point. e.g, "what if and but." Archers do have the fastest fire rate, lightning mages can't shoot as fast at all. Now speaking of slashes and that it will do higher damage, you yet again assume that the damn warrior is in range.... Also I've experienced LOADS times that you can keep slashing the back of an archer, but it never hits. - see what I did there? I put the warrior/assassin in disadvantage, just as you do with the archers. Yes archers damages are dependent of the draw, but the max damage is still as fast as a regular stance, where as archers 45 damage, is a bit faster, where warriors has no middle thing, unless you speak of slash, which damages aren't even close to the stances, and this is again assuming the warrior is in damn range.

Quote
I didn't encounter such problem while trainings against EnerGi or Hell, who are both excellent archers, when i was assassin. An assassin can go poison daggers, rush on him, slash or stance, run away, wait a bit, come back and repeat. Or he can even throw a bomb and it'll be faster.


Here we only hear that you succeeded doing so, but how many times did you fail it? And furthermore how was the team backup from both teams? Meaning they had the same advantage as you?

Quote
Also, archers can do nice burst of damage at long range... That involves that they hit the enemy AND damage him. Isn't it why warriors have shields and why assassins have cloak? Plus as assassin, nobody asks you to charge like a tard from the front, you can go in enemy's back with cloak.


Shields is only effective to a certain range, and assassins have no shield, as for cloak, they are still visible, unless they stand completely still and then they are no thread for the time being, unless you walk into them.
"Plus as assassin, nobody asks you to charge like a tard from the front, you can go in enemy's back with cloak."
Lol... And nobody asks an archer to tunnel vision and not watch his back once in a while.

Quote
Now, about this, don't forget that archer has to spend mana for all his special attacks except normal/double/triple arrow, and in the case of the both last, it costs him his mobility and his stamina. Drill arrow has an insane mana cost, ok, it hurts a lot, but after 3-4 arrows, you're out of fight unless you go back to normal arrow. Also, don't forget that the effective arrows for archers are costing a lot of skill points. Drill costs 9 skills points, and that's without any upgrade on composite bow or reload speed. Even flare can have a significant mana cost. To the guys often playing archer, who has never been out of mana while a long duel vs an archer?


I never forget an archers manapool, which is why i usually attack an archer using drill arrows after he missed a few shots... But don't forget that warriors special attacks consumes loads of mana as well (last stand, battlecry), or affects his mobility, (charge, leap) so they are in the exact same spot as archers, except archers has the range advantage, just as warriors has sidehits, backhit advantage.

Sure who hasn't been out of mana as archer vs archer, but who hasn't been out of stamina as warrior or assassin vs an archer as well? True they regenerate it fast, if skilled in stamina. But the crucial fact of the little setback you get might as well cost you the range needed for the archer, or an opening to even kill you. (yes I can't stress this enough, ranged classes huge advantage is the damn range.)

Added (2011-07-05, 3:08 PM)
---------------------------------------------

Quote
Yes, archer was the most balanced class in my opinion. "Was" because now of the sidehits, he is now inferior to other classes , and the add of a headshot function would compensate it. Why would melee classes have bonus damage when they hit on sides or backs, and archer not a single bonus damage when even hiting in the head. A warrior who hits you in the back can do 80 dmg, whereas an archer who would bombard your head and your spine with arrows will still do same damages.


STILL IS, why does everybody just seem to ignore the fact it's a damn ranged class?

Quote
It is, get your facts straight, because your own arguments distinguish your other arguments.


Why is 80 damages and leap a good argument, but oneshotting and twoshotting archers, is not? Warriors still only twoshot even if they do 80 damages, and that is if they have skilled full strength.

Quote
I could use the same with any other class to make my point.
- Mages are awesome at ranged combat, but when it comes to melee fights, they could be weak - that is why they have Fire Orbs (talking about Fire Orbs before the nerf, which is 127 damage on impact). Which means ... they can fight in melee quite awesome, so they are completely balanced (I see no reason to change anything there).


That is indeed an absurd example, specially because we well know that fire orb is still a powerful spell in close combat, and since you're so kind to take fire as an example, you can still do 90+ damages with a fireball if hit correctly, and you will take minimum damages, if executed well enough. And fire is guidable, so you can't even safeguard it properly, not to mension the easy way of still going through the safeguard with splash damages. And yes, they have the same kiting option as archers do.

Quote
- Priests have a poison cloud ability! True, they need to spend what, 5 points for it? But if the player just happens to not notice the big cloud of green smoke forming out of nowhere and passes right through it, owww yeaaa he gets poisoned. True that the ticks are 1 damage per second and it lasts around 10 seconds at the most and that Poison Arrows have the same effect and costs only 3 points ... but Priest DOES have this kind of an ability, which means, this ability doesn't need any modifications! But than again, why no one uses poison cloud? Oh yeah, Archer must me overpowered because he needs 2 less points to have the same effect, he can be mobile with it, and can shoot anyone with it ... but than again, Assassin has similar effect, he just needs to get a little closer ... but you all know what that means, right? PRIESTS NEED MORE POWAH!


Poison is a great effect, and I believe priests can still sidestep while doing it, and its castable within a certain range. But you seem to forget the 50% damage reduction from stoneskin, and the movement impairing effect from brambles, which does alot of damages if you try to sprint in it. Where as poison is a great tool to help your allies in combat, and blur your enemies, it should be left as a job to the archers and assassins, where as priests should focus more important tasks. It seems as priests was given this ability as the last ability where the developers didn't know what the hell to give the class, not to mention that if it is the blur effect you're going for, blind is very effective, true it costs more points, but it lasts VERY long, and blurs a damn lot. And as archers poison arrows, priests can be mobile with this spell, and it is ALOT more effective. As poison the effect is healable, so no, priests do not need "MORE POWAH!"

Quote
@Fuzz
You said that archer is deadly long range...I have to completely disagree here. Let's take as an example ctf3. For me long range is at least the distance between 1 castle and the other (while the distance between the edges of the bridge is more of middle range and the distance between the middle of the bridge and the edge of the bridge or less is close range). What is the average percentage of your successful hits when you shoot smb on the opposite side near the castle when u r near your castle? I believe it's close to 0. Well, maybe you can claim that you often hit smb there but well...for ex when I play vs EnerGi/Jilako/Tura/any good archer I will hardly get any shot from such distance and same is when I try to reach ppl there. Arrow speed is too low to reach your target fast enough at this distance so that he couldn't evade it and even if u hit it it's 99% a random hit (most likely he just accidently walked in it somewhy and he thinks wtf I saw this arrow come-why do I walk in it?-I guess happened to every1 many times). And this is while playing any class. And if we take into account shield/cloak/bug with blocking arrows with fireballs or brambles or forbs or lorbs/healing...I doubt Archer turns out to be as deadly as u say..I mean I can't even call this class deadly at long range..even fire mage is more deadly considering he is even more good at middle range, not to tell ya about priest with full range corrupting or lightning mage...

As for middle range yea I can admit that archer can be called "deadly" however u still have shield, mage>archer in most cases (ye as we decided we compare equal skills), good priests also>archers...

Another example is when I usually pick archers: 1)many sins 2)many archers - for me they r the easiest targets (however Jil already said that Assassin doesn't have that many problems dealing with archers and as for archer vs archer-sorry, that doesn't count for obvious reasons). Other classes pretty easily handle this class that's why I don't even pick it then coz it is kinda useless and I'd better go another class like sin/mage/priest/warr.


When i refer to range, long range, or even longer range, it's taken from the melees perspective. Meaning no, not from one map edge to another. Yes it's a small chance of hitting, but the fact it's still there shouldn't be forgotten. Warriors have no across map range at any kind? When i refer to range i simply mean where archers are able to hit, and melee is not. (even if warriors has shields, e.g legs, head.)

About your absurd comment on there are always many assasssins jada jada, I can only say that there are many mages etc. when I play, this leads to nothing. And when you play firemage there's always a bunch of lightning mages ready to counter you, it's the very same as you said, and it leads no where.

As for middle range mages and archers fights are indeed often won by the mage, but what about priest versus mage? Isn't the fight often won by priests there? NERF THE PRIESTS, lololol. It's the same argument.


Turalyon - "Fuzzy wuzzy was a bear, fuzzy wuzzy had no hair, so fuzzy wuzzy wasn't fuzzy, was he!?"
 
TuralyonDate: Tuesday, 2011-07-05, 3:58 PM | Message # 40
Clan Protector
Group: Grandees
Messages: 930
Reputation: 27
Status: Offline
Quote (Fuzz)
No, it makes perfect sense, [...]

Do you put yourself in a tunnel vision when trying to make a point or you just don't see the bigger picture?
Quote (Fuzz)
Also I've experienced LOADS times that you can keep slashing the back of an archer, but it never hits. - see what I did there? I put the warrior/assassin in disadvantage, just as you do with the archers.

Exactly, you've said a true statement about Warriors and Assassins, period. This doesn't make it an argument towards Archer's benefit. It happens to every class that jumps away and you miss them.
Quote (Fuzz)
Archers do have the fastest fire rate, lightning mages can't shoot as fast at all.

Mage will shoot 2 Lightnings when an Archer will be able to shoot 2-3 arrows. Yet, Mage does 50-80 damage with the Lightning.
Quote (Fuzz)
Yes archers damages are dependent of the draw, but the max damage is still as fast as a regular stance, where as archers 45 damage, is a bit faster, where warriors has no middle thing, unless you speak of slash, which damages aren't even close to the stances, and this is again assuming the warrior is in damn range.

Actually Warriors DO have the middle thing since the side-hits were enabled. And a pretty damn good one.
And if you want to compare (which you just did) a melee class with a ranged class, Mage will always kill a Warrior faster than the Archer will - even more effectively if we want to make that point.
Quote (Fuzz)
Lol... And nobody asks an archer to tunnel vision and not watch his back once in a while.

If he actually needs to check his back every once in a while, doesn't that mean there is a chance someone will come to melee range without him noticing? Or do you look your back only to see if an enemy is spotted 100 m away from you? Because if not, then I think you just contradicted your previous argument.
Quote (Fuzz)
Shields is only effective to a certain range, and assassins have no shield, as for cloak, they are still visible, unless they stand completely still and then they are no thread for the time being, unless you walk into them.

So shields help Warriors get closer to the Archer, but the Mage can shoot them nonetheless - I think that gives Mages another +1 point (with Fireballs you can even hit him if he has magic shield on).
As for Assassin's cloak - if they go around the platform, it's harder to spot them than a running Warrior. That was the point, getting near to someone without noticing, we're not talking about getting into melee range.
Quote (Fuzz)
I never forget an archers manapool, which is why i usually attack an archer using drill arrows after he missed a few shots... But don't forget that warriors special attacks consumes loads of mana as well (last stand, battlecry), or affects his mobility, (charge, leap) so they are in the exact same spot as archers, except archers has the range advantage, just as warriors has sidehits, backhit advantage.

No, they are not in exact same spot as Archers. Fuzz, read my previous comment about ridiculous arguments:
If you make prove that one option is bad, it doesn't make that the other option is good.
Yes, Warriors do receive the lack of mobility after using Charge and Leap, but don't tell me Arrows are harder to avoid than a Fireball or (instant, I have to stress that) Lightning.
If Warrior uses Last Stand, he can take all 3 drill arrows and still survive. He has 200 hp at that point, and drill arrows (where one stanced one, and since you're talking about how Archers can reload fast, you wouldn't want to wait now, do you?), which means that damage would deal 85 + 65 + 65, which adds up to 215 damage. Now that the Warrior has 2x the Hp, he also has the 2x the hp regeneration, which would (and does in multiple situations, you can ask Jil about our drill vs last stand fights) just make him survive all three arrows. And let's say he hits all 3 arrows like that, and that's a big if, I'd say the Warrior was either unlucky or bad.


Your reasoning is excellent -- it's only your basic assumptions that are wrong.
 
TuralyonDate: Tuesday, 2011-07-05, 3:58 PM | Message # 41
Clan Protector
Group: Grandees
Messages: 930
Reputation: 27
Status: Offline
Quote (Fuzz)
Sure who hasn't been out of mana as archer vs archer, but who hasn't been out of stamina as warrior or assassin vs an archer as well? True they regenerate it fast, if skilled in stamina. But the crucial fact of the little setback you get might as well cost you the range needed for the archer, or an opening to even kill you. (yes I can't stress this enough, ranged classes huge advantage is the damn range.)

I answer your arguments one-by-one, and I still feel like going in circles. But I know one thing, from now on I'll start using red color to make my comments visible, just to show how contradictive you are.
Again you are distinguishing the melee class vs ranged class. Mages AGAIN, triumph in that area. Archers are not the only class benefiting from Warrior/Assassin's loss of stamina. So we should either be talking about not giving Mages the headshot ability (which we did) or nerfing them - if that's the point you're trying to make.
Quote (Fuzz)
Why is 80 damages and leap a good argument, but oneshotting and twoshotting archers, is not? Warriors still only twoshot even if they do 80 damages, and that is if they have skilled full strength.

Let's see, because Archers actually have to aim at someone to hit, exactly same as Mage, except for the part that Mages have more power than Archers do.
Warriors and Assassins both can use lock-on and have about a 90% chance to hit.
What else ... ah, did I mention the Mage > Archer part in my post yet? I can't remember, I hear it so often that I can't distinguish that fact.
Quote (Fuzz)
When i refer to range, long range, or even longer range, it's taken from the melees perspective. Meaning no, not from one map edge to another. Yes it's a small chance of hitting, but the fact it's still there shouldn't be forgotten. Warriors have no across map range at any kind? When i refer to range i simply mean where archers are able to hit, and melee is not. (even if warriors has shields, e.g legs, head.)

If someone were to ask me, what is the order of classes that are the most lethal, have the least hard time playing/dieing and are able to adapt better?
Before side-hits:
Warrior + Mage > Priest > Assassin >> Archer
With side-hits:
Warrior + Mage (The fact that they're still equal doesn't change because of the range vs melee difference) > Assassin + Priest >>> Archer
So, from my point of view, Archer is the only class that got really "nerfed" (even if it wasn't directly) when we installed side-hits.
Quote (Fuzz)
Isn't the fight often won by priests there? NERF THE PRIESTS, lololol. It's the same argument.

It's not the same argument, and you know it. The discussion here is about how headshot from an Arrow would change the game, not how one class would triumph the other. The class distinction argument did not come to this argumentation, but to prove a different, smaller point - that when you're talking about class distinctions, there is no difference between a headshot and a normal shot - specially because Archers (if they hit the feet) can deal lower damage (28 damage instead of 38 from a Normal arrow).

And my last point, which I already said, is that we're talking about a tiny little hitbox which you would be able to hit to get a little (we're talking about 5-15 damage here) if you actually hit it.
We wouldn't be giving an Archer some sort of a knife or anything, just a little bit of a boost of his damage IF he manages to hit the target in the head. Before where you mentioned about headshots in Counter Strike, they usually end up in instant killing your target ... here, we're not even talking about more than 15 damage - it's a huge difference ... I would use different kinds of arguments I use now if headshot in Dark Messiah would mean instant kill no matter which arrow you'd use, but that is not the case here.
If you take Shields for example, where do people usually shoot? Feet + legs, because it's easier to hit. This would mean that people will try to hit the head instead - crounch or "stand-up" will already mean the "dodge" thingy (whereas with feet and leg you can't do that unless jumping - which you can do with the head thingy as well), and it' make them even harder to hit. Assassins, they will still be able to reach you the way they do now, there is no difference from before, only if you manage to hit his head you'd deal a little more damage, that's all we're talking about here, they're still able to get hit in the body, et cetera.


Your reasoning is excellent -- it's only your basic assumptions that are wrong.
 
HellDate: Tuesday, 2011-07-05, 5:34 PM | Message # 42
Rank VII
Group: Obers
Messages: 298
Reputation: 18
Status: Offline
Quote (Fuzz)
About your absurd comment on there are always many assasssins jada jada

rofl where did u find this comment? xDD rofl Fuzz..I never said that...I mentioned the cases when I pick an archer instead of another class and one of them was when there r many sins in the opposite team omg...
Quote (Fuzz)
Warriors have no across map range at any kind? When i refer to range i simply mean where archers are able to hit, and melee is not. (even if warriors has shields, e.g legs, head.)

Why should melees have ranged attacks? Ok then I say why archer has no melee attack? This point of yours is senseless..and don't tell me I can successfully kill ya with arrows(in melee range ofc)..if we duel when I let u make the 1st hit lets count how many hits I will manage to do before u kill me and I doubt there will be a single kill from me...
Quote (Fuzz)
As for middle range mages and archers fights are indeed often won by the mage, but what about priest versus mage? Isn't the fight often won by priests there? NERF THE PRIESTS, lololol. It's the same argument.

I don't want to regret you, but the proportion between the number of victories in categories "Mage>Archer" and "Priest>Mage" is not in favor of "Priest>Mage"...In other words, the probability of victory of Mage in duel Mage vs Archer is way much higher than probability of victory of Priest in Priest vs Mage...


I'm hot, u r not!

Message edited by Hell - Tuesday, 2011-07-05, 5:40 PM
 
FuzzDate: Tuesday, 2011-07-05, 5:50 PM | Message # 43
Rank VII
Group: Corporals
Messages: 341
Reputation: 12
Status: Offline
I can't / won't keep typing 1 page long comments. Install it if you want, idc anymore... I really don't... But what is a not fully stanced arrow gonna damage? Where as a full stanced arrow was what, 64 damage? (with the headshots)I'm still against it, but let's see what the server will say. (or we could uninstall the sidehits again.) But NO KNOCKBACKS OR STUNS, this would definitely unbalance the game. (normal arrow hits now is 56 and 33?) (also drill arrows should not oneshot in the face, that would also unbalance things)

Turalyon - "Fuzzy wuzzy was a bear, fuzzy wuzzy had no hair, so fuzzy wuzzy wasn't fuzzy, was he!?"

Message edited by Fuzz - Tuesday, 2011-07-05, 5:53 PM
 
TuralyonDate: Tuesday, 2011-07-05, 5:58 PM | Message # 44
Clan Protector
Group: Grandees
Messages: 930
Reputation: 27
Status: Offline
@ Jilako: I really am a farseer tongue
@ Fuzz: Damage for Normal Arrow is 56 and 38 now, talking from mind the optimal change would be 62 and 42 for headshot (it scales depending on an arrow, et cetera).


Your reasoning is excellent -- it's only your basic assumptions that are wrong.
 
JilakoDate: Tuesday, 2011-07-05, 6:02 PM | Message # 45
Rank VII
Group: Generals
Messages: 263
Reputation: 11
Status: Offline
@ Turalyon: Haha
@ Fuzz: don't forget that hitting head isn't as easy as on other fps where your bullets are instant


L'enfer, c'est les autres.
 
Forum » EYE Clan Forum » Questions and Suggestions » A plugin for headshot on server ?
Page 3 of 5«12345»
Search:

Copyright Borbel © 2017 Powered by uCoz