army archers
Moderator: Moderators
army archers
well right now as i see it, archers are basicly a ranger dex based. now, i was thinking something like a army archer. heavy armour (possible solo) wields more stronger bows that can maybe shoot 3 arrows together. longer to load, but more damge than current archer.
if liked i can expand more.
if liked i can expand more.
- comas
- Supporting Member 2007
- Posts: 58
- Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 08:28 am
- Location: Caracas ,Venezuela
I see this more as an army sub Guild, in which a last line of archers can deal damage in front of tanks, but that is what archers already do.
I see that an army archer that can melee ( don' t think you meant bow in front row...) would be like a supper character that has all the advantages of an army man, and could also deal massive damage with a bow ... I think it would shift the balance a little too much and it would be too much of an advantage.
IMHO guilds are made to be diferent from each other, doing another do all guild ( rangers are kind of a can do all, but never really be excelent at something , guild) would just damage the whole Guild idea.
My two cents, but i say no to archers in army, army can already be of two kinds, tanks and strong offensive ( not too fast if i recall), so i think its well balanced.
I ' d rather see more good bludgeoning weapons, so that an army troll could wield two supper magical maces and just pound away on enemies.
I see that an army archer that can melee ( don' t think you meant bow in front row...) would be like a supper character that has all the advantages of an army man, and could also deal massive damage with a bow ... I think it would shift the balance a little too much and it would be too much of an advantage.
IMHO guilds are made to be diferent from each other, doing another do all guild ( rangers are kind of a can do all, but never really be excelent at something , guild) would just damage the whole Guild idea.
My two cents, but i say no to archers in army, army can already be of two kinds, tanks and strong offensive ( not too fast if i recall), so i think its well balanced.
I ' d rather see more good bludgeoning weapons, so that an army troll could wield two supper magical maces and just pound away on enemies.
PEBKAC
- solar
- Supporting Member 2020
- Posts: 541
- Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2004 17:30 pm
- Location: Kalajoki/Oulu, Finland
Archers deal damage with str, not necessarily with dex, although having dex helps (epmax, accuracy, move silently etc.)
Right now archers can get as far as getting HOWLS and TORMENTS with their non-crit shots, so being able to shoot three arrows (with the current damage calculation system) at once is just plain ridiculous and out of tune.
And quite a few highbies take levels in royal archers, since it helps when running eq, especially if there's a templar to get them past the physical resistance of the monster.
Right now archers can get as far as getting HOWLS and TORMENTS with their non-crit shots, so being able to shoot three arrows (with the current damage calculation system) at once is just plain ridiculous and out of tune.
And quite a few highbies take levels in royal archers, since it helps when running eq, especially if there's a templar to get them past the physical resistance of the monster.
Internet tough guy
Icesus is not just my life - it's the lack of it.
Icesus is not just my life - it's the lack of it.
i think army archers should be diffrend from ranger archers,more like weapon of choise. crossbow related skills and specialities would rock.i mean it would rule to have like 6 man army party and they could start combat with party leader ordering "give them a volley" command then whole party shoots same time and if leader has good mastery they could even get two or three volleys before mobs can reach em...just idea. maybe the damage would not be as great as ranger archers and such?
army is generally geared to be front line, yes there are throwing and bow masteries should you wish to indulge but IMHO it's all about the grunt work
lets leave the archers hiding behind ridge lines and cowering behind parapets while the real army grunts get into full on wetworks - if your armour isnt covered in blood at the end of the battle - you weren't in the fight
but seriously....
the volley command - anyone who parties long enough with army leadership type will acrue the required skills to follow army orders - so maybe some non-army specific orders such as volley for back row ranged attack could be considered as a battle initiating command
that's my 2 cents...
lets leave the archers hiding behind ridge lines and cowering behind parapets while the real army grunts get into full on wetworks - if your armour isnt covered in blood at the end of the battle - you weren't in the fight
but seriously....
the volley command - anyone who parties long enough with army leadership type will acrue the required skills to follow army orders - so maybe some non-army specific orders such as volley for back row ranged attack could be considered as a battle initiating command
that's my 2 cents...
No human being, however great, or powerful, was ever so free as a fish.
- John Ruskin
- John Ruskin
- solar
- Supporting Member 2020
- Posts: 541
- Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2004 17:30 pm
- Location: Kalajoki/Oulu, Finland
volley
I have to agree that the volley order would be a nice addition.
Army already has, umm... is it 'assault' order for front row tanks?
Tying it to military discipline would balance it nicely, i.e. low military discipline and the archer will not shoot/shoots but without the benefits of 'aim at bodypart'.
Then giving it a long cooldown would prevent it from being excessively abused.
Army already has, umm... is it 'assault' order for front row tanks?
Tying it to military discipline would balance it nicely, i.e. low military discipline and the archer will not shoot/shoots but without the benefits of 'aim at bodypart'.
Then giving it a long cooldown would prevent it from being excessively abused.
Internet tough guy
Icesus is not just my life - it's the lack of it.
Icesus is not just my life - it's the lack of it.
In midevil times, the archers were not usualy soldiers. They were specialist that spent quite a bit of time training, seprate from the rest of the army. Even soldiers trained as crossbowman were not expected to get in the fight muchl, and were given much lighter armor and weapons. Theirfore, if you want to make "army archers", it would make more sense to make them a divergent branch. As in, you can be a heavy infantry, light infantry, or crossbowman, but not any of the others. In this way the player would still have the army skills gained from the other subguilds, but would be a specialist that was as far from other army players as heavy is from light.
Army can already do reasonably with bows, since as solar says, bows do damage with str, and dex is used for accuracy. Perhaps the army subguild would be specilised in crossbows somehow, and would have to join royal archers in order to be proficent with the longbows that use their str.
Having a order that makes archers deal more damge/be more accurate sounds great, plus makes sence since the crossbowman/longbowman were rarely/never the guys giving the orders.
Having special effects from bow mastery in army would negate most of the effectivness of a ranger archer (everyone would simply perfer an army archer who gets bonuses plus all the combat stuff). Further, the bonuses that rangers get from projectile guideance isnt all that great at the moment anyhow, just less misses, rare wounds, and some short stuns.
All in all, I dont know why more army dont use bows as is. With their decent dex and exelent str, they could fire, switch sets, and charge in. Increasing their skills in archery without giving equal penalities would simply be giving yet another powerful skill set to an already well made guild. I love the idea of having some options in any guild (rather then just taking a big stick and smacking things), but if you want a pure archer, reinc to ranger.
Army can already do reasonably with bows, since as solar says, bows do damage with str, and dex is used for accuracy. Perhaps the army subguild would be specilised in crossbows somehow, and would have to join royal archers in order to be proficent with the longbows that use their str.
Having a order that makes archers deal more damge/be more accurate sounds great, plus makes sence since the crossbowman/longbowman were rarely/never the guys giving the orders.
Having special effects from bow mastery in army would negate most of the effectivness of a ranger archer (everyone would simply perfer an army archer who gets bonuses plus all the combat stuff). Further, the bonuses that rangers get from projectile guideance isnt all that great at the moment anyhow, just less misses, rare wounds, and some short stuns.
All in all, I dont know why more army dont use bows as is. With their decent dex and exelent str, they could fire, switch sets, and charge in. Increasing their skills in archery without giving equal penalities would simply be giving yet another powerful skill set to an already well made guild. I love the idea of having some options in any guild (rather then just taking a big stick and smacking things), but if you want a pure archer, reinc to ranger.