The Infantry Problem 2

[Malong]

Now it's gone as far as to be OP
OH Deer

Those are joke votes. It should have been obvious.

[Sir Baron]

Guess I'm not the only one who can't tell sarcasm

[Malong]

Guess I'm not the only one who can't tell sarcasm

Do you mean "tharcathm?"

[Sir Baron]

I said sarcasm and that is what I meant

[Winter]

Hmm
Aside from Winter's post that it's not a good argument no one has said anything to deny my post
It takes skill but how much?
There is danger but is there any more for a new player then if they where peeking?
I feel that no amount of armor will save you if you lack skill
It's not a elitist stance
It's a blunt opinion
Any player can get the skill it takes
But most at least of those posting here don't seem to want to
Before I get told off because I have the best gear in game Woody and Kaas have better
Now some of you may remember Eyleen
She was the Master at playing cav and she had AB and pretty much all else was tier 4
Armor is not all there is and never will be
Who you are thinking about in that light is shielder

If armor is not all there is and never will be, why are you so against buffing it?  (Although it seems a lot of people actually just want the damage reduction which effectively transfers to an increase in hit points rather than armor that will make Nords bounce off of you, as previously explained).

The argument that others just aren't skilled enough and that is why they feel infantry is underpowered fails on every level.  I see that you want to double down on it, so I will explain why it is a poor argument:

When Ragnarok was first introduced, people could beat it but it took 2 hours+, required Resurrection Tomes to be used constantly (no Tome limit other than how many the server could take before crashing / warping the map), and had waves that people barreled completely rather than fight and risk a wipe an hour and a half into the run.  However, people *could* beat it.  Would it have been fair to tell everyone complaining that they just weren't skilled enough?

When Duellist was introduced as a class, people complained that it was useless.  However, there were those that were proficient in one-handed weapons and could still get top kills.  Should it never have been turned into Legionnaire under the argument of people just aren't skilled enough?

Legionnaire started off with poor throwing skill and many people complained it took a ridiculous number of hits to kill enemies and had access to too few throwing weapons.  Should it never have been buffed up to where it is now because people could still get top score with it and everyone else just wasn't skilled enough?

The Aurora Blade was once 50c and far outclassed by all of the other weapons.  However, people including myself could still get top kills with it in Ragnarok mode.  Should it have stayed at 50c and had all arguments blown off with "you just aren't skilled enough?"

The Prince used to have armor so strong that only blunt and pierce weapons could damage him regularly, and cut weapons had to be maneuvered to get maximum speed boost and accuracy (a hit to the head would inevitably fail).  However, people could still beat him.  Again, should it have been left that way because people just weren't using the right weapons and weren't skilled enough?

Items used to despawn, but with juggling they could be kept in the game.  It took a team skilled in teamwork (or one very bored dedicated juggler) to achieve this.  Should this have been kept in the game because players just weren't skilled enough to remember to keep the items shuffled?

Ranger and Halberdier used to have significantly less armor than they do now and much less access to various infantry items that have been shared to them.  People complained that the classes didn't feel like they were worth playing and were underpowered as options.  I suppose that since I could get top kills as Halberdier (never made a Ranger, don't like archer) they should have never received any buffs because others just weren't skilled enough.

I can keep going if you want, but I think at this point it is more than enough.

I'm very disappointed that we have spent 20 pages to reach the conclusion that people just aren't as good at infantry as Baron, so they are all wrong and he is right.

[Kaasovic]

Well said Mr. Winter

/thread

[Sir Baron]

OK
I'm done
Complain about my lack of seeing your point of view but then refuse to see mine

If you want to see why I keep saying that people are looking for a buff go read the whole thread like I have

I am tired of people taking one piece of what I say and turning it in to a post about how dumb I am when the rest of the post explains it

If you want a buff go pester the devs about it

But don't come back here and start whining about Infantry being to OP when skilled players start mauling all other scores if they put it in

I have gotten nothing from this but disrespect and complaints about trolling for doing what others are
And I am done with everyone thinking I'm dumb for not liking the idea of Infantry getting a buff

I can do great as it is and I know many others can

[Winter]

OK
I'm done
Complain about my lack of seeing your point of view but then refuse to see mine

Incorrect. Multiple times people have stated they understand your position and agree with it to an extent. Kaasovic recently said he understands that from your perspective infantry is fine, but that for other people in other positions it needs some work. Stating that there is another position is not invalidating your perspective, it is saying that there are others that YOU need to consider.

If you want to see why I keep saying that people are looking for a buff go read the whole thread like I have

There are people looking for a buff, yes. I don't see what this proves, no one has said that no one wants a buff.

I am tired of people taking one piece of what I say and turning it in to a post about how dumb I am when the rest of the post explains it

I disagree that the rest of the post explains it. If it does, it should be easy enough for you to quote that and repost it. If the rest of your post already explained what the previous parts of it had said, then people probably wouldn't be asking you to elaborate your position.

If you want a buff go pester the devs about it

They did not make this thread to ask for a buff. YOU made this thread to argue that infantry is fine. You have done a poor job. Regardless, the developers are aware of this thread and discussions are being had about the points brought up. Even if it was useless to you because you couldn't prove to everyone that you are right, others found use in the debate because it brought up some points to think about.

But don't come back here and start whining about Infantry being to OP when skilled players start mauling all other scores if they put it in

Skilled players are already "mauling all other scores" according to you, especially the Master Peltasts that you claim are OP.

I have gotten nothing from this but disrespect and complaints about trolling for doing what others are
And I am done with everyone thinking I'm dumb for not liking the idea of Infantry getting a buff

You get what you give. I think most people here have been far more polite to you than you have to them, especially people like Kaasovic (up until he called the thread cancer recently) and Pavel.

I can do great as it is and I know many others can

"There is no lack of jobs," said the employed man to the homeless, "I am doing just fine."

[DR.]

Seeing some ones point gooses both ways funny enough. The problem comes when taking out walls dose not make inf any better as a class other than it means rg and pc will be needed more. - Even tho you don't need them? As we will still have even more shc in game now.. 

If you take out wall what do you do? Give me 5 X wall crafting mats and say have fun having 450 wog? Give me a different cade? Like that would solve a problem vs changing the model of wall like I said. Etc etc ... me and others have explained why we see a increase in survivability would be better even if some other stats to go down. Yet I see no up side to your argument. 

If you wanted wall to be longer and not as high but keep the hit points now you would be on to something.

There is nothing stopping both ideas to be done at the same time (change of model of wall) and a change in stats for inf.



Rag took 2 hours - Think I just miss old ni thx Winter.
Is it strange I miss juggling as well?

[Rezev]

It's all caused by time. I guess every1 knew that there would be situation when players would reach possible best obtainable gear. Game is not hard anymore, as most players have top stuff which they can share in-game with new/poor players.
Archer/pike/xbow gear is now most efficient, compared to useless infantry (especially on small maps where entrance can be blocked with cades).

I mentioned my idea in this topic about new map/mode, but once again:
-open space map (no buildings) - players have to build base with own cades
-no ammo/heal "stations" - players have to bring own med/ammo boxes
-constant waves (up for discussion; medium break after each 3 waves)
-bigger waves - few x more enemies to deal with
-stronger nords (more hp, dmg)
-siege wave (as Kaas said)
-cav wave? players would be able to use horses but there won't be place to heal them
-cades like platform/heavy cade would find some use
-2 or 3 nords spawn to prevent kiting (up to discussion)
-new support item "anvil" (crafting cost up to discussion)
-placing base in map corner would be illegal

In my opinion every class would find some use, team-play would crucial.
Ofc, earlier waves would be easier, players would be able to rush and face nords (I'm sure cool thing for infantry to cover team building base ^^).

*Boosting or decreasing items/cades stats won't make any changes, infantry is just not efficient as other classes.