For now the 3 career are very close to each other. I found it counterproductive. I think that more difference would be welcome and bring more diversity to the game.
Tell me what you think about that if you have an opinion about it, it would be interesting.
I have made a proposal about the Huntsman in another post (discussion about Kruber, a pdf of 1.5 pages). In the idea, i propose to change the huntsman for an engineer.
For the dwarf i don’t play enough to have a word about it (only level 10). But at first glance i would say that dwarf are all tank in the warhammer universe. And the dwarf ranger are as good at distance as in close combat. I think build this class as an hybrid career would be intersting to play. I will surely speak about the dwarf in futur post but not until i totaly understand him.
It’s not so much as those 3 are “counter-productive”, but rather certain other few are “over-productive”.
All 3 you’ve mentioned, plus some other “unpopular” careers as well, all have one common factor in that the character design and mechanics aren’t just crammed up into simple “DPS or TANK” roles. Most such “less popular” careers are in close proximity to “supporter” roles in other fantasy RPGs, and have interesting but diversified mechanics that emphasize on team synergy.
Unfortunately, certain “favorites” in career and weapon choice are preferred for high efficiency. Why would you want a diversified supporter career in the team, when you need just two roles? Meat shields and DPS?
Just look how sensitive and knee-jerk reactions come from some people when others suggest balancing/nerfs to their favorite FOTM weapon type or career.
There could be some suggestions to make those 3 classes better, but ultimately, they’ll still be largely ignored, because when certain careers/weapons are just so massively powerful than others, people will still only flock to those.
They’re completely different. How can you call them close, if even their ranged weapons are nothing alike, as well as their ults?
Well, Huntsman and Ranger have some similarities, because some of their weapons are the same. But these are the gimmick ones. And their talents, actives and meta weapons are so much different.
This is silly, Huntsman Kruber is supposed to be a representation of “Free company” which were meant to have a rough-ish vibe, somewhere between robinhood and a pirate. The longbow is perfectly suitable, even the models had more bow weapons than black power in their kits.
Furthermore, Kruber isn’t the better archer, but he offers a different role than elf, while she is far more accurate and can snipe from greater distances Kruber is stronger and packs a bit more whallop with a hefy bow. This functions fine as of now due to the differences they have in animation / draw.
If the Class was Nuln based of was called engineer I would agree longbow is silly, but it isn’t.
It’s not the difference in skill that matters. It’s largely irrelevant. Try looking at it from a further perspective in terms of functionality and purpose within a team.
The most preferred team compositions by far is a very ‘standardized’ pair of meatshields + pair of ranged DPS, which offers a very intuitive advantage in clearing the map at hand no matter what the difficulty is.
Meatshields with broad melee engagement capabilities take on the brunt of horde waves, ranged take on the elites and bosses. In this simplified form of team composition, you need to be one of these:
(A) A massively powerful ranged DPS with long, extended combat capabilities
(B) A toughened melee combatant with sufficient modes of attack and self defense that allows for prolonged engagement against hordes of enemies with relatvely
If you are not either (A) or (B), OR, if you are either (A) or (B) but have some other career do that better than you by a fair margin, then you’re “unpopular” a career in this game, so to speak.
In this aspect, the Huntsman is a pretty powerful ranged DPS but still very constrained to limitations of ammunition no mttaer how meticulously you build for it.
Take a wild guess as to why Pyromancer, Bounty Hunter, and even Iron Breaker is considered a better ranged class than the Huntsman. Unlimited ammo/no ammunition spent traits + higher constant damage output.
So why would anyone take in Huntsman Markus when Pyromancer, BH, IB can all do the whole ranged bit a lot better? ESPECIALLY when compared to Huntsman, the Footknight is a much more desired choice with its amazing Valiant Charge?
Much is the same with Waystalker and Ranger Veteran.
WS is also fairly limited by ammunition… and despite some people having good fun with ammunition refund settings, it’s still incomparable to careers like Pyromancer – insane damage + infinite ammo.
RV is just PALED in comparison the broken as sh** Drake Pistolss every IB abuses to kingdom come nowadays (their excuses of how that weapon is “not OP” being almost comical). Why would anyone need any of RV’s meager special capabilities when the main damage dealing ranged classes don’t even use ammo?
In this sense, all of the 3 mentioned by the OP fill a very shaky role in the team and only some niche players really use them well. The WHC suffers the exact same problem as well.
Normaly the Free company is just paysan. The hunter was added in the free company only in the last army manual for warhammer V8 (that was for broke some nuts ><.)
I agree with your statement, but i think that the mercenary AND the huntsman can be regroup in one career witch is the Imperial soldier. And get the ranged specialization for the engineer. Wich in my opinion would me more cool and fun ! ^^.
That just ask to do some little modification like giving the bow to the “mercenary” and the repeated handgun only for engineer. (to be very picky, just WTF a mercenary can get a repeated handgun ? I it is one of the most expensive weapon with the hochland gun.).
I think it’s more complicated. We maybe have to separate the game in 2 part.
The solo Q generaly for veteran : wich involve getting the most polyvalent character.
The team for champion and legend level : wich involve more team play and where team’s construction is very fun to do.
Kerillian seem’s very balance (maybe a little bit too much but … ). (Just depend if you want to balance your game to the top or to the low.) Personally, i prefer up the champion wich are under that nerf the champion that are over, but this is a question of pov.
The huntsman have a interest, while under ultimate he can destroy a boss quickly (if the team have control). I get it, but is that enough to get a character interresting ? I think it isn’t.
The ranger… is a big problem to me. I see no way to pick him over an other career. And even more, he don’t have a “plus” to make me be interrested in playing him. For exemple even if the dwarf killer is not broken (if he is. I don’t know) the character have enough charism for me to get fun in playing him.
For NikKotovski :
Talent is often about the same order, of the same kind. Rise critical hit, dodging distance etc… So i don’t think we can call them different with that criterion.
Despite all there different weapon, they have same goal. For exemple :
the crossbow, the long bow (both human and elven) and the hangun are strong in killing fast long range elite. This is there purpose. So you can compare the way taken, the pro and the con to go to your goal.
And this is the same for every king of weapon. And for now, some weapon are a lot better than other.
And finaly. I think that do some support character is very nice for team building. When you can play at 4 it’s taking the old raid MMO way. Wich i like a lot (and discuss in another topics). And if kikoo children king prefer Kerillian because she have a bow, well, that’s only about the half of the game.
So tell me, if i get clear in what i say (not my best strength a admit it ^^. ) And if you disagree.
You think I don’t know some players know how to mitigate those problems well enough to function stably in a higher-level difficulty team? This isn’t an “oh but I’ve got no problems with it at all” issue here. It’s not about you, nor some players you personally play with.
Rather, it’s about a wider spread perception of the masses – that are on widely varying level of skill and gameplay – that commonly refer to the 3 classes as mentioned by the op for being ‘lacking.’
Not everyone in the world is fully equipped with ammo refund and crit item settings with frequent headshot capabilities. Despite such various disparities in character spec, some careers are simply way too better than others.
You can bet your balls that the Ironbreakers don’t experience being vote kicked from the team the moment they enter a room, as much as RVs and Slayers do. Same with the general reactions to WiCaps or Zealots entering the game, than compared to a BountyHunter.
You’re coming from the right place but your facts are skewered.
Look at it this way, all 3-4 ( pyro ) classes are somewhat similar BUT they have entirely different playstyles, limitations and feel to them.
They can all sort of shoot indefinently, their firepower is also administered in different ways, bardin being the more specialized ( imo ), Kruber with the armor penetration and to a degree precision and elf with longbow that has a very high headshot modifier but lacking armorpierce.
Now that put together, how well do said classes handle in melee or in a team ? They’re same same but still quite different.
So lets call them ‘‘A’’ but with a different feel / methology to them. Aside from balancing of course. Which sure… the majority as you say feel those 3 classes are ‘‘lacking’’ i’d call BS and call the majority lacking in experience skill and creativity.
i’m sorry but i cannot get behind your argument. the ‘wider spread perception of the masses’ is way too general a statement to apply to class viability.
you are saying that because of this ‘perception’, the classes should be tweaked, ignoring the ACTUAL usefulness of the class in the hands of skilled players. in your earlier posts you demonstrated that you don’t have knowledge of how good many classes are (you spoke out against dorf ranger and waystalker - just means you haven’t seen how effective they are and don’t know how to play them well)
i wouldn’t want to play with anyone that kicks people based on the classes they play. it just means they’re crappy players honestly. just because YOU don’t know how to play it, doesn’t mean others can’t well. in legend it’s actually the opposite most of the time - slayers / shades etc the ‘non-meta’ classes are usually better players, the people that pick pyro ib footknight normally DON’T know how to perform well.
so basically you are saying that we should ignore traits and the crafting system and just focus on base talents to tweak the classes?
no. just no. if you keep rotating your argument saying that classes are not viable because people don’t want to utilise the tools given to them, then that’s just a lack of playstyle knowledge.
Agreed. Lots of off meta builds perform better than meta, only if you know how to play them well. The current ‘meta’ are merely low skill floor and low skill ceiling builds that can perform moderately effectively.
Git gud is the only thing left to tell those who insist on meta only, doing a general buff round on the off meta stuff will probably make a fair number of builds too OP and break the balance again (not saying that there are no stuff that does not need buffing but that most things are in a good place now).
All they need to do atm is to fix the still bugged talents and then we’ll be able to have a better idea on what really needs work.
Why not join the Fatshark Discord https://discord.gg/K6gyMpu