RPG

>RPG
>Archery is overpowered
Whoa.. Just like real life...

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/Ej3qjUzUzQg
youtube.com/watch?v=BEG-ly9tQGk
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Ranged > Melee
Majority of the time this is true
Ranged combat trumps all

>RPG
>guns do 1/10 the damage as a sword
>it's turn based so range isnt an issue

>be melee
>have 7-8 move range and counter move is deflect arrows
>wearing a reflect ring
What now user?

>turn based so range isn’t an issue
>but op pic is final fantasy tactics
>doesn’t just use this:
Why do you even live

The 100 years war proved that ranged superiority is dependent on external factors and that in normal conditions archers get fucked by infantry and cavalry。

>The 100 years war proved that ranged superiority is dependent on external factors and that in normal conditions archers get fucked by infantry and cavalry。

This mofo knows his shit.

>play oblivion
>oh boy should I go 2-handed orc? a breton mage perhaps?
>better go stealth archer

OP said RPG, not FFT
Checkmate

dude HISTORY lmao

>implying FFT isn’t an RPG

Lovecraftian post fellow pickle Sneed

>SRPG
>Archery is worse than magic in every way

how the fuck did you know i was a chuckposter?

I'm CIA

>normal conditions
>"yeah but if the knight was in the same room right next to the archer he would win hurr"
Bow and Arrow killed majority of people in war until guns were invented tbqh

yeah, about those arrows...

why is fft a tactics rpg and fe is a strategy rpg

what was meant?

You're big guy

test

Kafkaesque tbqh

>RPG
>generics are the best girls

heh, nothing personnel kid

Wrong, at least in western warfare, again the 100 years war is a textbook analysis of it, the only battles the e*glish won thanks to their bows were the ones the French knights lost due to weather and terrain conditions before a single arrow was even fired.

based sneedposters

>he thinks plate stood a chance against arrows
Enjoy being dead, kiddo.

Marcel in Jeanne d'Arc is a blessing: he saved my ass so many times.

A long bow line will make short work of that without a phalanx of shields.

Careful now, CAREFUL

Takumi is just life support for the Fujin Yumi.

>he fell for the longbow meme

youtu.be/Ej3qjUzUzQg

>tfw you can't give Fujin Yumi to actually useful units

>tfw you get nerfed super hard in every game after the first

Some moron in the 90s with a vendetta against, at the time, Light RPGs (now a defunct term) turned RPG categorization into one giant "no true scotsman" fallacy and it's been that way ever since

Swords DO do more damage than guns

It's just you don't get close enough to use it before the gun shoots you

Related question: why are 90% of crossbows in Dark Souls useless?

yeah LUCT was kinda abusable
>just field 4 archers lmoa

Well that's why archers are supplemented with infantry and calvary. Obviously just straight groups of archers wouldn't be able to take calvary at all. I'm not sure about foot soldiers but I'm sure the archers would fair much better against them.

Maybe in Asia where they used paper armors but in the west archery was mostly used in defensive positions and bows were slowly phased out with the improvement of armors, the advent of crossbows and the spreading of gunpowder and liniaturization of guns.

what if the archer was a marksman who only goes for headshots? the face plat was thinnest part and arrows could go through it. another issue is that plate armour is expensive and the majority of armies didn't wear it.

fire emblem is simulation rpg

Exactly my thought process in November of 2011. Or was it 2012? No I'm pretty sure it was 2011. I think.

Fire amblem is literally rock paper scissors with visual novel elements.
It's neither sim nor RPG.

Japan uses the term "simulation RPG" for everything involving tactics, from turn based grid battles to grand strategy.

>Archery is overpowered
You mean Guns, right?
No one sane would use a bow.

Too bad japs are retarded, doesn't mean you need to spread their butter though.

>what if the archer is a marksman who only goes for headshots
It still doesn't go through a plate helmet.

>plate was expensive
Your point? Arrows can't penetrate steel plate. Not to mention that a moderately sized shield will also make your arrows useless.

FE is hardly an SRPG at this point, honestly.
If you took out the gameplay and replaced it all with more dating sim elements, the fanbase wouldn't change in the slightest.

>not just save editing so you can.

Ranger is the best class.

>game has bows AND guns
>both fill their own niches and neither is exactly stronger than the other
>strongest weapon in the game is straight up fisticuffs

Thus cavalry archers were formed and ruled the earth for hundreds of years

>archery OP
Genghis Khan approves.

Well for realism with guns in RPG settings they would have a 1/3rd chance to not work at all, 1/3rd chance, and a 1/3rd chance to barely hit a target who later dies of the infection after stabbing you to death a month earlier. Colt firearms were famous for a reason for changing that.

1/3rd chance to misfire*

Survivalists were just absurd in the first EO. At least the other archer classes were good.

What games do archery right?
youtube.com/watch?v=BEG-ly9tQGk
vid very related

history is fake, we never had medieval ages - there were no swords or metal armor. It was all fabricated for our benefit so we do not overthrow the corporations.

Nah

They were useless before From added manual reload at which point they instantly became the best friends for melee builds.

Lars is a shitty hack.

it could go through the face plate, the thinnest part of plate armour.
the plate is expensive thus, the majority of the army was vulnerable to arrows. only those few who had plate were invulnerable to them.
the shield can't cover your whole body.

>game finally makes archers good after over 20 years of them sucking dick

he looks autistic as fuck

>RPG
>bows use DEX and no STR

>the team archer is a skinny twink or girly elf with no muscles

Are there any games that do archery right though?
You're not answering my question.

yes

We've switched to exclusively ranged combat from bashing each other with sharp objects for a reason.

you do realise he was debunked? he uses low draw weight bows that were used for hunting 70 pounds max. the one he uses might be less, 40 maybe. the ones used in wars were much higher. at least 120 pound and up to 200. his bow wouldn't hurt an armoured opponent. he is a trick shooter and makes entertaining videos but warfare archery wasn't like this.

I'll admit I know nothing about competitive archery, but wouldn't hitting a moving target like in pic related be a greater testament to one's skill than hitting the same, stationary target over and over?

It really looks like if I were to just put my arms up I wouldn't get hurt too much from his shots

Thanks. What are they?
Why can only one user answer the question I have?

No you idiot, the ability to hit the eye slit on a plate helmet at the time was impossible. Bows/arrow was nowhere near as accurate back then as it is now. Then you have to take into the account of gravity, wind, distance, movement of the guy in plate, the ability to fucking turn his head so the arrow hits the side of the plate helm.

Also do some fucking basic research on shields. Buckers might not do much but larger shields work just fine. You squad down, making yourself as small as possible and hide behind the shield.

The scene in 300 where the spartans group up and protect form wall with their large shields is how it works.

Do some basic history research. What's shows in movies, games, anime, is not how it worked in reality. Get some basic fucking knowledge before you try and argue holy shit you are dumb.

No and you're retarded for thinking that. You really do know nothing about archery.

To be fair he was just telling you that what you posted isn't ''right'' archery therefore making your question not worth answering.

And yet all ranged like snipers are trained to use a bayonett, knife, and hand to hand. Ranged don't mean shit if you don't have the space to use it or someone manages to ambush you.

Nice slut!

You're retarded.

>"vid very related"
>gets irritated when people shit on him for the video

It's true tho

Maybe high caliber rounds can do as much damage as bladed weapons, but on a whole bladed weapons leave much more serious wounds than bullets do if they penetrate

Bullets are designed to enter and exit the body, but a cut from a dagger will tear the flesh, leaving a larger wound that is harder to heal and bleeds more

The worst of all is three edged stab wounds like those inflicted by early bayonets and trench knives; those things are almost impossible to close

Sure bullets will penetrate armor easier and I won't argue that mortar fire and shrapnel is even worse than melee weapons but I'd rather be shot than stabbed any day, especially if its a .22 or similar

Roosevelt was shot and gave a full 55 minute long speech before retiring

DAB ON THEM - AYY!

11/11/11 dont you remember the commercial?

Horizon Zero Dawn is the closest I've seen.

Care to explain then? Why wouldn't being able to accurately hit a moving target require more skill than hitting a stationary one?

I do now, fuck

>uses a shield
Heh, nothing personell kid

Thanks, I'll check it out.

It could go through if the archer had aimbot on and the knight wasn't facing him. Since, you know, plate helmets are shaped so that arrows slide off the sides instead of taking the impact. And even so, helmets are thick. Arrows can't pierce plate armor.

Why would bows scale with STR? You're not throwing the arrow, even if you were 10 times stronger it wouldn't fly any faster.

...

>Poison did nothing

>the archer is actually a pretty decent tank and has a skill that makes enemies more likely to attack him just to rub it in

...

...

>bullets are designed to enter and exit the body
Hollow points aren't.

But Noire was good

Bows shouldn't scale in the first place
Minreq and set damage

...

Not that user but the style he uses is real and was used.

DEX scaling is just better aim.