Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
This topic has been locked 
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
Melee sneak attack provides a huge damage bonus over arrows with a sneak attack the only issues you might have is getting close enough with the sneak skill to hit with the initial attack.
Its impossible to get more than 1 sneak attack in on any one target. As soon as you damage them they are alerted. The only way to get a 2nd sneak attack would be to out run them far enough that they can no longer perceive you and sneak up on them again. (The huntsman bow doesn't prevent alerting from damage. It only reduces the chance of alerting if you miss).
As a like level item comparison a maximum upgrade huntsman bow with Iron arrows. The bow does 42-51 pierce and 10 knockback. The iron arrows do 42 pierce and 10 knockback. That is a max damage of 93 at 100% draw (bow damage is the draw percentage of the bow at the time it is fired). At 0 skill draw and firing animation time is 3.3 seconds at 100 skill its is 1.3 seconds. Your 2nd arrow draw can start during the first firing animation shaving .8 seconds off each additional shot. That means that it is impossible to stagger a troll with a huntsman bow and iron arrows.
The iron sword does 73 slash damage. It has a range of 2.4 and an arc of 90 degrees. The first attack takes 1.44 seconds, the second attack takes an additional .44 seconds, the third attack takes an additional .88 seconds and does double damage. Knockback on each swing is 40 with 20% additional knockback on the final swing. The secondary attack (middle mouse button) does 165 slash in 1.84 seconds.
Your 3rd swing will always stagger a troll. While staggered the troll will take double damage and the duration of stagger for a troll is 2.74 seconds which means that your 2nd set of 3 attacks with the sword do double damage for the first 2 swings. the 3rd swing won't be during the stagger time so it won't do quadruple damage but because its the third swing in the combo it will still do double damage and will stagger the troll again.
As long as you have enough stamina and roughly equivalent sword and bow skills you can turn 3 trolls into salad with the sword in the time it takes to kill 1 with the bow.
I routinely engage up to 3 smaller targets in melee. There is a damage penalty for multiple targets but the total damage is still ~33% more than handling them one at a time. Just parry block the target with the most stars and take a step or 2 to make sure that you hit all 3 targets. They will go down faster than retreating and taking them down one at a time.
As far as the bow taking more time and being more dangerous its always true against large and fast targets. Trolls with stars, abominations, lox, fuling berserkers, and especially stone golems. Lox and berserkers usually spawn in groups of 2 or 3. I have not yet succeeded in out running a lox or a berserker. You can put obstacles between you but they will catch up eventually unless you can drop them into a hole or low spot that they can't climb out of.
Frost Arrows, arguably the strongest arrow type in the game, do 52 Frost damage. Frost damage is not dealt over time; it does it's applied damage instantly, and slows the target to a crawl for a considerable amount of time (unless they're resistant to it).
Incorrect. From the Valheim Wiki:
The only DoT that does not stack is Poison (which you correctly state in the following sentence). Spirit damage also stacks in the same manner as Fire does.
Also incorrect. The vast majority of Valheim's weapons share the same backstab multiplier of 3x damage. The only exceptions are Knives and the Flesh Rippers, which have a 6x bonus.
Incorrect yet again. The Huntsman Bow generates less noise in both cases; in fact, there is no distinction between hitting a creature and hitting an object at all.
If you wanted to pull out the numbers, you probably shouldn't have forgotten the fact that Trolls are Weak to Pierce damage, which means 50% increased Stagger from Pierce attacks. As for the firerate, that's also incorrect; you can't shoot faster than 0.8 seconds for each additional shot (nothing happens if you attempt to fire faster).
You still won't stagger the Troll (unless the first shot is a backstab, because that will both stagger the Troll and bring him down to about 30% health), but... you also don't need to. With a firerate of 0.8 seconds (and an additional half second for the first shot), you can gun down the Troll with Archery 100 (or even Archery 85) within five shots.
I'm in more unfamiliar territory when it comes to staggering calculations. As far as I can tell, I *think* this is correct, although a single secondary attack with an Iron Sword is also an instant stagger (provided your Sword skill is high enough; also, the secondary attack does 219 Slash damage at Level 4, not 165).
Something this doesn't consider, however, is the damage decrease when also hitting terrain. If you're hitting both the Troll and another nearby object (could be a nearby tree or even the ground on bad terrain), you'll suffer a 33% damage decrease on the Troll, which might be enough to screw you out of the stunlock in this scenario.
This math isn't even remotely close to correct.
In the best case scenario, it takes two full combo attacks with the Iron Sword to kill a Troll. Each combo attack takes a combined total of 2.46 seconds. Supposing there's zero delay between starting another combo attack (which I'm pretty sure there is) you're looking at 4.92 seconds, which is slower than the Huntsman bow at 4.5 seconds.
Both the Huntsman Bow and Draugr Fang can two-shot non-starred Fulings with Needle arrows (which are insanely easy to make in the Plains), which takes 2.1 seconds at Archery 85 (EDIT: Fulings would also be staggered from a single shot from a wood arrow, making the follow-up shot lethal during the stagger). The Huntsman Bow can even instakill a Fuling with a backstab from a wood arrow if your Archery skill is high enough.
Also, if you're surrounded by multiple targets, you can roll to dodge an incoming attack and start the bow draw animation at the same time, and at high Archery levels, can fire the moment you're back to standing.
-> Trolls are weak to Pierce damage (and they're not that fast). The only weapons that might be able to kill Trolls faster are an Atgeir or a Spear with a Buckler shield. Both are inherently more dangerous than using a bow to just shoot them.
-> Arguably, the easiest way to kill Abominations is to just parry them with a shield over a fire geyser (using a sword or axe also works; the Flesh Rippers are also insanely effective at killing Abominations). Fire arrows do a pretty good job of killing one. Still safer to shoot, since Abominations have no ranged attacks at all (and often just walk away from you if they can't land any hits after a while), but shooting definitely takes longer than melee.
-> Lox are pretty easy to gun down. They have tons of health, but even a Huntsman Bow firing Needle arrows should be an instant stagger on the first backstab shot (and that's easy to land, since Lox have zero situational awareness). From there, you can gun them in roughly 6-7 seconds, which is more than enough time from a distance.
-> Fuling Berserkers are a serious problem; or at least, they would be, except for the fact that you have Frost Arrows at this point in the game, making Berserkers completely trivial. They take a few arrows, but they can't retaliate in any way whatsoever.
-> The Stone Golem is the only enemy in the game that has resistances to everything a bow can hit it with. However, they're pretty slow, and get stuck on terrain quite easily. My tactic is to load wood arrows and use them as target practice, since the more arrows he takes to die, the more Archery levels I gain in the process.
Thanks to Frost Arrows, there's never a reason to run from a Berserker (and they're also so slow that I don't get how you can't outrun them). And I can't imagine why you would even be running from an alerted Lox in the first place, considering how blind they are (also, I've definitely ran away from Loxes and survived before). Lox can only see/hear you from 15 meters, and they don't even become hostile until they're within six meters.
Supposing they're even hostile in the first place (and you've definitely messed up somewhere if they are), going into a dark-ish area and sneaking once you're at least 30-sh meters away should make a Lox screw off. Having a decent Sneak skill helps, ofc.
It isn't just stats, amigo. It's realism.
Field Artillery is the "King of Battle" because it out-ranges enemies without exposing themselves to risk. They are high mobility too.
Modern Rifle / Pistol are political AF right now due to their efficacy.
Ranged tactics, particularly those with high maneuverability, and especially those with stealth mechanics.. are powerful. Not over powered.. but yes, more powerful (conditionally) than other methods.
We still need and use the other weapon types in their most advantageous applicaitons, too.
Black iron shield with your choice of smacky-stick to deal with a swarm of skele or fuling? Check. Harpoons for serpents? Check. Frostner for blobbies? Check. Atgier to keep the wolves at bay? Check. (also pun, because baying wolves. Check.)
We can go on and on giving cherry-picked anecdotes. My anecdotes are not overpowered, they are just conditionally applied. Just like my bow.
So try to take a deep breath. You did good with stats. I like that about you, Marksman Max!
I also suspect that the damage numbers for bow on the wiki are wrong. The first time I attacked an abomination with the Huntsman bow and fire arrows it took over 50 arrows. According to the wiki an abomination has 800 health and is resistant to piercing but takes 1.5x damage from fire. That meant that I should have been doing (after resistances and weaknesses) 15.5 piercing and 33 fire damage per arrow and it should have dropped after 17 arrows. My next abomination I looked up on the wiki and decided to use snap shots and rely on the fire DOT and it still took all most 40 fire arrows.
The abomination after that I opened with a fire arrow and waded in with melee and the iron sword and buckler and brought the abomination down in less than 3 full attack cycles with the iron sword. All most as fast as taking down a troll. Far faster than the bow by itself.
Once I had enough silver and obsidian and had tamed my first 2 star wolf and then reached the plains, I didn't go back to the mountains any more. I've been out of frost glands and frost arrows for a long time now. I've accidentally stumbled into a group of lox when I was maneuvering to take out 3 deathsquitos and the same when dodging poison attacks from multiple growths.
The first time I fought a lox I had silver gear and the Dragur fang with obsidian arrows. I led it around (and around, and around) one of the stone towers that can be found in game. By the time I had killed it I was all most out of arrows and the tower had been destroyed. According to the wiki I should have killed it with my 8th arrow. It took over 70 arrows. I discovered that I could dodge toward the lox when it did its stomp attack and I could get 3 solid swings on its flank before it was able to turn toward me again. Even though a lox takes half damage from slash and no damage from spirit, the next one I faced I went with melee, blocking the bite with the silver shield and dodging the stomp. It was dead in 6 melee cycles.
That was enough for me. At this point in the game I open with the bow and switch to melee. I've pretty much figured out how to take on every thing including berserkers (as long as I take the berserkers on 1 at a time.)
My bow skill on my main character is 50 and my melee skill with sword is 43. I do far better with melee than with bow and I had wanted to make an archer when I first started playing but it doesn't work nearly as well as people on the forum says it does.
Oh, fantastic. Ignore all of my statistical data in favor of some "realism" argument that makes zero sense whatsoever. Can you explain to me the "realism" of:
-> The Blackmetal Knife and Frostner having identical Stamina costs.
-> Smelted metal ores somehow weighing more after they were melted down.
-> The "Burning" and "Freezing" effects not countering each other.
-> Trolls doing the same damage as Wolves per hit.
-> Being able to backstab a Ghost in the first place.
-> The Bronze Buckler requiring three times the metal of the Iron Buckler (or the fact that 30 Kg of Copper/TIn only makes 12 Kg of Bronze and not 30 Kg).
They're political because the Democrats are trying to take away everyone's rights, but that's a topic for a different discussion (and certainly not on this forum).
Bows can deal with all of those problems with zero issues (apart from maybe the wolves, but shooting is still easier than melee if you combine it with dodge-rolling).
As stated before, a bow can deal with all of those previous examples pretty easily.
You did a poor job coming up with a good counterargument. Try again with actual facts.
This is sort of where stuff goes to crap, because we're talking about the damage numbers straight from the Wiki, and you can't actually can't deal that damage until your skill in that category is at least Level 75. At lower levels, your average damage is much lower than that, and even at Swords 100, you're not guaranteed to do 73 damage per hit with a maxed Iron Sword, for example.
So my stance is that bows are completely overpowered, and I stand by what I said, but I'm talking more about the end-game here. When you compare Archery 100 to any other melee skill at 100, it's obvious what's better. However, bows are probably the worst weapons at Archery 0; their strength is the insane snowball effect that comes with higher levels of Archery that other weapons just don't receive.
At low Bow levels, you're crippled by both lower damage and drastically lower firerate, which does make them less effective than melee weapons at the same skill level (since the firerate of melee weapons remains unchanged). If you're comparing Bows 20 to Swords 40, then the sword is easily more effective.
Again, the wiki is right with the numbers; you just can't actually deal that damage at lower Archery levels. Having a low Archery skill affects the damage of both the bow and the arrow launched from it. A Fire Arrow would indeed do 33 damage to an Abomination, provided your Archery skill is at least 75 and you happen to hit the roll for max damage.
Bows are completely busted, but you've really gotta stick with them until they get there, because they definitely don't start off OP. Fortunately, shooting everything you see throughout the early game will get you up to a decent Bow level fairly quickly. Another thing to consider is that while Archery exp is gained per shot, it is not damage-based, so shooting enemies at point-blank with several weaker arrows grants several times more exp than just killing them in one shot.
That definitely doesn't sound right. You Bow skill must've been really low for Draugr Fang to take that many shots with decent arrows. The only possible reasons I can come up with as to why it would take so many shots are:
1) Not all of your shots were at full draw.
2) Not all of your shots landed.
3) Your Archery level was really low.
4) Draugr Fang wasn't at maxed level.
Loxes don't have resistances to either Poison or Pierce. Even if you only did 50 damage per shot, the Lox would still be dead within twenty arrows.
Depending on your build, it's actually possible to just constantly run circles around the Lox while attacking him, and there's absolutely nothing he can do about it rofl.
50 in Bows isn't that bad, though. Now, I do keep saying that Bows are busted because you can draw a shot right after starting a roll; if you're not particularly good at dodging, then bows are still pretty strong at range, but they won't be usable within melee distance.
Also, if you're running an archer main, you definitely want a maxed Root Armor set. The +15 Bow bonus makes a massive difference, and the Pierce resistance allows you to shrug off virtually all ranged enemies apart from the Fuling Shaman, who's no threat whatsoever so long as you pick him off fast (Shamans have pitiful HP; they can also boost the defenses of all nearby Fulings, so making them a priority is smart for multiple reasons).
Like you get a item that lets you peer into Helheim and contact souls that failed to die in battle and offer them a 2nd chance. Then you could place them on battlements, at the gates or whatever, kinda like AoC thralls.
IMO, it's a part of the game that seems more balanced for multiplayer. One person defending a detailed base that took hours to set up can end in some major frustration, especially if they aren't using somewhat cheesy tactics, like invulnerable earthworks that are better at repelling attackers than heavy-duty stone walls. The attacks encourage a certain kind of creativity while discouraging others. I can certainly see why some people, especially solo players, would prefer to play without the raids.
Dude, I am sorry. Your posts have a lot of logical fallacy. You are failing to comprehend what others write, and instead you are super-imposing what you expect them to have written in order to paint yourself as some sort of victim.
Please, forgive my directness here, but I find your ignorant responses to be quite rude at this point Marksman Max. Decoding every other's posts word-by-word is compulsive, and reminiscent of a 2nd grade reading level. I want you to calm down, take your time, read slowly, ingest what is said, contemplate your own statistical statements in a new way: within the context of their applications in game.
You are trying to use the stats out of context, and as a statistician I can tell you that is a misuse.
Like what, exactly? That's a bold claim to make with zero evidence behind it.
Also, you should actually quote what I said if you want to make a decent argument. There's no reason to bother with a (quote) if you're not even copying anything that I stated.
Ah, the "victim" card. What's next, calling me a racist?
Can you quote a single time I even pretended to be a "victim"? Can you even define what the word "victim" means from your perspective?
Except you can't prove that my responses are "ignorant" in the first place.
It's called "addressing your entire argument", and it wouldn't be a problem at all if you actually had a decent argument like Knight does. Not my fault you didn't think this through.
When was I not calm?
That's exactly what I've been doing this entire time. Maybe you should try this out, too.
You pull out both the "victim" card AND the "missing context" card? You should get a job at CNN with those skills.
Also, the stats are as in-context as they're going to get. If you can't explain why they are wrong, and if you can't explain how literally anything I said was wrong without resorting to direct character attacks with absolutely no basis, then I'm clearly correct.