Bows are Useless

Seriously for the love of god I understand you wanted bows to he support or mostly used as roleplay but holy crap they are the worst they have ever been. You removed the one good perk for bows yet left in the completely useless trick shot perk. Just tell everyone that you hate bows because they can barely even be used for support anymore so they either need seriously buffed so that they are actually useable or just removed from the game because currently they are a total waste of time and space in this game. I love to use bows in every game that I play because I like the sneaky or attack from a distance style but you have made a game where it’s better to run at something with a mace than shoot at it with a bow you what a more realistic game like you keep saying go shoot a bow and realize why nerfing them as much as you have is so stupid.

You need this! :wink:

All my archer have this.

Sirdavewolf said it well. In PvP bows are effective for a large amount of combat styles especially dismounting horse riders.

Combating a player who quick spams with a good bow build is difficult even for the best of players.


If u believe bows are useless you not doing it right. They are just not as overpowered anymore. But still usefull. But wont make you able to stand and do a heavy shot and deal 80% of someones hp.

Been saying this before, but tbh realism screw that. This is a game. And also a game were bats bigger than a lion is walking around like humans.

1 Like

To clear things up with all of you 1st I play 90% PVE not PVP 2nd my comment on being realistic is a direct comment on how in the dev streams for new updates they constantly say we changed this to make it more realistic 3rd bows may be good for group fighting but for a solo player and basically any PVE are completely pointless. I don’t want bows to be overpowered but they need to be reasonable to use as a main weapon not forced into support only with only 3 effective arrows.

1 Like

Any form of buff to bows and/or arrows will make them extremely unbalanced/overpowered on PvP servers.


Mechanics shouldn’t be completely decided by pvp seeing as how 90% of the game is pve interaction even on pvp servers 90% of your combat is doing pve to prepare for the 10% of your combat that is pvp.


Yes, weapon balance should, in fact, be decided by PVP, because PVP is the competitive mode. In PVE, the balance of weapons doesn’t matter, because you won’t be fighting other players. PVE-C should count, but it doesn’t, because everyone avoids conflict on PVE-C servers.

And I say all of this as someone who only plays PVE and PVE-C. It’s just logic: you don’t balance an aspect of the game around people who don’t care about that balance.


Conan by design and definition is a survival game and is mostly PVE it’s not a PVP based game it’s a PVE game with PVP added the balancing of a game should be based around the majority of the game not one small part of it.


Im playing PVP and a lot of my time I actually fight PVE creatures aswell. And in my opinion there is no weapon that are bad against it. I would rather say the opposite, PVE bosses and such are way to easy to kill and get loot from.

And I would like to understand you, but I dont. When the game got announced it was announced as a survival PVP game, win and defeat other players kinda. But of course it’s possible to make PVE aswell. But common.

Should really weapon balancing be about PVP or PVE? If that would be the case im pretty sure this game would be suck for PVP. Let the balancing be made from PVP perspective and PVE can have mobs and stuff.


Sadly, it’s all too easy to understand. We’ve both seen it a lot on the forums: “My playstyle is X and that’s what really matters. I don’t care about anyone who doesn’t play X.”

No, it categorically isn’t. I’ve been playing it since Early Access and it was PVP from the start. PVE mode was added later. Again, PVP is the mode where combat balance matters the most, so that should be the primary concern when balancing combat. We’re not talking about balancing other aspects, such as the economy or the difficulty of the dungeons; we’re talking about combat.


But I do not understand. I can see positive things with PVE that it keeps the playerbase not fall like a stone in water for an example.
But the thing I dont understand is, why it should be balanced from the majority of the playerbase. Wich was his opinion.

For me it’s kinda weird. I dont really go in to PVE balancing that much because I dont care that much of that aspect of the game. So why should players that mostly play PVE get in to choose what kinda balances is needed for PVP.

Most of the times on this forum I get frustrated see how people with pretty much no knowledge of the PVP give their opinion about it.
A thing that should have been good move from FC is to take in 20 really experienced players from both sides. And ask them what they wish to see in the future updates.

From the PVP im pretty sure most of the 20 players would have the same opinion about stuff. And that could actually make so people who left the game since december update wanna try it out again and most likely enjoy it.

I would for an example not put to much effort in to PVE balancing beacause it not interest me in the same way. Even if I am doing a lot of PVE during my time on PVP servers.

1 Like

Majority of players seem to be into PVE, and like it or not, majority of the game is PVE centered. If you drop the balance for them so it’s super easy and they can steam roll everything then the player base will drop and it’s the end of the game.
Same if it’s the reverse and it’s too hard. So yeah, balance does matter in PVE.
Plus all DLC is PVE focused so it’s what keeps the lights on…

BUT, it’s more forgiving then in PVP. As in PVE the AI is and will probably be for a long time limited so a lot of time you can get around harder encounters by using terrain or other “smart use of mechanics” as many devs like to say.

The only solution is to split the systems, like so many mmo’s have figured out over the years.
You can’t balance both in one system… So PVE will have their own stats and damage numbers and PVP will have theirs.
For example bows, Damage is 20 (15). 20 is against mobs, 15 is against players.
Or something similar.

I think people underestimate how many that plays some kind of PVP. There is a lot of good/decent private PVP servers now, way more than before. Remember A lot of RP servers include PVP aswell.

And like I said earlier, PVP is about PVE aswell. And for me PVE is way to easy with all the thralls and unbalanced weapons you can use.

I agree that DLC’s are PVE focused but again, PvP is PVE in a big scale aswell. I have all the DLC’s in this game. And everyone or most of the people I know playing have it. And that’s pure PVP players that most likely never tried a pure PVE server.

Unless I have missed something from the context of your post, then no I am sorry, but I do not agree with that. PvE and Singleplayer should not be held ransom to the whims of PvP players, anymore PvP players should be held at the mercy of PvE desires. Now to be clear I am not denying that PvP needs adjustments from time to time. But the idea that one mode should be making decisions for all four is frankly absurd. The problem is that a very large number of nerf requests are just generated by players incapable of finding a working solution, or who just dont want to invest the time to git gud. For example sake, the calls to nerf Claws even though there have already been numerous ‘rebalances’, and multiple effective countermeasures are reafily available. No, I am happy to let players continue to submit their issues and concerns, let Funcom gather feedback and gauge community sentiment, then based on the merits and severity of the issue, judge accordingly as to whether or not further action is warranted and to what extent. Let me ask you a question. Let us just say hypothetically that Funcom decided that it was going do just that and start balancing solely from a PvP standpoint. How long do you think it would take until the PvE playerbase, who are generally regarded as the largest consumers of DLC, become incensed and stop playing or supporting the game? Then what effect do you suppose that would have on: I) DLC sales and revenue, thereafter II) the prospects of continued development and III) the likelihood of people who solely play PvE investing in future Funcom titles, knowing what will likely eventuate?

No. We should either a) balance the modes seperately, which sadly is improbable, or b) continue to decide upon adjustments on a case by case basis.


I have to agree with Croms_Faithful on this. Yes, when it comes to weapon balancing PvP SHOULD be considered. But it should NOT be the ONLY thing considered. Far to often every other mode of the game is completely screwed over because of the pvp crowd crying for nerfs over things that really do not need them, or only need slight adjustments but MY GOD THEY ARE OP AND BROKEN AND GAME BREAKING!!! And thus, the get nerfed into oblivion and become useless trash that no one would ever waste time making any longer (or using if they happen to be “legendary”). That is not the answer and that is not the way that Funom or the community should ever be looking at “fixing” things. Especially when there are alternatives.


Yes or could it not be because of PVE players stuff get’s broken?

90% of this forum is active PVE players mostly it feels like.

I can say like this then, I want all bosses in the world to get stronger, harder to kill and so on. Would u like that? Or will you deny that bosses are good how they are?

Reason I dont get in to bosses and such a things that much is because I rather have a good balance in PvP before they balancing the world creatures.

If I was a dev in FC I would balance weapons first so they are ok in PvP. And after that balance world creatures after these changes. Right now, they mostly change weapons to make both PVE and PVP players happy at the same update. And that wont work.

Better way is balance weapons for PVP then balance the PVE so the weapons fits open world creatures aswell.

It’s not so much that you missed something from my post, it’s more that my post isn’t clear enough. I get scolded a lot for my “walls of text”, but this is a perfect example of why they’re necessary :smiley:

Balancing the combat around PVP does not mean having PVP players decide what’s to be done. Game design is not a democracy, and it never should be. That leads to Design by Committee, i.e. utter crap.

Balancing a game means trying to find the correct configuration for in-game elements so that none of the choices in the game is either strictly dominant or strictly dominated. Those are game theory concepts, but unfortunately there isn’t a magic formula where you can plug in all the values and it spits out a new set of values that will give you a game with stable, well-balanced mixed-strategy Nash equilibria.

That’s why the balancing process in video games is almost always iterative. You gather the data about the way your game elements are being used to help you determine what needs balancing, then you try to solve the problems by tweaking the values, and then you observe the results in the next iteration.

Listening to what players say should be a part of how they gather the data. That doesn’t mean that these forums should be the only way they can gather that data. And it most definitely doesn’t mean that these forums should be where they get the solutions.

Since a mode can’t make any decisions, I assume that you’re talking about the players of that mode making decisions. If so, I’ve already addressed that above.

Bear in mind, though, that I’m not even saying that Funcom’s game designers should make those decisions without considering their impact on other modes. I’ve already made it clear that the impact on PVP should be the primary concern that drives the combat balance decisions, not that it should be the sole concern or that PVP concerns should drive the balance of the whole game.

That’s not too far from what I’m saying. The biggest difference is that it seems to conflate the community “sentiment” with data. Getting the actual data is hard work. Community feedback should serve as a guide to finding the imbalances, but there should be more to it than just listening to players’ complaints.

To be honest, I’m not sure how much more than that Funcom really does. A cynic would say that the answer “not much” perfectly explains why they seem to be unable to balance the game properly. On the other hand, constantly adding new stuff only throws the balance off further, so that’s probably a big factor, too.

Honestly, I’ve stopped speculating about this. That stuff is just thinly veiled threat that if I don’t like the game, I’ll leave, so you better make me feel important. The hard truth is that we don’t have enough data about that and we never will. Only Funcom has that data and who knows if they’re making wise decisions based on it or not.

In a nutshell, yeah. It shouldn’t be so controversial, either, but the problem is that a lot of us PVE players got burned by PVP balancing decisions, because Funcom did a sloppy job.

I know exactly why Crom’s Faithful and Oduda feel the way they do. I’m still pissed off about the Lifeblood Spear, for example. But that’s Funcom doing a substandard job. That’s Funcom realizing that they screwed the pooch, not having time to find a good solution to the problem they shouldn’t have introduced in the first place, and just nerfing it to uselessness. But that’s not what balancing the combat around PVP means.


And as I pointed out, when balancing weapons PVP absolutely should be taken into consideration. It truly is necessary for weapons to be balanced in PVP.

Or the other oh…50 other weapons that have been made worthless garbage due to PVP complaints. And there in lies the problem most people have when people such as dorpie and others come to the forum crying about “item X is OP and needs to be nerfed”. It’s been done WAY to much and WAY to many times already. And no one benefits from them.

I’m pretty sure 50 is an exaggeration, but even if it weren’t, that wouldn’t mean those complaints were incorrect. It would only mean that the solution was bad.

There’s this story about an alleged experiment done with five monkeys. Supposedly, scientists placed the monkeys in the cage, hung some bananas from the top of the cage and put a ladder under those bananas. Every time a monkey would try to reach the bananas using the ladder, the whole group would be soaked in cold water with a high-pressure hose. As the story goes, after a while, whenever one monkey tried to go up the ladder, other money would beat it up. Then, supposedly, the scientists started replacing the monkeys one by one. The new monkey would come in, try to go up the ladder, and the remaining monkeys would beat it up. After a while it would stop trying, so the scientists would replace another one of the original monkeys with the first one. In the end, they had a group of five monkeys that were never soaked in cold water, but had learned the behavior of beating up anyone reaching for the bananas.

The experiment has never actually been done, and the story is just a parable a couple of authors invented for their book. However, the parable is not a bad one. When Funcom sprays us all with cold water for reaching for the bananas, is the solution to stop trying to reach them?

I find that hard to believe. I’m pretty sure that, at the very least, the people who were calling for the nerf benefitted from it.