cRPG

cRPG => General Discussion => Topic started by: Bjord on August 30, 2012, 08:22:01 pm

Title: Playing archer STF for a few days and...
Post by: Bjord on August 30, 2012, 08:22:01 pm
I feel like an epileptic squirrel, constantly looking around for impending doom that is cavalry. It's like putting points in PD gives you a red bullseye on your back that only people with Riding skill can see.

Now I see why archers max out their ath. I think it's time for some new features in the game, like deployable stakes. Maybe we'd get some better mentality for archers, making them less epileptic maybe.

What do you guys think? I'm not making a suggestion, rather I'm lifting issues and hinting at possible solutions.
Title: Re: Playing archer STF for a few days and...
Post by: Araxiel on August 30, 2012, 08:26:22 pm
There are 2 kind of archers. One uses zoom button a lot and other one uses it rarely.
Title: Re: Playing archer STF for a few days and...
Post by: Skyline on August 30, 2012, 08:26:37 pm
I feel like an epileptic squirrel, constantly looking around for impending doom that is cavalry. It's like putting points in PD gives you a red bullseye on your back that only people with Riding skill can see.

Now I see why archers max out their ath. I think it's time for some new features in the game, like deployable stakes. Maybe we'd get some better mentality for archers, making them less epileptic maybe.

What do you guys think? I'm not making a suggestion, rather I'm lifting issues and hinting at possible solutions.

Bola's..... :)
Title: Re: Playing archer STF for a few days and...
Post by: Bjord on August 30, 2012, 08:30:41 pm
There are 2 kind of archers. One uses zoom button a lot and other one uses it rarely.

Your point is? Cav goes after archers regardless if they zoom or not. And if you're saying that I should zoom less, then you're telling the wrong person. :wink: I use zoom for long ranges only. My awareness is pretty high too as I suffer from the same epilepsy when I play infantry, difference is I don't feel like a squirrel, puny and despicable.
Title: Re: Playing archer STF for a few days and...
Post by: Miwiw on August 30, 2012, 08:56:43 pm
Now I see why archers max out their ath.

So, why did you participate in any Archery discussion before if you had no idea?  :lol:
Title: Re: Playing archer STF for a few days and...
Post by: Spanish on August 30, 2012, 08:57:12 pm
I feel the same while playing archer...constantly looking around for that cav to run my ass down. But I wold have described the looking around as an ADHD kid on speed. I cant even focus on shooting one target because I'm so paranoid I'm missing that one lancer sneaking up behind me and I hope his horse isn't armored and he doesn't have a steel shield...
Title: Re: Playing archer STF for a few days and...
Post by: Bjord on August 30, 2012, 09:20:16 pm
So, why did you participate in any Archery discussion before if you had no idea?  :lol:

I used to play a lot on my alt "Mustachio" way back, and didn't really have a problem with cavalry. Still don't(except when autounbalance puts majority of them on the other team). I just remembered how much I feared them as archer.
Title: Re: Playing archer STF for a few days and...
Post by: CrazyCracka420 on August 30, 2012, 09:25:45 pm
Stakes would be nice, but getting melee infantry to protect archers is the current tactical answer to your woes. 

Next question please.
Title: Re: Playing archer STF for a few days and...
Post by: Fips on August 30, 2012, 09:28:33 pm
Archery is fine for fucks sake xD
If you get raped by cav you placed yourself wrong and/or didnt pay enough attention to the battlefield. Cav is actually one of my favorite targets, because most charge so stupidly straight onto you that they are super-easy-shots. If there are more than 2 you are screwed ofc, but that doesn't just include archers.
And on top of that i shoot cav first anyway, so i don't get surprised (Which honestly all archers should do).

Deployable stakes would be very nice, though. More diversity ftw.
Title: Re: Playing archer STF for a few days and...
Post by: Cup1d on August 30, 2012, 10:32:56 pm
I used to play a lot on my alt "Mustachio" way back, and didn't really have a problem with cavalry. Still don't(except when autounbalance puts majority of them on the other team). I just remembered how much I feared them as archer.

You mean times when PD do not eat wpf, all items has only 1 slot and arrows flying twise as fast? Also you've got long hafted spiked mace with knockdown and 42 blunt damage as backup weapon?

yes, something changes. It was like «Happy Times» for U-boats.
Title: Re: Playing archer STF for a few days and...
Post by: Smoothrich on August 30, 2012, 11:43:54 pm
Play like an xbow, take a shot, swivel around to maintain your sense of safetey, keep shooting.  Bait cav because you can 1 shot any horse or rider as they come for you once you learn to aim.  You're just a shit archer.
Title: Re: Playing archer STF for a few days and...
Post by: Tears of Destiny on August 30, 2012, 11:47:59 pm
Every month like clockwork, this kind of thread pops up and people say the exact same things.

That is what I think.

Most people are already too biased in their "expert" opinions to make any discussion worthwhile.
Title: Re: Playing archer STF for a few days and...
Post by: Overdriven on August 31, 2012, 12:02:20 am
It's very map dependent but most maps you can use terrain/buildings to at least protect some of you and then there's team mates. Follow that up by shooting down horses rather than shooting at inf and you've got a winning combo. It's more satisfying shooting down lancers anyway...you can just feel the rage as they face plant the floor after you take out their horse.

Even better. Become an HA lancer hunter and you can just casually ride behind one enemy lancer shooting their horse for the lols until they get pissed off and try to kill you. Ever so satisfying especially if you pick on the same person round after round.
Title: Re: Playing archer STF for a few days and...
Post by: Torben on August 31, 2012, 12:20:56 am
You still riding  with pippi from time to time?
Title: Re: Playing archer STF for a few days and...
Post by: NuberT on August 31, 2012, 12:34:03 am
You still riding  with pippi from time to time?

Pippi Langstrumpf? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOBeUIrs2Uo)

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Playing archer STF for a few days and...
Post by: Lichen on August 31, 2012, 12:34:24 am
I feel like an epileptic squirrel, constantly looking around for impending doom that is cavalry.
Cavalry in its current state is just draining to play against for any infantry. They are literally 'ninja' cav. For me it's very tiring constantly turning around paranoid about cav constantly because you can't hear them until it's too late. And then when you aren't constantly looking behind you are of course lanced in the back. I want to play a game that relaxes me not stresses me. It's one of the big reasons (possibly the main reason) I don't play battle much anymore. I just play DTV instead.
Title: Re: Playing archer STF for a few days and...
Post by: Teeth on August 31, 2012, 12:41:02 am
getting melee infantry to protect archers is the current tactical answer to your woes. 

Next question please.
Shut up. You should've really stopped using tactics and teamplay as an argument for balance after seeing it not work for two years.

Most important question here Bjord, which will determine your sexual preference. Do you kite or not?
Title: Re: Playing archer STF for a few days and...
Post by: Torben on August 31, 2012, 01:07:49 am
Pippi Langstrumpf? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOBeUIrs2Uo)

(click to show/hide)

Ja, war sein cav alt früher : )
Title: Re: Playing archer STF for a few days and...
Post by: Smoothrich on August 31, 2012, 01:29:57 am
Cavalry in its current state is just draining to play against for any infantry. They are literally 'ninja' cav. For me it's very tiring constantly turning around paranoid about cav constantly because you can't hear them until it's too late. And then when you aren't constantly looking behind you are of course lanced in the back. I want to play a game that relaxes me not stresses me. It's one of the big reasons (possibly the main reason) I don't play battle much anymore. I just play DTV instead.

Battle server gets worse daily and more and more players leave it because of how unfun it is for melee players due to the dominance of ranged and cav.  Valor system is a bone thrown to them but only rewards people who blob with strength builds and shields anyways. 

Players who complain about battle being much less fun then ever before get told to use TEAMWORK and devs post "2HANDED HEROES SHOULD BE ONLY CLASS IN GAME" but it has nothing to do with that.  Its become a very unsatisfying gameplay experience on battle for a casual melee player who isn't being a tryhard with a clan stack.  This is due to cav being so popular with its hybridization, speed, survability, and insane damage output, and archers having so many advantages over other footmen (more damage, more speed, cover, choosing battles easier than cav).

I know melee players who are really good (like me, heh) can help their team win and do lots of damage and all of that.  But for a LOT of players trying out cRPG on battle, or veteran players who are looking to have fun and aren't in a giant clan to banner stack (like me and many others), hell some clans even go on siege.. battle mode just feels very outdated, the point system isn't balanced, and the way cav and archers handle in a 1 life no respawn all maps are hills or plains server rotation with no class limits or proper team balance.. its just bad game design.

if you wonder why this mod has such a small playerbase and in reality doesn't grow at all, only gets smaller, its because battle server gameplay is generally unfun, extremely punishing for new players, and cav and ranged's power levels are a joke in a game that is only compelling because of the melee system.

#realtalk
Title: Re: Playing archer STF for a few days and...
Post by: Joker86 on August 31, 2012, 01:36:32 am
And I keep on preaching the same thing over and over, from thread to thread. Perhaps one day the devs will honour it with an answer.



I think most people who are complaining about the inf vs. archer gameplay are not complaining about the "effectivity" of an archer (his damage, his accuracy, his rate of fire, whatever), they are complaining about two things:

a) kiting
b) the amount of archers

Any change which aims towards reducing the motivation of archers to run instead of fighting by improving their melee capabilities will not work, or will only be a sub-par quality solution.

Archers fight over distance, infantry fights in melee. Having archers to fight in melee almost as good as infantry would mean, that infantry would have to fight over range almost as good as archers (to keep things fair). As infantry doesn't fight over range at all, the only conclusion would be that archers should have the ranged effectivity of a stone throwing peasant. Because not fighting over range at all is almost as good as throwing stones as peasant. You get the point?

Don't try to merge two classes into one. Archers would be reduced to some infantry/archer hybrids, and the game would lose an entire class. Just keep it like in all those strategy games, like Warcraft. You have your human foot soldiers and the dwarven gunners. Just don't let the enemy Orcs get in melee range to your gunners, or they are gone. That's the balance of the game. It would be highly unfair if the melee fighter could be killed with good chances while approaching his target, and then, when he finally made it, his target has still good chances beating him in melee. I don't know about you guys, but when I play the sitting duck for a bunch of archers, but still, with some clever behaviour and a bit of luck manage to reach them, I want to be able to slaughter them. Everything else would be unbalanced.

Now to sum everything above up: archers engage over distance, that's why they should suck in melee. That's why it is okay if archers are afraid of fighting in melee.

"But how am I supposed to kill archers then as infantry?" people might ask. And it's a perfectly valid question, and we can imagine a lot of ideas from higher ATH for infantry to high item weight for bows and arrows, but to be honest, I think being faster than infantry is an important part of the archer role, so I wouldn't change this either.

I'd rather have people concentrate on following question: why should infantry always have to kill the archers?

In my eyes, the gamemode is the problem. In battle infantry DOES have to kill archers and cav, but can't unless the classes allow it, while infantry doesn't necessariliy have to "allow" archers and cav to kill them. That's where the frustration comes from. Both archers and cavalry are much more flexible in who they can engage and who they want to evade. Even if you lower their effectivity accordingly, they will always be the "acting", the "active" parts of a team, while infantry will always only remain the "reacting", the "passive" part. This is why many players complain about archers or cavalry, although both classes are not really OP. It's a "gameplay feeling" issue, not a balance issue. Point b) from above, the amount of archers, is only a reaction to point a). Change a), and b) will change as well.

If you change the goal of the game from killing everybody (which is a really plain goal) to something more interesting, like conquering the majority of all flags on the map or something like that, things would change. It would move infantry into the key role, as it is the best class for conquering and holding terrain. Archers and cavalry could only accomplish the objective of capturing a flag if the enemy infantry allows it (by not being at said flag). Which would turn infantry into the acting, the archers and cavalry into the reacting elements (it would be still fine for archers and cavalry, as they can still enjoy their higher flexibility). The two latter classes would become pure support classes, which they are supposed to be, while infantry would now truly become the main class to win battles. In (almost) any scenario possible, which contains conquering flags.

That's why I say you need to replace (yes, replace, not complement) battle mode with conquest mode. It would solve so many problems!
Title: Re: Playing archer STF for a few days and...
Post by: Logen on August 31, 2012, 01:41:41 am
Most people are already too biased
I'm totally not biased, but
feel like a squirrel, puny and despicable.
Thats exactly how archers should feel like
Title: Re: Playing archer STF for a few days and...
Post by: Dillinger on August 31, 2012, 03:04:51 am
And I keep on preaching the same thing over and over, from thread to thread. Perhaps one day the devs will honour it with an answer.



I think most people who are complaining about the inf vs. archer gameplay are not complaining about the "effectivity" of an archer (his damage, his accuracy, his rate of fire, whatever), they are complaining about two things:

a) kiting
b) the amount of archers

Any change which aims towards reducing the motivation of archers to run instead of fighting by improving their melee capabilities will not work, or will only be a sub-par quality solution.

Archers fight over distance, infantry fights in melee. Having archers to fight in melee almost as good as infantry would mean, that infantry would have to fight over range almost as good as archers (to keep things fair). As infantry doesn't fight over range at all, the only conclusion would be that archers should have the ranged effectivity of a stone throwing peasant. Because not fighting over range at all is almost as good as throwing stones as peasant. You get the point?

Don't try to merge two classes into one. Archers would be reduced to some infantry/archer hybrids, and the game would lose an entire class. Just keep it like in all those strategy games, like Warcraft. You have your human foot soldiers and the dwarven gunners. Just don't let the enemy Orcs get in melee range to your gunners, or they are gone. That's the balance of the game. It would be highly unfair if the melee fighter could be killed with good chances while approaching his target, and then, when he finally made it, his target has still good chances beating him in melee. I don't know about you guys, but when I play the sitting duck for a bunch of archers, but still, with some clever behaviour and a bit of luck manage to reach them, I want to be able to slaughter them. Everything else would be unbalanced.

Now to sum everything above up: archers engage over distance, that's why they should suck in melee. That's why it is okay if archers are afraid of fighting in melee.

"But how am I supposed to kill archers then as infantry?" people might ask. And it's a perfectly valid question, and we can imagine a lot of ideas from higher ATH for infantry to high item weight for bows and arrows, but to be honest, I think being faster than infantry is an important part of the archer role, so I wouldn't change this either.

I'd rather have people concentrate on following question: why should infantry always have to kill the archers?

In my eyes, the gamemode is the problem. In battle infantry DOES have to kill archers and cav, but can't unless the classes allow it, while infantry doesn't necessariliy have to "allow" archers and cav to kill them. That's where the frustration comes from. Both archers and cavalry are much more flexible in who they can engage and who they want to evade. Even if you lower their effectivity accordingly, they will always be the "acting", the "active" parts of a team, while infantry will always only remain the "reacting", the "passive" part. This is why many players complain about archers or cavalry, although both classes are not really OP. It's a "gameplay feeling" issue, not a balance issue. Point b) from above, the amount of archers, is only a reaction to point a). Change a), and b) will change as well.

If you change the goal of the game from killing everybody (which is a really plain goal) to something more interesting, like conquering the majority of all flags on the map or something like that, things would change. It would move infantry into the key role, as it is the best class for conquering and holding terrain. Archers and cavalry could only accomplish the objective of capturing a flag if the enemy infantry allows it (by not being at said flag). Which would turn infantry into the acting, the archers and cavalry into the reacting elements (it would be still fine for archers and cavalry, as they can still enjoy their higher flexibility). The two latter classes would become pure support classes, which they are supposed to be, while infantry would now truly become the main class to win battles. In (almost) any scenario possible, which contains conquering flags.

That's why I say you need to replace (yes, replace, not complement) battle mode with conquest mode. It would solve so many problems!

+1,000,000
Title: Re: Playing archer STF for a few days and...
Post by: Turkhammer on August 31, 2012, 04:39:30 am
Stakes would be nice, but getting melee infantry to protect archers is the current tactical answer to your woes. 

Next question please.

Now why would this get voted down?
Title: Re: Playing archer STF for a few days and...
Post by: Nehvar on August 31, 2012, 04:47:19 am
I feel like an epileptic squirrel, constantly looking around for impending doom that is cavalry. It's like putting points in PD gives you a red bullseye on your back that only people with Riding skill can see.

Now I see why archers max out their ath. I think it's time for some new features in the game, like deployable stakes. Maybe we'd get some better mentality for archers, making them less epileptic maybe.

What do you guys think? I'm not making a suggestion, rather I'm lifting issues and hinting at possible solutions.

You described exactly how I feel when playing on NA_1.  I often spend the entire round twirling about like some flaming ballerina, looking out for that lance-to-the-ass that I know is coming sooner or later.  It gets tiresome pretty damn quick.

I am all for additional anti-cavalry measures like the deployable stakes you mentioned.  They could one-shot horses that move over them at "couching speed".  Make them affordable and 1-slot and I'll carry two with me to battle instead of my usual backup/utility two-hander.
Title: Re: Playing archer STF for a few days and...
Post by: Taser on August 31, 2012, 05:58:30 am
Yes do stakes!

visitors can't see pics , please register or login


^ would be badass.

Also when it comes to battle vs siege lately, I've been sticking to siege unless the pop dies then I go to community THEN I go to NA 1. More fun lately.
Title: Re: Playing archer STF for a few days and...
Post by: Largg on August 31, 2012, 07:25:46 am
Ja, war sein cav alt früher : )

So Pippi was Bjord? He was such a big retard I still remember him back from when I started playing. He THOUGHT I teamhit his horse in clash and what did he do? Grief me for two maps. Teamhitting, bumping and insulting, you name it. I wish I knew I could report him at forums or anything, I was so fucking pissed.
Title: Re: Playing archer STF for a few days and...
Post by: Vibe on August 31, 2012, 07:38:27 am
From an Arabian Cav rider perspective:

try to approach archers
get your precious 20k+ gold horse killed in 2 arrows/bolts or one throwing thingy
Title: Re: Playing archer STF for a few days and...
Post by: Cepeshi on August 31, 2012, 08:41:20 am
From an Arabian Cav rider perspective:

try to approach archers
get your precious 20k+ gold horse killed in 2 arrows/bolts or one throwing thingy

speedbonus works both ways, good to know!
Title: Re: Playing archer STF for a few days and...
Post by: Vibe on August 31, 2012, 08:48:34 am
speedbonus works both ways, good to know!

It's the same for side attacks aka 0 speed bonus. But I guess it's intended. Except Destrier can tank a fuckton of arrows while still maintaining decent speed and maneuver. Nerf destrier.
Title: Re: Playing archer STF for a few days and...
Post by: Cepeshi on August 31, 2012, 09:06:19 am
It's the same for side attacks aka 0 speed bonus. But I guess it's intended. Except Destrier can tank a fuckton of arrows while still maintaining decent speed and maneuver. Nerf destrier.

Destriers are the new behemoths of battlefields! Yeah, they are pretty awesome, especially loomd.
Title: Re: Playing archer STF for a few days and...
Post by: gazda on August 31, 2012, 09:17:37 am
whatever makes archers form up and act realisticly, im for it
Title: Re: Playing archer STF for a few days and...
Post by: Grumpy_Nic on August 31, 2012, 09:19:43 am
I'll make a 12/27 STF kiting my old friendcher without melee weapon. Cant wait to get home.
Title: Re: Playing archer STF for a few days and...
Post by: Overdriven on August 31, 2012, 10:07:17 am
Destriers are the new behemoths of battlefields! Yeah, they are pretty awesome, especially loomd.

Loomed destriers are evil. I sometimes feel like my arrows bounce off of them.
Title: Re: Playing archer STF for a few days and...
Post by: BlueKnight on August 31, 2012, 10:26:42 am
(click to show/hide)

Bjord... try full str build and then cav will be the real pain in ass for you... with 0 athl it's rly hard to avoid couches etc. Also when 1 cav bumps you down you are doomed. Not to mention that you are easy target for gangbangers and archers...

The solution for str build is siege imho. I know there are quite a few str builds doing pretty well during battles but for me siege is the place where I can tank a bit more.

Anyway... I have just changed the subject. Athl is the really important thing that will help you on the field of battle.
Title: Re: Playing archer STF for a few days and...
Post by: Teeth on August 31, 2012, 11:32:57 am
Try using an unloomed Destrier when GK is on. All these gay ass  Champion Arabian Warhorses have higher maneuver and higher speed than you, as soon as one targets you, you are screwed, you can't escape. Destrier dies in 3-5 arrows.
Title: Re: Playing archer STF for a few days and...
Post by: Gimest on August 31, 2012, 11:41:25 am
And I keep on preaching the same thing over and over, from thread to thread. Perhaps one day the devs will honour it with an answer.



I think most people who are complaining about the inf vs. archer gameplay are not complaining about the "effectivity" of an archer (his damage, his accuracy, his rate of fire, whatever), they are complaining about two things:

a) kiting
b) the amount of archers

Any change which aims towards reducing the motivation of archers to run instead of fighting by improving their melee capabilities will not work, or will only be a sub-par quality solution.

Archers fight over distance, infantry fights in melee. Having archers to fight in melee almost as good as infantry would mean, that infantry would have to fight over range almost as good as archers (to keep things fair). As infantry doesn't fight over range at all, the only conclusion would be that archers should have the ranged effectivity of a stone throwing peasant. Because not fighting over range at all is almost as good as throwing stones as peasant. You get the point?

Don't try to merge two classes into one. Archers would be reduced to some infantry/archer hybrids, and the game would lose an entire class. Just keep it like in all those strategy games, like Warcraft. You have your human foot soldiers and the dwarven gunners. Just don't let the enemy Orcs get in melee range to your gunners, or they are gone. That's the balance of the game. It would be highly unfair if the melee fighter could be killed with good chances while approaching his target, and then, when he finally made it, his target has still good chances beating him in melee. I don't know about you guys, but when I play the sitting duck for a bunch of archers, but still, with some clever behaviour and a bit of luck manage to reach them, I want to be able to slaughter them. Everything else would be unbalanced.

Now to sum everything above up: archers engage over distance, that's why they should suck in melee. That's why it is okay if archers are afraid of fighting in melee.

"But how am I supposed to kill archers then as infantry?" people might ask. And it's a perfectly valid question, and we can imagine a lot of ideas from higher ATH for infantry to high item weight for bows and arrows, but to be honest, I think being faster than infantry is an important part of the archer role, so I wouldn't change this either.

I'd rather have people concentrate on following question: why should infantry always have to kill the archers?

In my eyes, the gamemode is the problem. In battle infantry DOES have to kill archers and cav, but can't unless the classes allow it, while infantry doesn't necessariliy have to "allow" archers and cav to kill them. That's where the frustration comes from. Both archers and cavalry are much more flexible in who they can engage and who they want to evade. Even if you lower their effectivity accordingly, they will always be the "acting", the "active" parts of a team, while infantry will always only remain the "reacting", the "passive" part. This is why many players complain about archers or cavalry, although both classes are not really OP. It's a "gameplay feeling" issue, not a balance issue. Point b) from above, the amount of archers, is only a reaction to point a). Change a), and b) will change as well.

If you change the goal of the game from killing everybody (which is a really plain goal) to something more interesting, like conquering the majority of all flags on the map or something like that, things would change. It would move infantry into the key role, as it is the best class for conquering and holding terrain. Archers and cavalry could only accomplish the objective of capturing a flag if the enemy infantry allows it (by not being at said flag). Which would turn infantry into the acting, the archers and cavalry into the reacting elements (it would be still fine for archers and cavalry, as they can still enjoy their higher flexibility). The two latter classes would become pure support classes, which they are supposed to be, while infantry would now truly become the main class to win battles. In (almost) any scenario possible, which contains conquering flags.

That's why I say you need to replace (yes, replace, not complement) battle mode with conquest mode. It would solve so many problems!

And now if we can get someone to do it good, ah the feeling of great battlefield where u would really need teamwork and tactics to  accomplish something. Mayby like 3 flags/areas teams can hold, and every minute each team gets point's for the amount of area's they hold. This kinda mode could have a big role for engineers, wich would be nice addition to playing styles. Only that it would need alot of new map designing :/
Title: Re: Playing archer STF for a few days and...
Post by: Cepeshi on August 31, 2012, 11:54:36 am
Conquest mode? Like, progressive achievement based gameplay? (capture this, capture that, destroy this?).

Domination mode could be quite fun, all start on x1, every base you hold gives you extra multi. That would be epic (but also easily farmable by big clans)
Title: Re: Playing archer STF for a few days and...
Post by: Templar_Steevee on August 31, 2012, 05:29:24 pm
IMO if u want to reduce amount of archers you only have to do one thing: narf a little bit rus bow.
That bow is too op compared to horn and long bow. In archery all is ok atm and most of whining is because or rus bow archers. They are shooting almost as fast as horn bow and hits almost hard as long bow.
I'm sure that many ppl will hate me for this post, but i don't care.

I'm going to use my longbow even if i'll have to swing with it to kill someone  8-)
Title: Re: Playing archer STF for a few days and...
Post by: Tears of Destiny on August 31, 2012, 06:24:47 pm
IMO if u want to reduce amount of archers you only have to do one thing: narf a little bit rus bow.

I don't think so, that will simply reduce the amount of Rus users (Not me though, I've always used the Rus bow regardless due to tradition/looks, even when it was one of the worst bows back when the Hornbow was god, or the Longbow was the only way to do pierce  :mrgreen:), and promote other bows to be used. Nobody will quit playing archer because you nerf one thing out of an entire category, they will simply use an alternative out of the same category.