16
Strategus Issues / Re: battles mixed up?
« on: December 22, 2011, 02:47:37 am »
Yup, 129 troops and 25 crates worth of equipment lost to scheduling bug. 
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
17
Strategus Issues / battles mixed up?
« on: December 22, 2011, 01:03:08 am »
I was supposed to have a battle a short while ago. Instead, some other battle scheduled for about an hour before was starting. It kicked people out of the server at precisely the time my battle was supposed to start. My battle's info in the Strategus News page disappeared at that time as well, so I can no longer accept people to the battle. But the battle hasn't happened yet and it still shows up in the list of upcoming battles.
I'm thinking that the battles are screwed up, so each battle is taking place at the time of the next scheduled battle.
I'm thinking that the battles are screwed up, so each battle is taking place at the time of the next scheduled battle.
18
Game Balance Discussion / Re: My easy logic horse rebalance
« on: December 15, 2011, 03:31:47 am »Wait what? We have no problem investing those points. It just takes until level 31. But I know a good few HA who can use Arabians.
And were you here when they were used by just about every decent lancer? They were a lancers horse, not an HA's horse.
Power draw, horse archery, riding, WM for WPF in archery as well as for a melee weapon... That's a lot of points to dish out. That sounds like a big deterrent to investing extra points in riding just for the particular horse. Sure, if you don't retire you'll get the points you need eventually, but that's true of almost any build.
And if HA can't use the Arabian till they are very high level, while melee cav have no problem getting it early and were never really bothered by the attribute point investment, then I'd still say that these cav have the riding cost they do just to make it tough for HAs to have them. After all, why would all the heavy cav be only 5 riding, even though they are probably more valuable to melee cav than these lighter horses. I'd say it's because these heavy horses don't really offer any advantage to HAs.
I used to use an Arabian quite often as a lancer. But that was back when archers weren't so ridiculously powerful. It's not a lancers horse now if you actually want to play the game and not have your expensive horse 1 shot because an archer pointed a bow at you.
19
Game Balance Discussion / Re: My easy logic horse rebalance
« on: December 13, 2011, 05:48:16 am »
I think the high difficulty horses are that way simply to restrict horse archers from using them easily. Melee cav have don't have much problem investing those points into riding, but horse archers do. So I think the idea is that difficultly levels really only affect horse archers.
But since those same horses are so weak, very few melee cav are going to bother with them. Who cares how maneuverable they are if they get taken down in 1 shot? Only horse archers would really like them because they can stay away from archers and use the maneuvering to evade cav.
For melee cav players, the restriction is more about upkeep costs than attribute point requirements. They don't often take the armored horses because they are unaffordable.
I think people take destriers because they have the most armor of the unarmored horses, but at one third less cost than the cheapest armored horse. I wish my champion courser was a destrier just because it'd be only slightly more expensive than the courser, but still wouldn't cause me to lose money like the the armored horses would. And right now, all that really matters for me in melee horse selection is the ability to not get owned by archers in 5 seconds.
But since those same horses are so weak, very few melee cav are going to bother with them. Who cares how maneuverable they are if they get taken down in 1 shot? Only horse archers would really like them because they can stay away from archers and use the maneuvering to evade cav.
For melee cav players, the restriction is more about upkeep costs than attribute point requirements. They don't often take the armored horses because they are unaffordable.
i guess one could swap rouncey and palfrey prices. however the riding balance on the other horses is fair, the arabian is the best horse out there, and the destrier is only so sought after because lower level players dont want to sacrifice all their infantry skills to ride a good level 6 horse. by making the destrier 6, you would force any lower level men to either be highly specialized or use low tier horses. this would be sad as it would lessen the fun for a lot of players.
I think people take destriers because they have the most armor of the unarmored horses, but at one third less cost than the cheapest armored horse. I wish my champion courser was a destrier just because it'd be only slightly more expensive than the courser, but still wouldn't cause me to lose money like the the armored horses would. And right now, all that really matters for me in melee horse selection is the ability to not get owned by archers in 5 seconds.
20
Game Balance Discussion / Re: CRPG is balanced
« on: December 12, 2011, 10:18:56 am »Crpg feels very balanced in this recent patch. Probably the most balanced since I started playing.
You mean there's no threat you can't handle on your own as archer, and your shots are powerful and accurate... therefore it's balanced...
I actually was watching you play the other day and saw that you felt comfortable enough with the bow accuracy to be shooting enemies at 30 feet that were almost completely hidden behind behind your allies that were attacking. You were shooting through ridiculously small gaps where the enemy would momentarily have a limb exposed.
I will give u that cav is a little OP, but i think that could be solved with a small maneuverability nerf. But this is still the most balanced I've seen crpg.
You mean your sidestepping against cav almost didn't work... so make it so cav can't kill you if you're paying attention enough to move.
I can't believe the most recent nerf to cav. My champion courser is so ridiculously sluggish to turn or accelerate (that's with 7 riding) that it just wasn't fun anymore. Especially combined with it being like paper versus archers that take in down with 2 to 4 non-vital shots.
Cav is always going to be able to get kills on people who don't have support and aren't paying attention, no matter how much they nerf cav. All they're taking away by nerfing cav so much now is the ability of cav to actually take on someone who is paying attention. Ya know, the fun part that isn't just riding around hitting distracted enemies?
Every time I'm on the ground, I've always easily taken out cav with just a heavy lance or a shortened spear that doesn't even stop horses. It really is the easiest thing for me, much easier than dealing with infantry or archers. With something that's actually meant for the role and actually does good damage, like a pike, it feels so simple to protect a wide area. It's amazing how many cav I can lead to be slaughtered, since they are usually dead once you've stopped them and you're with allies, like you should be. Even alone, you'll still get your fair share of kills where the rider doesn't even get the opportunity to defend and just gets killed while trying to get off the ground.
It's simple stuff. With a long spear of some sort, you can protect a very wide area by moving 90 degrees in direction the cav is trying to get past you. You don't move towards or away from the cav. You just move in the shortest distance that cuts the cav off. You can even make very large corridors completely impassible to cav by running that 90 degrees to whichever side the cav is committing to. You can even corral cav into the direction you want just by being in a good position to start.
With any smaller but decently sized weapons, you can sidestep to dodge and get your own swing in, or you can switch between moving forward and backpedaling to prevent the cav from having proper timing on the attack. Your movements are more agile and responsive than the cav's, for sure.
But even though cav are so easily neutralized with just 1 or 2 pikemen, and are still counterable if you're out on your own against one, they're still getting nerfed until they have a hard time getting any kill other than the ones on people who aren't paying attention and have nobody supporting them... And that's ridiculous.
Nerf archers. Revert the changes to cav maneuver.
21
Strategus General Discussion / Bugged Battle
« on: December 09, 2011, 08:20:08 am »
Geez, after being forced to fist 9 guys, all I got were these stupid crabs.
(click to show/hide)
22
Game Balance Discussion / Re: Post Patch balance issues. (TLTR: Nerf Archers,check Armour Weights)
« on: December 07, 2011, 11:24:00 pm »
I'm just concerned with how fun the gameplay is. The thing I see making things less fun is the feeling of constantly being surrounded by powerful archers (at least for anywhere the battle is taking place) with no good tactical way to neutralize their threat (not necessarily neutralizing them by killing them, but also by having a tactic to make them less effective or force them to make decisions that may put them at greater risk), and them being more of an annoyance than a fun part of the game.
There's no doubt in my mind that archers are strong. When I come in close to attack one, their non-vital shots will kill my champion courser in 2 to 4 shots. But I'm trying to let that be. I can live with powerful shots like that at close range. If archers need to be close to be that effective, then it puts them at a more risky position where they can be countered, or you can make them ineffective again by getting away from them or by staying away in the first place.
But the problem is that they aren't ineffective at the longer range. Any benefits for archers getting closer are greatly outweighed by the benefits of staying comfortably far away in the most convenient location available. As you say, and from what I see watching archers, the difficulty of shooting long range isn't so much about the inaccuracy of the arrow as it is about the movements of the target. I'd like to see some combination of long range accuracy reduced or long range damage reduced, or different combinations of those 2 things offered by having very different bows available.
The goal here is to make camping archers ineffective if the enemy isn't near them. Just having targets in sight shouldn't be enough. There should be a closer effective range. No snipers. Then they will come off from those surrounding hillsides and somewhat distant rooftops and be part of the battle instead of standing on the sidelines taking deadly potshots like it's a shooting gallery game.
There's no doubt in my mind that archers are strong. When I come in close to attack one, their non-vital shots will kill my champion courser in 2 to 4 shots. But I'm trying to let that be. I can live with powerful shots like that at close range. If archers need to be close to be that effective, then it puts them at a more risky position where they can be countered, or you can make them ineffective again by getting away from them or by staying away in the first place.
But the problem is that they aren't ineffective at the longer range. Any benefits for archers getting closer are greatly outweighed by the benefits of staying comfortably far away in the most convenient location available. As you say, and from what I see watching archers, the difficulty of shooting long range isn't so much about the inaccuracy of the arrow as it is about the movements of the target. I'd like to see some combination of long range accuracy reduced or long range damage reduced, or different combinations of those 2 things offered by having very different bows available.
The goal here is to make camping archers ineffective if the enemy isn't near them. Just having targets in sight shouldn't be enough. There should be a closer effective range. No snipers. Then they will come off from those surrounding hillsides and somewhat distant rooftops and be part of the battle instead of standing on the sidelines taking deadly potshots like it's a shooting gallery game.
23
Game Balance Discussion / Re: End the free upkeep exploit
« on: December 07, 2011, 01:26:56 am »
You will make a tiny amount of money if you're using equipment with a lot of upkeep. Upkeep is everything, really. It is the major cost that never goes away.
The gear you need is a relatively cheap 1 time cost (for non-heirloomed items). You can go in very cheap peasant gear for a few hours to earn the money you need for whatever gear you want. You should earn about 20 or 30k in about 5 hours. So it's only a grind to get the equipment you want if you insist on playing with a high upkeep set of equipment.
The gear you need is a relatively cheap 1 time cost (for non-heirloomed items). You can go in very cheap peasant gear for a few hours to earn the money you need for whatever gear you want. You should earn about 20 or 30k in about 5 hours. So it's only a grind to get the equipment you want if you insist on playing with a high upkeep set of equipment.
24
Game Balance Discussion / Re: Post Patch balance issues. (TLTR: Nerf Archers,check Armour Weights)
« on: December 06, 2011, 05:03:01 am »I think that's where we're just going to have to disagree, because I don't think that archers are very accurate or deadly from extreme ranges. Archers that are shooting from a hilltop a mile away are going to burn through their quiver very fast and probably won't get much to show for it. Getting yourself in the correct location in battle that gives you a good shooting location while also keeping out of harms way is very difficult. Unless you roof camp!
What is "a mile away"? I'm talking about where archers go every map. There's always hills or roofs that archers camp and seem to have no problem with the distance. The maps usually aren't huge. It's usually a central area of battle that is created by a wide circle of buildings with an open plaza in the middle, or a lane, etc. There's very few where there's no hill or something that isn't comfortably in range of most of the targets. Even maps like Nord Town and that similar-looking native map with the boats and the docks have archers shooting at a longer distance than they usually need to in most maps as they sit up in the balconies around the roofs, yet they are picking each other off just fine (when they aren't shooting infantry).
Uhhhhhhhh.... In my mind, a 'bad' archer would be missing their targets or even hitting their own teammates, the same as a 'bad' infantry. Your take on the subject is incredibly skewed.
Call it an average/typical archer then. Obviously, someone who isn't more of a detriment to the team than helpful. Whatever.
Play a gen as an archer, then complain. You'll see how fun it is to face off against throwers or plate. The same plate that just ate 8 of your bodkins, 2 to the face, and is still alive. Also, shooting from long range is too much on the chance of your prediction being correct.
Zanze, Plate is tough to kill whatever class you are, and we can all complain how tough it is and say we all need to be buffed because of it. But that'd be an issue with plate being too powerful.
We're talking about the dominance of archers using such a simple, uneasily countered method.
25
Game Balance Discussion / Re: Post Patch balance issues. (TLTR: Nerf Archers,check Armour Weights)
« on: December 05, 2011, 09:36:21 pm »I made a long reply Kay that I erased by mistake so I'll try to summarize.
Archer (singular) isn't all that effective.
Archers against smaller groups of infantry/cav is quite effective (and IMO the reason people continuously call for nerfs).
Archers shooting at larger sized groups of infantry engaged in combat is fairly effective.
Archers shooting at equally sized groups of infantry/cav actively advancing isn't all that effective.
The advantage of the archer's range is that it is easy to 'team up' on anyone provided you have a clear shot. The problem is that this means that people will always cry for nerf because they see themselves dying to 'an archer' when in reality it could have been 3 or 4 separate players who gunned him down. Taken alone an archer is a very fragile class that requires a lot of concentration to be strong.
I encourage anyone who dislikes the archer class to play a gen as one (skip the fun is easier but doesn't give you the full picture because your 'blooming' stage comes much later when compared to infantry). I think I'll post some videos of random battle rounds as an archer to maybe give a clearer picture how effective a single archer truly is when I have time.
Sure, a single archer isn't going to determine the outcome of the battle. Even one person abusing the 1st gen zero-upkeep thing to be able to ride around in a plated charger in plate armor won't determine the outcome. Even if it only becomes unbearably game-breaking if a bunch of people do it, that doesn't mean it's not OP on an individual basis as well.
I'm saying each archer is slightly overpowered in their ability to do more than hold their own, regardless of the skill of the archer.
A bad melee infantry is going to be close to useless, let alone being able to break even (give as much damage as they take). And any potential they have to do well is something that can be countered by opposing players being better skilled and smarter. Plus the majority of the people who they manage to hurt or kill are going to be less skilled players who weren't going to be as big of a factor in the outcome anyway.
A bad archer, however, is much more effective. Find a safe place to point and shoot with the rest the archers, and even a bad archer is damaging opponents rather easily to at least break even in terms holding their own, especially if you consider that they are hitting the skilled players just as easily as they hit some useless players. This is why the teams' archer counts dominates the outcome of the battles more than anything. Because every archer is slightly overpowered in ability deal plenty of damage without much effort.
The issue I have is the archer's ability to deal this kind of damage without much thought, risk, or skill. Like I said earlier, I have a problem with the "easy mode" archer. I wouldn't mind archers that are deadly by being close to the battle, but become ineffective from a distance. The reason is because this gives options to counter, either by being able to close down on them a short distance to force them to run/fight, or by getting away from them and putting some distance between you and them so they become much less effective. We should be able to force archers to pursue the battles in order to get into an effective range, not just stand and shoot at any range that they can see us.
But because archers are so accurate and deadly from all but pretty extreme ranges, they're hanging out away from or above the battle in any place that has a view, and there's very little people can do about it. Force them to choose between a much weaker bow with good accuracy, or a strong bow with less accuracy, and it'll reduce the effectiveness of the "easy mode" archer, while still allowing smart, aware, good archers to be very effective (and to be counter-able).
26
Game Balance Discussion / Re: Post Patch balance issues. (TLTR: Nerf Archers,check Armour Weights)
« on: December 05, 2011, 05:50:35 am »Archery could be nerfed to 1/10th of its current damage and people would still be complaining about archers in groups. Archers are best in tandem with their teammates because enemy movement patterns become much easier to trace when they are focusing on melee combat. Saying archery needs nerfing because they excel using teamwork is a poor argument and one I pray the devs will never seriously consider.
Same issues come up with cavalry and pikemen: Alone they are easily counterable, but they shine with teammates to distract the enemy.
Here's my suggestion: buff your battle awareness. Keeping your head on a swivel ( '~' key spam), avoiding areas where you'll become easy archer/cav food and knowing how far to push into enemy lines are absolute essentials for survival. I pride myself in my battle awareness, and throughout all my playtime I've never once truly feared cavalry. The only time I've ever truly feared archery is when I was an archer myself, because two archers targeting you can effectively lock your shooting down completely.
TLDR people continue to ask to nerf archery, when in reality they want to nerf teamwork (which won't happen). Therefore instead of complaining about archery players need to adapt and fine tune their battle sense to avoid situations that put them in harms way.
I think you're making a lot of exaggerations to make a point.
First of all, it's a stretch to call that teamwork. Attacking an enemy that is busy attacking another ally of yours is basic to any class, otherwise the game would just be a bunch of duels. It's hardly great teamwork for archers to fire into enemies that are trying to fight allies in front of them. Who else would they be shooting if it wasn't the enemy melee troops that are engaged with their allies? They shoot what they see, and the easier the shot the better. That's not some grand strategy to be praised. Their ability to do this isn't the issue. Even weakened archers would be effective doing that since they'd be stunning the enemy and opening them up for free hits.
The issue with archers isn't the same as what other classes are doing. Sure, pikes have long reach and are great to overwhelm other infantry when used in a group, similar in effect to fighting 2 enemies that surround you at once. Sure, cav are effective in attacking from behind the people who are busying fighting what is in front of them (again, similar to most times you fight 2 people at once, assuming they have decent movement speed to surround you). Sure, mauls crush through blocks, great for 1v1 situations, but not without drawbacks or counters. But all of these things are pretty balanced and have simple counters that involve a combination of teamwork and skill. The best team will generally still win.
But with the archers, there isn't very reasonable counters. Archers do well with or without teamwork, and their numbers weigh more heavily on the outcome than any other class. The teamwork required to counter archers would require very organized team-wide tactics involving hiding behind cover to force them to move to less advantageous positions, or some incredible shield wall work (which really only had a chance in strat, because the shield barely protects the user without that force-field effect). In fact, just about all the tactical discussions to try to rally a team to victory that I see anymore are attempts to find a way to avoid being slaughtered by the enemy archers. Maybe it's a certain path, maybe it's to camp and wait for them to come to us... It's still all about archers. When I play and see a ton of archers on a team, it generally takes incredible effort for the other team to be able to overcome that and win.
Now, before the latest patch, archers were absolutely unbearable. After the patch, they seem to have improved to borderline unbearable. The main problem with archers I think is still related to their combination of deadliness and accuracy from most anywhere on the battlefield that they can see you. They still gather in places quite far away from the action, being just about as deadly and accurate as they would be if they were closer, and still being very tough to approach without just plain old sneaking up on them. In other words, they are still long range deadly snipers.
I think possibly there should be more tradeoff between damage and accuracy at a distance. Perhaps one bow should be weak, but accurate, useful for those distant, hill-camping, kiting, low-risk archers, so they become more of just a nuisance if they are just firing at whatever the easiest target is (easy-mode archer), but can be very effective if they pick and choose targets where the stun effect will get the target killed or save an ally, or they go for accurate headshots. And then another bow can be strong while being quite inaccurate, so that you'd only be effective at relatively short range (a sort of hard-mode archer). This will make it viable for a shielder to easily neutralize that powerful archer by traveling a short distance, rather than having to trek a long distance across the map to stop them. And the archer will need his melee allies to keep the enemy away, if he wants to keep shooting without stopping.
Alternatively, the damage drop-off over distance can be increased so that long range shots do a lot less damage (and reward being closer by making it more effective), but I think I prefer having the choice between different bows just for variety.
Either way, I think the main problem is the fact that simply having a line of sight is enough for an archer to be so deadly as to be unbalanced, so they can sit practically off the map in no-man's land or on some high rooftop and shoot across the map effectively. There's not much point for them to try to get closer since it'll just make them more vulnerable, which is why archers seem to surround every map, raining down on people from long distances.
27
Game Balance Discussion / Re: Plz Stop this pewpew madness without overnerfing it.
« on: November 26, 2011, 02:44:28 am »Lies, it doesn't ever settle back to the point where it would if you didnt draw at all. You lose at least 25 wpf in accuracy by moving around, even after you stop.
Ah, so you don't move around as you draw the bow in between shots? I must be seeing things.
28
Game Balance Discussion / Re: Plz Stop this pewpew madness without overnerfing it.
« on: November 25, 2011, 06:32:45 pm »Because it's already implemented lol?
Uh, no it's not. Archers still move while drawing the bow, they just stop at the end of it to settle the aim for the shot.
29
Game Balance Discussion / Re: Plz Stop this pewpew madness without overnerfing it.
« on: November 25, 2011, 10:16:23 am »... one big lol to this.
Why?
Certainly they don't need to be shooting while kiting. Nor do they need to be pelting a horse at point blank range as they sidestep. They should be using the support of allies to allow them them to stand somewhere safely if they want to be able to shoot constantly. No Rambos.
It'd be an interesting change in terms of how archers deal with each other, since they can't just keep dancing side to side while drawing the bow. We might actually see an archer run for cover instead of just dancing in place, heaven forbid.
30
Game Balance Discussion / Re: Plz Stop this pewpew madness without overnerfing it.
« on: November 25, 2011, 09:57:22 am »
Despite Sir_Agor and Tears' terrible arguments, ranged still is way too powerful and it's making the game all about how to figure out a way to not get slaughtered by archers. The main strategy involves hoping the auto-balance gives you more archers than the other team. Not fun.
I've offered a few very conservative suggestions on how to try to reel in archers to being balanced again without even touching their shot power.
1) Change the map rotation. It's full of villages on mountains, and mountains overlooking villages, and natural archer nests on the roofs of mountain villages. Notice a theme? Besides being boring, all these maps make everyone move in slow motion, which is very convenient for someone shooting arrows from their elevated perch. Even Battlefield 3 isn't as convenient for snipers as M&B is for archers... So add some tight city maps that offer no safe perches to sit in and snipe from, and makes it difficult to fire into flanks. Add some flat or rolling plains, without any perches that defeat the purpose. Obstacles, buildings, fences, and other things are fine. Just keep it on the ground. Archers will still be OP on other maps, but maybe it'll make some people think twice about their choice of builds.
2) Don't allow archers to draw the bow while moving. Require that they stand still to do the whole draw and shoot motion. (And you guys who like to bring up realism, when do you ever see archers running and drawing a bow at the same time? Even Legolas stands in place to draw and shoot.) Nothing good comes from allowing this movement. It gives kiting archers more opportunity to shoot at the infantry that chase them. It makes them able to strafe-dodge cavalry that attack them while still spamming shots off point blank into the horse (cavalry should at least be able to force a single archer into putting away his bow to fight). The idea here is to at least discourage archers from playing Rambo, going wherever they want, on the flanks without support, since they may now be harassed more effectively by cav and chasing infantry.
Plus this would finally give xbows something that bows wouldn't have, the ability to move and shoot.
3) Remove ladders. Nothing good comes from ladders. It just adds a perch to every map that doesn't already have a perch, except this one has the added benefit that it will be totally unreachable when the ladder is destroyed.
4)I think the idea to add weight to the bows is a good idea also. Yes, Rumblood, I would much rather see you add more power to your shots than to be able to run fast. I play with 7 athletics myself and can rarely keep up with any archer. If it's 2 archers, forget it, I'm dead already.
It's much more important to make archers counter-able than it is to make them less deadly. At least if they can be successfully caught (when they don't bother to stick with allies for protection), they will be forced to change tactics and be more bearable. If a shielder sees an archer off to the side alone, it should really mean that the archer will be caught unless he drops his archery equipment. As it is now, a shielder sees an archer off to the side and says, "dammit, I wish I could do something about that."
Also, someone mentioned that archers need to be a support class in order to be balanced. I think that's true. There's no reason that every class should be represented equally on the scoreboard. Archery is a middle-of-the-road class. The worst archer will be better than the worst infantry because they can just fire from a distance, often into a defenseless target, without the same risk . Likewise, the best archer shouldn't be better than the best infantry, because the archer has a limited rate of fire, limited accuracy (though I wonder about that...), limited damage output, while the infantry should be able to cleave through groups of enemies faster and with more power. Plus the weaker arrow hit should often help stun a target enough to allow an ally's strong melee attack to kill them.
Proper balance should be about what classes cause the game to be won or lost because of lack of a reasonable counter. Right now, archers are deciding the game.
I've offered a few very conservative suggestions on how to try to reel in archers to being balanced again without even touching their shot power.
1) Change the map rotation. It's full of villages on mountains, and mountains overlooking villages, and natural archer nests on the roofs of mountain villages. Notice a theme? Besides being boring, all these maps make everyone move in slow motion, which is very convenient for someone shooting arrows from their elevated perch. Even Battlefield 3 isn't as convenient for snipers as M&B is for archers... So add some tight city maps that offer no safe perches to sit in and snipe from, and makes it difficult to fire into flanks. Add some flat or rolling plains, without any perches that defeat the purpose. Obstacles, buildings, fences, and other things are fine. Just keep it on the ground. Archers will still be OP on other maps, but maybe it'll make some people think twice about their choice of builds.
2) Don't allow archers to draw the bow while moving. Require that they stand still to do the whole draw and shoot motion. (And you guys who like to bring up realism, when do you ever see archers running and drawing a bow at the same time? Even Legolas stands in place to draw and shoot.) Nothing good comes from allowing this movement. It gives kiting archers more opportunity to shoot at the infantry that chase them. It makes them able to strafe-dodge cavalry that attack them while still spamming shots off point blank into the horse (cavalry should at least be able to force a single archer into putting away his bow to fight). The idea here is to at least discourage archers from playing Rambo, going wherever they want, on the flanks without support, since they may now be harassed more effectively by cav and chasing infantry.
Plus this would finally give xbows something that bows wouldn't have, the ability to move and shoot.
3) Remove ladders. Nothing good comes from ladders. It just adds a perch to every map that doesn't already have a perch, except this one has the added benefit that it will be totally unreachable when the ladder is destroyed.
4)I think the idea to add weight to the bows is a good idea also. Yes, Rumblood, I would much rather see you add more power to your shots than to be able to run fast. I play with 7 athletics myself and can rarely keep up with any archer. If it's 2 archers, forget it, I'm dead already.
It's much more important to make archers counter-able than it is to make them less deadly. At least if they can be successfully caught (when they don't bother to stick with allies for protection), they will be forced to change tactics and be more bearable. If a shielder sees an archer off to the side alone, it should really mean that the archer will be caught unless he drops his archery equipment. As it is now, a shielder sees an archer off to the side and says, "dammit, I wish I could do something about that."
Also, someone mentioned that archers need to be a support class in order to be balanced. I think that's true. There's no reason that every class should be represented equally on the scoreboard. Archery is a middle-of-the-road class. The worst archer will be better than the worst infantry because they can just fire from a distance, often into a defenseless target, without the same risk . Likewise, the best archer shouldn't be better than the best infantry, because the archer has a limited rate of fire, limited accuracy (though I wonder about that...), limited damage output, while the infantry should be able to cleave through groups of enemies faster and with more power. Plus the weaker arrow hit should often help stun a target enough to allow an ally's strong melee attack to kill them.
Proper balance should be about what classes cause the game to be won or lost because of lack of a reasonable counter. Right now, archers are deciding the game.