New ranged change

[XyNox]

I think you need a video guide that would explain that an archer in rags runs faster than a shielder, even if the shielder is in rags too and magically survived the battle until he starts chasing the archer.

Ranged are focused by melee/cav when the opportunity is given because opportunities are nearly the only way. An archer may be fragile, that doesn't make him unable to dodge cav and outrun melee he is aware of. Possibly while kiting. You stressed on that, but I think this is exactly what makes your argument weaker. If ranged weren't dangerous, there would be no need to go after them. The fact you are pointing out is that melee and cav are focusing ranged. This is more a symptom of ranged power, rather than of a lack of it. I personally don't chase peasants or anyone that I consider weak enough not to be worth my time.

No offense intended.

No offense taken.

1.
No matter how fast the archer runs, without help or serious lack of skill on the shielder side, shielders will always be a 100% invulnerable for ranged attack. Not that great balance.

2.
The problem I see is, cav ALWAYS has the opportunity to pick their targets due to their superior mobility. Theres nothing that hinders them to ride along the borders coming in backstabbing any archer that focuses on giving firesupport. Also archers have to stay somewhat stationary to shoot effectivly, so they are attracting quite some projectiles. Of course I turn around in panic immediatly when I hear cav approaching from behind and do 360° degree checks for enemy ranged and melees. But there is definitly no way to have "no melee/cav encounters" as you stated.

3.
One of those things I think Ill never understand regarding melees. When you know that archer can put you down with one arrow in your head, allthough it might not be very likely to happen, why are you charging them upfront as a 2h/pole ? Im sure there are shielders/other ranged/cav in your team still alive who could do the job with much lower risk. Why for gods sake do some melees always have to beg to get shot in the face ? If you cant kill it leave it alone, or it will kill you.

4.
Pretty simillar to "3.". At this moment we can actually wittness how the nerf circle closes again. "Because archery is too strong, its a big threath, therefore I have to eliminate it. I failed at doing so, so nerf archery. *NERF* Now that archery is nerfed, I have to take even less effort to kill archers. Damn allthough they got nerfed I still cant kill them without ease, meaning they need to get nerfed again ..."

[bonekuukkeli]

One of best posts in this whole thread. Thank you.

[Lech]

No offense taken.

1.
No matter how fast the archer runs, without help or serious lack of skill on the shielder side, shielders will always be a 100% invulnerable for ranged attack. Not that great balance.

2.
The problem I see is, cav ALWAYS has the opportunity to pick their targets due to their superior mobility. Theres nothing that hinders them to ride along the borders coming in backstabbing any archer that focuses on giving firesupport. Also archers have to stay somewhat stationary to shoot effectivly, so they are attracting quite some projectiles. Of course I turn around in panic immediatly when I hear cav approaching from behind and do 360° degree checks for enemy ranged and melees. But there is definitly no way to have "no melee/cav encounters" as you stated.

3.
One of those things I think Ill never understand regarding melees. When you know that archer can put you down with one arrow in your head, allthough it might not be very likely to happen, why are you charging them upfront as a 2h/pole ? Im sure there are shielders/other ranged/cav in your team still alive who could do the job with much lower risk. Why for gods sake do some melees always have to beg to get shot in the face ? If you cant kill it leave it alone, or it will kill you.

4.
Pretty simillar to "3.". At this moment we can actually wittness how the nerf circle closes again. "Because archery is too strong, its a big threath, therefore I have to eliminate it. I failed at doing so, so nerf archery. *NERF* Now that archery is nerfed, I have to take even less effort to kill archers. Damn allthough they got nerfed I still cant kill them without ease, meaning they need to get nerfed again ..."

1. Unless there are 2 ranged against 2 shielders, then unless archers screw up, shielders are doomed. God forbid there are more than 2 archers versus more than 2 shielders.

2. Unless he position himself correctly, or have -you know- teammates?

3. So we should RUN AWAY, when our only hope is killing the threat ?

4. Strawman.

[Dezilagel]

But that's the thing, HA shouldn't have to ride slowly in order to hit something. Though you'd have to with your strength build  You may as well just be a foot archer if you are going to do that and it pretty much ruins the gameplay of HA. You don't go as HA to ride slowly whilst shooting, you go for the fast riding and shooting and the intensity of it. Plus if you are in the cavalry fights, which most HA will be because it's one of the fundamental jobs of HA, you have to be able to shoot whilst riding fast and actually hit something for damage.

Like I posted in the other thread, it took 9 shots to a destrier, with a lancer finishing it off to kill it. 5 to a desert horse and 5 to an already damaged arabian. With horse head hitboxes as buggy as they are, an HA's main job has pretty much been cancelled out now.

Atm the best tactic is a shotgun style, risky but it works quite well. Notch the arrow just before you get there, drift you horse in close to the left, shoot from the side and then swoop out to the right. And there's always horse bumping as well. But considering we are forced to use a lower powered bow, and rarely will get a headshot if moving at speed, the damage nerf is very noticeable.

According to whom?

And my build did great vs. cav. I didn't need a lot of shots to bring the horses down, and even if my crosshair went to shit at higher speeds, horses were big enough targets.

[Overdriven]

According to whom?

And my build did great vs. cav. I didn't need a lot of shots to bring the horses down, and even if my crosshair went to shit at higher speeds, horses were big enough targets.

Ruins the fun. Why would you want to ride a trot just to score a couple of kills? Also completely negates the point of the HA skill. Even if a horse is a big target, if your playing against smart cav, you need the accuracy to be able to score decent hits.

I'm not even suggesting that HA needs to be a heavy hitter. But they were in a good place before the nerf and could hold their own. Particularly if you were on your A game. Now they are very underpowered. At least the traditional build is.

Plus in an HA vs HA fight 24(27)/12 builds would just be funny.

[bonekuukkeli]

3. So we should RUN AWAY, when our only hope is killing the threat ?

You are talking a lot about teamwork. Think more and you might learn something really cool.

It's not like I as shielder would run around open fields trying to hunt horses or do that as archer. Why 2h melee should run over open fields to archer group?

Or should be able to do without problems.

[XyNox]

1. Unless there are 2 ranged against 2 shielders, then unless archers screw up, shielders are doomed. God forbid there are more than 2 archers versus more than 2 shielders.

2. Unless he position himself correctly, or have -you know- teammates?

3. So we should RUN AWAY, when our only hope is killing the threat ?

4. Strawman.

1. Imagine a 2d map with 2 points. These 2 points are the archers. Since arrows fly in an almost straight line and dont penetrate shields let alone players, everything behind a shielder is safe. If you draw a line between these 2 points/archers, this is the space where the shielders have to move/position them selfes in order to protect their buddie from 99% of all arrow hits. Or in a simpeler manner: they just have to protect their backs. I dont see the problem. Common sense ...
Edit2:
+ what Overdriven said. Its funny that teamwork seems to be a lot more intuitive among archers than melees. I once was one of 3 last man standing, all archers. 2 armored guys approached. IMMEDIATELY we formed a PERFECT triangle around them without anyone saying/writing a word, outplaying them masterfully. This is why Im proud to be an archer *wipes tears* 

2. Granted you have some sort of building, sure. Open ground however does not let you position your self in a way to be safe from cav. Also Ive very rarely seen melees defending archers on a public. Theyre more likely focused on killhunting. Still cav can pretty much move whereever they want, from which side they want, backstab and be gone. Even if you hit the rider the horse will just bump you for 1/4 of your health.

3. As stated: If your are a 2h that is very susceptible to arrows it is not best idea charging archers is it ? Shielders for example are more suitable for that. This is the idea behind different classes I would guess.
Edit:
+ what bonekuukkeli said

4.lawl

[Gristle]

3. So we should RUN AWAY, when our only hope is killing the threat ?

Yes, shieldless characters should have to fear and avoid some things. Archers are forced to run away all the time.

[copper]

They did compensate for accuracy from what I can see.

Who gives a fuck? I could hit a moving target from across the map before the patch. I don't want the mechanics to be easier; I want them to be the way they were. I spent a long time becoming a good archer and I don't want archery to be easy to pick up. Now, instead of just having a high learning curve the devs just make it easier and deal no damage. Thanks dicks, I guess I'll just play melee as you clearly want everyone to do.

[Overdriven]

3. So we should RUN AWAY, when our only hope is killing the threat ?

And that is the problem with all this whining from inf if people think like this.

YES.

If you are facing an archer without a shield, yes you should run away, or you should expect to die. The archer should easily have the advantage and upper hand. As it is agi builds can dodge all over the place, at least reducing some of the arrows they take. But if you do not have a shield, you should not expect to be able to 1vs1 an archer without taking a lot of damage, or dying.

1. Unless there are 2 ranged against 2 shielders, then unless archers screw up, shielders are doomed. God forbid there are more than 2 archers versus more than 2 shielders.

Only if the shielders are morons and don't work together. If they work together then they will easily be able to survive against the archers. It's just a matter of angling your shields to cover each other backs. It's perfectly doable. Yeah they may not be able to catch up to the archers, but they can at least make them waste most of their arrows doing this and if they do run out of arrows, then hunt them down. The problem arises when the shielders don't work together and just charge off after one of the archers each, leaving their backs open to the opposite archers.

But guess what...those archers are essentially working together to kill you by using the angles to their advantage. Shielders would have to work together to survive that. The problem is...they don't.

[Joker86]

I don't think that any class should be running away from another. Especially not if the other class can shoot after the running one.

That's another reason why I hate horse archers that much. There are several classes that can't defend against a horse archer, or are even completely defenseless, and there isn't even a chance to run away. You are completely at their mercy. And I don't like this, because the horse archer can defend himself very well against all classes.

Either all classes have absolute counters, or none. Either all classes have to adapt, or none. Either all classes require teamwork, or none.

[Overdriven]

I don't think that any class should be running away from another. Especially not if the other class can shoot after the running one.

That's another reason why I hate horse archers that much. There are several classes that can't defend against a horse archer, or are even completely defenseless, and there isn't even a chance to run away. You are completely at their mercy. And I don't like this, because the horse archer can defend himself very well against all classes.

Either all classes have absolute counters, or none. Either all classes have to adapt, or none. Either all classes require teamwork, or none.

But that's the point. Archers have to run away from melee if they get to close because archers have very crap melee capabilities. 2h can try charging archers down, and with enough dodging they can catch up, especially against a bow as slow as a longbow for example, but they should expect to take damage in the process, because as soon as that melee gets close, they will be the ones dealing the damage, not the archer.

I think most classes do pretty much have absolute counters. But the interesting part is that skill can throw all of that off and that's how it should be.

Yeah but that's why HA were nerfed way back. Because everyone complained they were OP. Now we are more of an annoyance than particularly lethal.

[Tzar]

Now we are more of an annoyance than particularly lethal.

Like it should be

[Overdriven]

Like it should be

By now I meant pre-damage nerf.

NOW we are very underpowered.

[Joker86]

But that's the point. Archers have to run away from melee if they get to close because archers have very crap melee capabilities. 2h can try charging archers down, and with enough dodging they can catch up, especially against a bow as slow as a longbow for example, but they should expect to take damage in the process, because as soon as that melee gets close, they will be the ones dealing the damage, not the archer.

I think most classes do pretty much have absolute counters. But the interesting part is that skill can throw all of that off and that's how it should be.

Yeah but that's why HA were nerfed way back. Because everyone complained there were OP. Now we are more of an annoyance than particularly lethal.

The problem are the little differences: infantry has to come CLOSE to have archers run, while archers can deal damage all the time, even if the infantry is running.