I'd much rather see some tests where the archer has a decent PD, targets are moving, and where there's certainty about IF. I can see that it's a relatively high strength build, and being NA, the target dummy might have a lot of health. Perhaps the 0.260 patch changes were felt slightly harder in the NA?
Otherwise, my experience is as Dezi's, I have 47 body armor, 50 head and 5IF and it usually takes 3-6 arrows to take me down from what I reckon is a decent archer, sometimes I lose as much as 60% health (might be a bolt though) and I've yet to be shot in the head without dying.
To your first point, I did some more detailed testing when I was an archer in the past:
http://forum.c-rpg.net/index.php/topic,18247.msg260709.html#msg260709With that testing I had MW bodkins, MW horn bow, and 5 PD. This was shortly after the bodkins -> pierce damage change. TLDR if you CBA to read about my findings a bit more:
Bodkins will kill tin cans in about 5 or 6 hits on the average.
Bodkins will kill mid-heavy troops in about 4 hits on the average.
Bodkins will kill lighter troops in about 2-3 hits on the average.The above was BEFORE the recent nerf. Naysayers of course loved to talk about the fact I had 5 PD instead of 7 or 8 or 100 or whatever since apparently they know more about archer builds than archers themselves. But this is what a stronger build looked like before, and personally I think the numbers were perfectly appropriate.
Back to your comment about strength builds and my most recent video testing, BaleOhay had 24 strength, unsure about IF. It took me 13 arrows (2 of them glanced but it still took that many 'hits' to kill him so I'm including those). If he had no ironflesh he had 59 HP, giving my arrows an average of
4.5 damage a shot. If he had full IF (8) that means he had 75 hp, or my arrows did
5.8 damage a shot on average. Both of those totals are very low.
Lotus_Slayer, the one who took me 15 arrows to kill in 43 body armor, even if he was 30 strength and had 10 IF (85 hp), my arrows averaged
5.7 damage a shot on him. And I'm pretty sure he wasn't full strength.
~~
If you or others want to test archery damage further please do so: I encourage video and other 'provable' testing. Of course the occasional headshot is going to 1-hit kill, a high PD archer is going to land a headshot every now and then, and that's the thing that sticks in people's heads, not the numerous arrows that it took to fell them earlier, or the amount of damage that bounced off. But I'm not going to be jumping through hoops with hundreds of examples of various scenarios trying to please those who think ranged damage is fine as it is - no matter what information I post, no matter how much evidence I bring up, it won't be enough for some people who refuse to change their mindset.
I am convinced however that ranged is not fine right now. It takes far too much effort and player skill to even remotely compete with melee/cavalry for their killing effectiveness, even with the ability to fire from distance. I don't mind a challenge, but right now the scales are way off.
