Nerf Archery

[Arrowblood]

Archery is aviaible at gen 2, problem solved

[Sultan Eren]

Archery is not OP at all. There are just too many of them, which can create the wrong impression. Find solutions to lower the number of archers, instead of nerfing them. We had enough nerfs in this game.

This, but if they are not to be nerfed then what will reduce the amount?

[Arrowblood]

Archery is aviaible at gen 2, problem solved

[oohillac]

Come to NA, at most there are 5 archers.

[TurmoilTom]

Archery only becomes relatively viable at level 30 gen 7 so I don't get what the problem is.

[Tears of Destiny]

On the other hand, every 2H hero and their mother, and half of the shielders, have a crossbow on NA...


Back to the old days of the ATS Crossbow Alley Maps...

[Joker86]

This, but if they are not to be nerfed then what will reduce the amount?

Good question. I fear I can't answer it as shortly as you'd like, but I'll do my best:

The main reason for going ranged is most likely fear of having to fight in melee. It seems much more likely to kill fighters like Bjord, Teeth, Tor, Chase and all the others by ranged than actually defeating them in melee. (Side note: I don't consider backstabbing cav as melee, and due to the rising amount of cav in the game we can assume the motivation is the same: no need to fight those skill monsters).

The second reason would be missing flexibility. Ranged fighters can attack anybody, even against shielders they have a chance. But melee can't pick their targets, and some of them, like horse archers and ATH cruthing archers, are literally unkillable. That's not what you like to have in a game where you are supposed to... kill everybody?

So I would decide to go for making melee more attractive. One idea I had and am repeating over and over on the forum was replacing battle mode (= round based team deathmatch) with a conquest mode, where you have to conquer and hold the majority of three or five flags for a certain time. This objective is accomplished best by infantry, and simultaneously the need to kill archers or horse archers is reduced. And perhaps it will finally stop that retarded Rambo-Lemming-autowalker behaviour, most infantry players are sticking to. A bunch of organized infantry is much more difficult to kill, and the frags of archers and cavalry would lower, making those classes less attractive again.

That's my solution, and it doesn't even contain a nerf. Perhaps it will even lead to a slight buff of archery and especially cavalry again, because on the paper the classes are really UP.

[Sultan Eren]

Good question. I fear I can't answer it as shortly as you'd like, but I'll do my best:

The main reason for going ranged is most likely fear of having to fight in melee. It seems much more likely to kill fighters like Bjord, Teeth, Tor, Chase and all the others by ranged than actually defeating them in melee. (Side note: I don't consider backstabbing cav as melee, and due to the rising amount of cav in the game we can assume the motivation is the same: no need to fight those skill monsters).

The second reason would be missing flexibility. Ranged fighters can attack anybody, even against shielders they have a chance. But melee can't pick their targets, and some of them, like horse archers and ATH cruthing archers, are literally unkillable. That's not what you like to have in a game where you are supposed to... kill everybody?

So I would decide to go for making melee more attractive. One idea I had and am repeating over and over on the forum was replacing battle mode (= round based team deathmatch) with a conquest mode, where you have to conquer and hold the majority of three or five flags for a certain time. This objective is accomplished best by infantry, and simultaneously the need to kill archers or horse archers is reduced. And perhaps it will finally stop that retarded Rambo-Lemming-autowalker behaviour, most infantry players are sticking to. A bunch of organized infantry is much more difficult to kill, and the frags of archers and cavalry would lower, making those classes less attractive again.

That's my solution, and it doesn't even contain a nerf. Perhaps it will even lead to a slight buff of archery and especially cavalry again, because on the paper the classes are really UP.

Removing battle is the most unlikely possibility to fix the CURRENT situation and They maybe add that conquest thing but I don't think they remove battle for good.

Making melee more atractive can be a key, but how so? Even as i was reading, i thought about an armor buff.

[Joker86]

Making melee more atractive can be a key, but how so? Even as i was reading, i thought about an armor buff.

Buffing armour is what I'd suggest, too. But it's only a minor tweak in a list of measurements we can do.

Other ideas I had were some area buffs for infantry when they are close to certain other infantry classes, but that's pretty close to "magic".

Another idea was implementing a commander mode, because of all classes we have in cRPG infantry is both relying on and benefiting most of tactics. A single infantryman is almost always countered, but a group of shieldmen, pikemen and two handers has almost no weakness, but can counter everything. A commander mode could improve the gameplay for infantry player by making their life easier and the life of cavalry and archers more difficult. But it needs to be enabled by default (expecting the players to activate it themselves won't work), and you need some kind of rewards for carrying out orders, to create enough motivation to (eventually  ) make the Rambo-autowalker-lemmings cut the crap.

The last idea I had was quite drastic: buff infantry stats. Make a button on the character page for infantry training. Skills like riding, power throw and power draw are locked then, same with the WPF for bows, crossbows and throwing weapons. Skills like power strike, iron flesh, shield skill or athletics need only two points of the corresponding attribute (instead of three) to be raised one point. You can also make armour weight speed penalties being reduced by a certain percentage, same for armour upkeep. This would make infantry incredibly deadly in melee and much tougher to kill. (Which means the relation of infantry vs. infantry stays the same, but infantry vs. cavalry and infantry vs. archers shifts towards the favour of inf)

[Rumblood]

Good question. I fear I can't answer it as shortly as you'd like, but I'll do my best:

The main reason for going ranged is most likely fear of having to fight in melee.

visitors can't see pics , please register or login


Or they simply got tired of cavalry backstabbing and racing off and so got a weapon that can kill them at range. 

[Adamar]

Personaly I find archery more challenging than melee. If you think people go ranged to avoid melee, that's your own thought paddern.

[Piok]

Just reduce share number of pierce weapon buffing armor will kill last cut weapon users.

[Kafein]

A conquest server would be neat. Only on battle are archers horrible opponents, because you have to kill them. In siege, I believe they generally do more damage. More people moving slower, sometimes even standing still, etc. But they are much more fun to play with since in siege, only the flag matters.

[F i n]

This, but if they are not to be nerfed then what will reduce the amount?

An upkeep similar to those of high tier horses. As archers are at least as powerfull as hightier cav and at least as human as their horses.

[Moncho]

The last idea I had was quite drastic: buff infantry stats. Make a button on the character page for infantry training. Skills like riding, power throw and power draw are locked then, same with the WPF for bows, crossbows and throwing weapons. Skills like power strike, iron flesh, shield skill or athletics need only two points of the corresponding attribute (instead of three) to be raised one point. You can also make armour weight speed penalties being reduced by a certain percentage, same for armour upkeep. This would make infantry incredibly deadly in melee and much tougher to kill. (Which means the relation of infantry vs. infantry stays the same, but infantry vs. cavalry and infantry vs. archers shifts towards the favour of inf)

While I usually really like your suggestions, joker, this one is complete bullshit imo. It would allow for things like a 18/16 build with 9 PS, 8 Athl, 8 WM, and 8 IF, which would be extremely OP. (and this is just an example). Also, why on earth should melee be at even more of an advantage over ranged than it is already? Almost every single nerf has benefited melee in some way of another. I agree that in the beginning ranged was OP, and that cav was and will always be powerful. But it is because of the mindset, there is no need to nerf them (as you yourself have mentioned so often). And this, such a huge buff to melee, would be a huge nerf for them...

An upkeep similar to those of high tier horses. As archers are at least as powerfull as hightier cav and at least as human as their horses.

If you use bodkins, this is already in place.