New rules for class debate

[Adamar]

At the end of most rounds on a battle server, all the archers in the winning team except the very unlucky are alive. Actually if you open your eyes you will see that the majority of players in a winning team have some sort of ranged weapon, and that is normal since they can play their role away from the dangerous areas.

? Archers have the best athletics of all classes, with the only exception of light crossbowmen. Furthermore, the near absence of armor lets them enjoy full mobility.

That is under the assumption these "capable meleers" actually survive until they reach an archer at melee range. Also, being good at melee won't help them to do that. Actually, nothing will, except more agi, more ath and less armor. A shield slows them down considerably.

L2P issue here. What actually happens is that cav that know their weaknesses will attack archers only if there is enough cover to hide behind until it's too late for the horseman's target. An archer in the middle of a plain is pretty much unbeatable for one cav, because there is no angle of attack where the horse remains unseen. Also, I don't see how someone can possibly "draw" an archer somewhere. When I play as archer I don't ever need to follow an enemy, there are plenty of targets everywhere. It's actually the archers that force enemies to move.

At the end of most rounds you have the winning melee gang steamroling the leftovers of the enemy team. Or maybe you're playing a different game? If most of the archers on the winning team are alive, that's because there wasn't enought people trying to kill them(cav, assassins, other ranged). Anyone would survive if the enemy wouldn't get to them, that's not an issue of class ballance.

As for athletics, no archers aren't full of athlectics, and neither are horsemen for that matter. Athletics are an infs skill, along with power strike and iron flesh. Dedicated archers are nearly forced to focus into agility and wm to be able to aim, you should be aware of the basics if you've played an archer.

If a meleer choses to be a str crutcher and not invest properly in athletics, then he shouldn't complain about archers being faster. A ballanced meleer doesn't have much problems outrunning archers, but having to make ballanced builds for greater efficiency isn't fair right?

And yes, an archer on a plain is unbeatable for any horseman, but only if the horseman isn't trying to kill him, and if the horseman doesn't use evasion. It's really easy to miss an arrow if the horse maneuvers properly. But the horseman shouldn't be required to evade right? It would be way cooler if the archer dealt shit damage instead. Oh wait...
And any player of any class can draw the enemy out if they're in a good position. As I said, there is always cover, and a horseman can even ride large distances to make arrows useless and wait for the right moment to strike.

[CrazyCracka420]

2h heroes and polearms whining on the forums are literally the only place you'll see archers and cav lancers agreeing with each other.  Fucking my old friendchers.

[Joker86]

And the rest of us (who posses common sense and reasoning abilities) were telling you that you were going to have to adjust the way you play your class if you don't have a shield, a spear or ranged weaopn.

The question is about the EXTEND of how much you have to adjust. To give an example what I mean: imagine the entire enemy team would consist of archers, and you would be a two handed player. There is no other tactic for you than hiding behind a solid obstacle and either wait until a) the archers run out of ammo or b) an unaware archer approaches into melee range. There is no way team members can protect you reliably against the fire of ten or twenty or even more enemy archers. Can you still expect adjustment in tactics or behaviour under those circumstances, or wouldn't you say that balance, or let's better say: the metagame was broken in my example? I know you will never reach 100% archers, but what about 80%? Still the same thing would apply. 60%? 40%? 20%? Where's the line between the amount of archers the game was balanced for, and the amount when the shit in the air becomes ridiculous?

In general you shouldn't be cavalry or archer hunting if you're an infantry melee class.  Why are you trying to chase down archers before the end of the round?  And if it's the end of the round and your team loses because people were trying to chase archers, then you clearly did something wrong.

This is one of the reasons why infantry is constantly complaining. Following your definition, infantry is only supposed to attack other infantry, while the other classes can attack everybody. How can one expect that the quality of the game experience can be the same under those circumstances? And besides this you said in you second sentence: "Don't chase archers before the end of the round." and in your third sentence you said: "If you chase archers at the end of the round it's your own fault if you lose." Conclusion: archers are not to be touched by infantry.

The largest problem with archers is that people were not used to having them on the battlefield, in numbers that they used to have, up until a couple weeks ago.  So now people are having to get re-accustomed to tactics with archers on the battlefield. 

You can't force all public players to work as a team, but there's enough regulars on that most times infantry are fighting in groups, even if it's just relatively loose fighting formations.

I agree to the first part, but we can argue if the "old" (= low) or the "new" (= high) number of archers is the scheduled value. If the new number is the right one, then you are right and players need to adjust. But if the old number was the correct one, the complaints are justified and should not be waved aside as "l2p".

[CrazyCracka420]

Can't answer your first point.

Your second point isn't getting at what I'm referring to.  Infantry should be able to kill archers and cavalry.  I kill archers all the time when I'm on foot.  It's one thing to attack someone who is within your range (which as melee-only, is only people you can run to).  It's 100% different to be kited around the map chasing one guy. 

3rdly, the current amount of archers is similar to what it was a year ago before they were hit very heavily with nerfs.  I think before the last few weeks, we'd be lucky to have 10 archers on a team of 50-60 people.  That was way too low, IMO.  The best armies are balanced armies.  Just like the best builds are balanced builds (and both of those statements, you can add "relatively" as an adjective).

I still claim the root cause of most of these "issues" infantry encounter is because of terrible tactics, teamwork and formations.  Which is largely to do with the lack of communication or leadership in game.  But not entirely.  To me, the team that generally wins, is the team that has the better coordinated infantry.   

[Joker86]

I still claim the root cause of most of these "issues" infantry encounter is because of terrible tactics, teamwork and formations.  Which is largely to do with the lack of communication or leadership in game.  But not entirely.  To me, the team that generally wins, is the team that has the better coordinated infantry.

We agree on that 100%. But how'd you change that?

And I don't know, as I never saw really good teamwork on the servers, but I am not sure that tactics beat skill of good rambo players. (E.g. when you have one of those typical clanstacks which don't use tactics or interact with their team at all, but still slice through the enemy team)

[CrazyCracka420]

Yeah I don't know what the solution to communication problems which lead to very little teamwork and group fighting.  Possibly messages when you join the game explaining how to use the battalions and the flag system would be helpful.  Other than implementing VOIP in game, and a squad system similar to battlefield games, I think the only thing that would work decently would be to have forced "practice" (with the enticement of free xp/gold) to take place in the battle servers.  Have a couple trusted admins leading each team and trying to get people to practice formations.

And not only in this game, but almost every other game and sport I've played, I have always believed that teamwork and good communication between a group of mediocre players, will almost always beat a group of skilled players who are not working together, and have no team-coordination.  I still think that most of the time in the battle server, the team that wins is the team that has groups of infantry fighting together rather than people running in and attacking as "one".

[Kafein]

Now you are just spitting lies man.

At the end of most rounds you have the winning melee gang steamroling the leftovers of the enemy team. Or maybe you're playing a different game?

It seems you did.

If most of the archers on the winning team are alive, that's because there wasn't enought people trying to kill them(cav, assassins, other ranged). Anyone would survive if the enemy wouldn't get to them, that's not an issue of class ballance.

Yes it is. Archers are the hardest class to kill for any other class due to their mobility advantage, absence of need to be close to the action, and excellent dodging. Smart people just avoid to attack archers until the team has a big numerical advantage, because that's the only thing that works against archers.

As for athletics, no archers aren't full of athlectics, and neither are horsemen for that matter. Athletics are an infs skill, along with power strike and iron flesh. Dedicated archers are nearly forced to focus into agility and wm to be able to aim, you should be aware of the basics if you've played an archer.

I don't understand why you mention horsemen. Lance and 1h cav need to be in melee range of the enemy to harm them, so anything they do is a dice roll, except the perfect backstabs. As far as I know, athletics is an agi skill. Most archers put enough points in athletics to be able to kite most of the infantry crowd. The high agility they have in order to get a lot of wm is enough to dodge cav they are aware of.

If a meleer choses to be a str crutcher and not invest properly in athletics, then he shouldn't complain about archers being faster. A ballanced meleer doesn't have much problems outrunning archers, but having to make ballanced builds for greater efficiency isn't fair right?

That's only true if for you a balanced meleer is a 12/27 ninja in rags.

And yes, an archer on a plain is unbeatable for any horseman, but only if the horseman isn't trying to kill him, and if the horseman doesn't use evasion. It's really easy to miss an arrow if the horse maneuvers properly. But the horseman shouldn't be required to evade right? It would be way cooler if the archer dealt shit damage instead. Oh wait...

Did you played cav for more than one week ? What usually happens is that the horseman survives as long as he keeps a respectable distance between him and the archer. Cav dies exactly when they try to attack the archer, because shooting a horse going towards you, even if he makes the most elaborate dodging sequence, is one of the easiest things to do in this game. Also, if wait long enough before releasing the shot, there is no way you can miss the head. At such close range, a war bow will oneshot up to the early armored horses. And even if the archer has no time to draw his bow, the low armor and high agi he has lets him dodge any horse at any speed and any angle extremely easily.

And any player of any class can draw the enemy out if they're in a good position. As I said, there is always cover, and a horseman can even ride large distances to make arrows useless and wait for the right moment to strike.

This is poetry. What is "the right moment to strike" exactly ? There is no such thing. An horseman starting to back off from ranged fire in a plain has no other choice than waiting these ranged enemies are killed by somebody else

IMO, most battles happen like this :

Before contact some obvious people get lanced in the back, and a more or less equal number of bad cav die.
When archers can fire at the enemy group, each side tries to take advantage of the terrain, cav position themselves on the flanks, archers in buildings/whatever place is hard to reach for inf and cav and inf usually continue to advance in a loose pack. Archers and cav make a few victims, there is some cav vs cav combat.
When both inf groups collide, the killing starts and cav use the confusion to strike on the flanks of the enemy group, archers still do their thing, shooting down horsemen that don't have things to hide behind and softening the enemy meleers.
Usually after that one team has a big numerical advantage because they killed the enemy's infantry without too many losses, and if this advantage is big enough they can chase and kill all the archers.

But, what very frequently happens is that this advantage is not big enough, and the team with the most players loses, not because of bad tactics, but because they are beaten by a class they cannot harm without this numerical advantage. There is no melee or melee cav class that can match archers without relying on some kind of zerg swarm.


So I really agree when people say it's the most organised team that wins. An organised team will kill the enemy infantry more efficiently, launch cav flanking at the right moment and position their archers in a way that lets them do more damage. And that's really all there is to it.

But it is not possible to control a battle or develop an efficient tactic without the ranged domination. The only way you can win when you don't control the fight is sending enough men.

[CrazyCracka420]

Point: If a meleer choses to be a str crutcher and not invest properly in athletics, then he shouldn't complain about archers being faster. A ballanced meleer doesn't have much problems outrunning archers, but having to make ballanced builds for greater efficiency isn't fair right?

Counterpoint: That's only true if for you a balanced meleer is a 12/27 ninja in rags.


Sorry Kaf your counterpoint is not valid.  I have 18 agility, and 6 athletics.  I can chase down (or at least keep up) with any archer on the battlefield to effectively neutralize them.  If I drop my heavy lance I still am carrying 18.5 weight in armor, and 7.2 weight in my shield/sword.

I agree with your assessment of the battlefield as well (before you get to your BUT).  Archers and ranged can hit people from a distance.  Melee cannot unless they close the gap.  This is how the game is designed, and how it should be.

[Tears of Destiny]

but I am not sure that tactics beat skill of good rambo players. (E.g. when you have one of those typical clanstacks which don't use tactics or interact with their team at all, but still slice through the enemy team)

They do, me and Oohillac and Palatro proved that last night for example by mowing down at least 8 people all by ourselves at round end with pure melee (some of them clannies and some very good players) simply because we were working together without even voice-comms (Nice thing about fighting with an ATS member is they already understand teamwork, no comms required).

[Teeth]

They do, me and Oohillac and Palatro proved that last night for example by mowing down at least 8 people all by ourselves at round end with pure melee (some of them clannies and some very good players) simply because we were working together without even voice-comms (Nice thing about fighting with an ATS member is they already understand teamwork, no comms required).

This type of thing is my favourite cRPG gameplay. Teaming up with someone you know is a capable player and without any communication pulling of excellent teamwork and turning the tide in a supposedly lost round.

[Kafein]

Point: If a meleer choses to be a str crutcher and not invest properly in athletics, then he shouldn't complain about archers being faster. A ballanced meleer doesn't have much problems outrunning archers, but having to make ballanced builds for greater efficiency isn't fair right?

Counterpoint: That's only true if for you a balanced meleer is a 12/27 ninja in rags.


Sorry Kaf your counterpoint is not valid.  I have 18 agility, and 6 athletics.  I can chase down (or at least keep up) with any archer on the battlefield to effectively neutralize them.  If I drop my heavy lance I still am carrying 18.5 weight in armor, and 7.2 weight in my shield/sword.

I agree with your assessment of the battlefield as well (before you get to your BUT).  Archers and ranged can hit people from a distance.  Melee cannot unless they close the gap.  This is how the game is designed, and how it should be.

Well you may be fast enough to reach archers with your build, but will you do it ? On a regular battle server, most archers are at least naturally covered by two or three others, that can easily crossfire you. Even the archer you are chasing can kill you rather easily if you are unlucky with your dodging.

I think that for game balance reasons, archers should have an effective non-ranged counter, that doesn't rely on pure distraction like cav (I think we agree cav vs aware archers is highly in the advantage of the archers).

Another thing that would be good for the game is reducing the kiting. Kiting is caused by only one thing, that min-maxed pure archers are much more effective than archer hybrids. The only advantages the hybrid has is a better melee damage output and a better defense, when the pure archer has more speed, more ranged damage, speed and accuracy and possibly more ammo.

To solve this problem, I would place an earlier cap on how accurate, fast and powerful archers can become with their bow by investing in archery wpf. I think archery wpf should behave like melee wpf as in being near useless above 100 effective. I would also increase the effectiveness of the first levels of PS, while decreasing that of the higher levels (as a bonus, this is more realistic than the current system). Finally, the armor penalties for ranged should be smoothed (no more "under 7.5 weight" eldorado) and reduced (to make light mail a better alternative).

[Vodner]

Sorry Kaf your counterpoint is not valid.  I have 18 agility, and 6 athletics.  I can chase down (or at least keep up) with any archer on the battlefield to effectively neutralize them.  If I drop my heavy lance I still am carrying 18.5 weight in armor, and 7.2 weight in my shield/sword.

There are archers I cannot catch with 7 ath and cloth armor (on my previous build). Not all archers of course, but certainly enough to be aggravating.

[oprah_winfrey]

There are archers I cannot catch with 7 ath and cloth armor (on my previous build). Not all archers of course, but certainly enough to be aggravating.

Yeah same here. It seems the common build for archery right now is 18/21, so they also have 7 athletics and cloth armor, so they move just as fast as you do + they aren't slowed down by holding a long weapon. A week or two ago I watched as canary (9 ath) wearing peasant clothes was unable to catch up with some archer (I think it was aderyn?) in a strat battle.

[TurmoilTom]

There are archers I cannot catch with 7 ath and cloth armor (on my previous build). Not all archers of course, but certainly enough to be aggravating.

That's why I went for 11 athletics this gen. It may take a while, and they may have to pour 5 arrows into my shield and 3 more into me, but I'll catch up to the buggers eventually.

[Tibe]

Archery is still somewhat a difficult class to work with. Id say cav is the easiest class to pull off than any other. And this is totally not my words. Heard that from few other cav guys who went cav for the first time. And it makes sense. They  Couch, aka autokill button and backstabbing players engaged in acctual combat.

Some of you might say in defence things like: "Buhuhuh but I have to watch out for spears, HAs and archers and other crap too, its not easy!" But basically any noobcake on a horse can cause craploads of havoc before they take them out. Its basically like someone running over turtles in open ground with a monstertruck and saying: "Its not that easy, I have to make sure I dont run out of gas too." Please...

But than again,what to expect. The name of the game is "Mount & Blade" afterall. Get a blade and a horse or get out.